Soooo, the [Republican strategists ][1]would have us believe [65 is too old][2] to contemplate a run for the Presidency even if you are Hillary Clinton and about as well qualified a public servant as has ever been nominated. This is tiresome. Of course a woman our age is a bit fatigued; she’s had to battle sexism for decades and now, apparently, she has to fight ageism, too.
What I have learned in the process of not being 39 anymore is that I can still do pretty much anything I want if I am a better steward of my energy and passions, and of my physical and intellectual resources. Bottom line, I take naps. I exercise, but I gave up tennis and took up golf. I learned to delegate. I finally have a healthier understanding of the “You can’t do it all” that I rejected in my 20‘s and 30‘s. I understand, that is, that even if I can’t do it all, I *can* do enough (and the world doesn’t come to an end if I let go of all the other stuff).
It is quite obvious that Hillary, with her powerful mind and strenuous work ethic, can still run circles around most of us -- men *and* women. So why not run for the Presidency if she wants to? To the Republican strategists I say “Bring it on.” If Ageism is your best weapon -- No new ideas or grand ideals, guys? -- it is, demographically speaking, a losing battle.
[1]: http://theweek.com/article/index/246333/can-the-gop-convince-america-that-hillary-clinton-is-too-old
[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/us/politics/republicans-paint-clinton-as-old-news-for-2016-presidential-election.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
