Shouldn't age be a factor in evaluating Presidential candidates? Despite advances in geriatrics (and plastic surgery) there is no denying that energy levels start dropping at age 60. Even a marvelous physical specimen like Reagan was largely ineffective in his second term (and look at Bill Clinton today).
The practice of hiding a President's disability (e.g., WW and FDR) is no longer an acceptable option for our Commander in Chief. On the other hand, most of our Presidents under age 50 have made a lot of naive mistakes: The Top Ten: Youngest U.S. Presidents
Personally, I think early 50's is probably the best age: Old enough to have seen a lot of different problems, and young enough to be able to fix them. What do you think?
The practice of hiding a President's disability (e.g., WW and FDR) is no longer an acceptable option for our Commander in Chief. On the other hand, most of our Presidents under age 50 have made a lot of naive mistakes: The Top Ten: Youngest U.S. Presidents
Personally, I think early 50's is probably the best age: Old enough to have seen a lot of different problems, and young enough to be able to fix them. What do you think?
Last edited: