The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Say Goodbye to Hillary

    By PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 3:13pm |

    It's a thought that occurred to me numerous times, and would seem to be obvious, but Hillary would be 69 by election day 2016.

    While Reagan was elected at 69, he was an outlier, and had spent much of his life in casual living, including an age when running from President wasn't so grueling. William Henry Harrison was 2nd at 68, and the rest go from 65 on down. Oh, did I mention Reagan's Alzheimers was covered up at the time? The press isn't so obliging these days (especially not to Democrats)

    With a recent brain clot and a prospect of 2 years of heavy campaigning, followed by presumably 8 years as president? Hardly.

    Hillary, we hardly knew thee. Enjoy your retirement, or perhaps a near-term stint at the UN, but the presidency just ain't in the cards.

    Comments

    This is my take on things too!

    She is just too old and too frail; I actually think one can attribute her recent problems to almost four years of hard hard work.

    Her world tour has taken its toll.

    Meanwhile Biden who is even older is shining.

    We got a long way to go here and who knows?

    But I think it is time for a woman to run on the masthead of my party in four years.

    It is time.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 3:29pm

    As far as I can tell, Biden's job is the tanning salon and screwing up negotiations. No wonder he looks young.

    Yes, would like to see a compelling female candidate emerge as well. Could have tolerated Hillary in 2016, but always seemed way past sell-by date in terms of US politics, and assuming a 65-year-old will keep her health strong enough to be an incoming prez in 4 more years is a trifle presumptious.

    And since her stint as SoS has been almost entirely about war, my good will has failed me.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 3:36pm

    I had this conversation with a friend yesterday and we had the same conclusion. Even if she ends up seeming healthy enough, her health/age will still be a legitimate issue and the opposition won't be polite. My buddy imagined an add where she gets up at three o'clock in the morning to answer that red phone but gets dizzy and falls over.

     We couldn't come up with any young Dem. being groomed for the job.


    by LULU (not verified) on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 3:47pm

    Your 2nd paragraph is the crux of the biscuit. Fairly uninspiring prospects.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 4:08pm

    be a legitimate issue and the opposition won't be polite.

    I do see a way to a win though

    We could get a grass roots movement, to get Dan Quayle on the Republican ticket

    When Hillary gets the democratic nomination and facing Dan Quayle she looks at him and says.....

     “I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.”

     ~ Ronald Reagan


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 4:18pm

    More and more it is sounding like her faint and the resulting concussion from her fall was really a stroke.  So sad.  

    As much as I would like to live to see a woman in the office of president, I do not think we need any more 'firsts' for a while. It just seems to add an extra layer of political caution and appeasement to an already difficult job.  Surely there is some hard-ass white guy out there somewhere that you guys can get behind, no?

     


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 4:24pm

    Is there no provision in the Constitution, that for the good of the country, Bill Clinton could run again?

    There's been a long enough break in service, and who in the heck limited, who the people could elect to lead us.

    Maybe we should change the Constitution to allow, 2 consecutive terms in office with  8 years off, before another attempt to lead?

    We got rid of Prohibition. 


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 4:32pm

     So, suddenly the Constitution should be malleable? Even the Second Amendment?


    by LULU (not verified) on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 4:39pm

    The Right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment.

    Second Amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    The Right to Bear Arms was in the Bill of Rights. Without it's inclusion, there would have been no ratified Constitution.

    "In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, the court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Constitution by stating that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution ... [n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." 92 U.S. at 552.

    Congress cannot infringe, .... Nice try LULU  but but you knew that didn't you LULU?

    All other amendments go through the legislative process. But not .... the Right to Bear Arms.

    "The Twenty-First Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933. The amendment remains the only constitutional amendment to be repealed in its entirety

     

    Ps. I was blocked from posting until I could name the vice presidents last name

    I typed in Biden, it said this was incorrect. Really  


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 5:55pm

    Sheer concentrated lunacy, Resistance. So the right to wield a gun, alone among all others, is irreversibly immune to legal limitation (despite the 2nd amendment's "well regulated" rationale? Because it was granted to Americans by Jesus himself?

    So it is more fundamental than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or -- as the Constitution belatedly recognized -- freedom of a person with black skin to exercise the same rights as a person with white skin? I disagree.

    And what does this mean?

    The Right to Bear Arms was in the Bill of Rights. Without it's inclusion, there would have been no ratified Constitution.

    The Constitution was ratified three years before the Bill of Rights was. The Bill of Rights is what we call the first 10 amendments, including No. 2.

    And what bearing does the fact that only one amendment (Prohibition) has ever been repealed have on whether others could be? Non sequitur, Res.

    Cruikshank also doesn't mean what you think it does. As I grasp it, the ruling actually says that the 2nd amendment is binding on Congress, but not on state governments -- so Louisiana was within its its rights to disarm black protesters who were then set upon and murdered. If that were still a binding precedent, California and New York State could simply confiscate all guns within their borders. You wouldn't like that.

    Isn't the vice-president's name Paul Ryan? Try typing that in next time.


    by acanuck on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 7:56pm

    Let’s take our conversation over to

    http://dagblog.com/politics/constitutional-project-15912

    A Constitutional Project


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 9:30pm

    I typed in Biden, it said this was incorrect. Really

    I just tested it. Worked fine for me. I tried "Biden" and "biden." Anyone else have this problem?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:15pm

    "some hard-ass white guy out there somewhere that you guys can get behind" - Is this a NSFW setup?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 6:11pm

    Are you applying?


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 6:33pm

    Ha ha....sorry I did not catch that when I wrote it since I do not think in greek. ;D

     


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 6:45pm

    Perhaps you have a gift for speaking in tongues?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 7:27pm

    Nah, not pentacostal....

     


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:20pm

    Maybe Episcopalian? Where ever four or more are gathered, theres a fifth?


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 9:42pm

    Hey, if she runs, I'm for it.

    If she doesn't, and it's her choice... what a career.

    What I don't want is for her legacy to be defined as "never got to be president."  She's been amazing and I think she deserves a ton of credit for the very real foreign policy accomplishments of Obama's first term.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 5:02pm

    DITTO!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 5:19pm

    Lets pray for a good recovery.


    by Resistance on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 6:40pm

    Gimme a break.

    It ain't over till it's over. I'm not sure why it's OK for a doofus older guy like Reagan to be POTUS, but not OK for a much more intelligent, more qualified person like HRC to be POTUS.

    As far as the "heavy campaigning", Ms. Clinton just logged what? hundreds of thousands of miles flying around the world-- more or less non stop travel. Traveling around the U.S. would be a much easier. And it's hardly written in stone one has to campaign for two years.

    Millions of HRC supporters are not throwing in the towel.


    by demunchained on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:58pm

    Agree, this is not a 'stroke' and it's not crashing into a tree while skiing like Sonny Bono. He died a week later.  According to WaPo:

    ...Cerebral venous thrombosis — the general term for Clinton’s condition — is rare. It occurs in about four out of every million adults per year. It is somewhat more common in children. Head trauma, pregnancy, cancer, brain infection, autoimmune diseases and inborn clotting abnormalities are all predisposing factors. Some experts believe severe dehydration may be as well....

    That this is not an age related condition may come as a shock to uninformed Daggers.

    Nelson Mandela was elected when 79 and served until he was 83 years old. George HW Bush would have certainly been a better President in his 70's than George W. was in his 50's.

    Illness when globetrotting can happen to anyone, and so can falls. If she is elected President, she will travel less and be under even closer medical supervision.


    by NCD on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 11:03pm

    I agree. She has plenty of stamina. If she decides to run, I will support her. I am only a year younger then her and have a 5, 8, and 9 year old that I am raising. I plan to see them go to college. My experience at this keeps me from being frazzled and sweating the small stuff. Mrs Clinton's experience will serve her well.

    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 12:02am

    We're talking about an 8-year jaunt starting in 4 years.

    Could you convince me and others that you'd be the best person to raise a 5, 8 and 9-year-old starting in Jan 2017 for the next 4/8 years?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 1:59am

    I think folks are forgetting; this is the woman who said, "Should I stay home and bake cookies?"

    I don't see her throwing in the towel just because she fell and sustained a minor injury.


    by demunchained on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 6:30am

    She hasn't thrown in the towel, nor has she committed to running, in case you haven't noticed.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 8:27am

    Errrrrr.. wait a sec... I believe you started this thread-- the major premise being we can "say goodbye" to Ms. Clinton politically.

    Regardless, it's a bit early (even in our nutty system) for any candidate to declare they are running for 2016-- so the fact she has not "announced" is meaningless.


    by demunchained on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 6:40pm

    If Hillary does announce, it will likely be here, at Dag.


    by NCD on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 7:12pm

    Gee, this is tuff stuff.

    Every month or 2, Politico, Time or other rag goes wild on "is Hillary running?" noise.

    I just happen to be doing a reality check 4 years from any possible inauguration to say, "despite high popularity & what-all, the real chance that Hillary will be candidate, much less victor, are quite slim".

    Hey, Chavez looks about to snuff it at only 58.

    What's bizarre about all this blowback is that Western leaders are usually younger - it's only the old corrupt dictator-for-life types that seem to be past 70, except possibly a couple Asian countries. Try this from 2011:

    Angela Merkel ( Germany ) age 56, Nicolas Sarkozy ( France ) age 55, Jose Socrates ( Portugal ) age 53, Jens Stoltenberg (Norway), 52, Stephen Harper ( Canada ) age 51, Julia Gillard ( Australia ) age 49, Luis Zapatero ( Spain ) age 49, Barack Obama ( USA ) age 48, Dimitri Medvedev ( Russia ) age 45, David Cameron ( UK ) age 43. The average age of these ten world leaders is 50.1 years.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 7:08am

    She's just logged hundreds of thousands of miles, and the mileage looks like it's taking its toll.  I don't mean that meanly or in a sexist way - I just don't imagine her being in physical shape to launch a presidential campaign in 2 years or this year, however the campaign season works. Reagan didn't look like hell in 1999, and didn't have a recent fall with concussion/blood clot near brain to focus attention on his age & health.

    (It's still not exactly clear whether the clot has to do with her fall, as a clot from concussion wouldn't usually be treated with blood thinners)

    That doesn't mean Hillary won't have her wits about her - as I even inferred, she might run for UN Secretary General in 2015. Being Prez is kinda 3 notches above energy-wise.

    She's a tough lady, so anything's possible, but I think it's unrealistic. And I don't think she's so vain as to try if she didn't think she could do it well.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 1:56am

    So, yes, Hillary will still have her wits about her 10 years from now.  Or she won't.  Nobody can predict what anybody will be doing 10 years from now. 

    Ten years from now, Hillary will be my age.  Even at 65 I couldn't have kept up with that amazing woman.  She's a dynamo and one of a kind, and she'll be thumbing her nose at the nay-sayers long after they've all lost their teeth and have taken to their rocking chairs.

    A blood clot needs to be treated immediately with blood thinners so the blood can flow easily and strokes won't happen.  I really don't see anything conspiratorial about her treatment, but I'm not surprised to be reading that there is.  This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about, after all.  There must be something more to her, or at least something that will take her down.

    Go, Hillary! You've got what it takes, babe, and Lordy, I hope I'm still around for both of your inaugurations.


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 6:45am

    It's just been reported that the blood clot is NOT in her brain but in the lining between her brain and her skull.  Using blood thinners for that kind of clot is normal practice.

    Really, it might be better to wait for facts before looking for some kind of Hillary degeneration. 

    (And it didn't get past me that much of this conversation centered around the fact that she is a woman.  Can we just get over that, too?)


    by Ramona on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 7:56am

    " Nobody can predict what anybody will be doing 10 years from now." - uh, well we can make educated guesses, no?

    She's been a dynamo - at 69, no guarantee she'll continue to be one, especially at the level of president. Just a reality check - people often slow down a bit by 69, occasionally dying. Banking on Hillary being the nominee & president is a long-shot, whatever polls said last week.

    I think the point of the concussion was that thinners wouldn't be used period if that was the cause. Not a "conspiracy" - we simply don't know yet, and there's no big reason for us to know at this point.,

    And nothing about this revolves around her being a woman. Reagan was a man, and his brain was pretty shot halfway through his presidency, and that was with a fairly easy Pacific Palisades ranch life. (which might have been worse for him, but I don't think he ever worked that hard)


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 8:16am

    I don't get this one PP.  You have no idea where Hillary will be in 2016, you don't know the long-term implications of whatever is happening to her medically right now, and the notion that 68 or 69 is too old to run for president is just antiquated at best--particularly when the Baby Boomer generation continues to age.  So what's this all about? 


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 7:55am

    Ha ha ha - the notion that Hillary will be the candidate has been spouted over and over, yet it's wrong for me to note the unlikelihood that she'll be in shape to do another campaign and then take over 8 years of US presidency. "Antiquated"? No, it's been the rule, not the exception. Only 2 presidents out of 44 were >65 when elected - about 4% - due to both health & fitness reasons (Harrison died 1 month in; Reagan got Alzheimers 4 years in) as well as what type of candidate the public wants to vote for (younger & dynamic? Carter, Clinton, Bush2 & Obama). McCain was a fossilized old futz by the time debate 3 rolled around - or didn't you notice?

    So you can flash your Baby Boomer creds at me all you want, but it doesn't make senior moments go away, and it doesn't eradicate the slow erosion of time. No, I don't know particulars, and I'm not an actuary, but I can make a rough guess at the odds about 4 years from now just like anyone watching the horse race of politics can do. But yeah, it's wrong to make generalizations like "old people often behave old", yadda yadda yadda.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 8:26am