Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forum73 ain't that old for a Jedi knight.
<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo Bernie composite_zpsuqvj8wql.jpg"/></a>
Autumn
(45,084 posts)I can't wait
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)And yes, uncanny resemblance to Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)& grabbed the first Obi Wan shot that was vaguely suitable for my purpose. I think it's actually a pic of a little plastic Star Wars figure. If I get the energy, I'll put out a better one in the relatively near future.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I'm glad someone got that thread
That's not wind moving his hair around, it's the force.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Reading all this archetype/mythic hero stuff--Jung, Campbell, all that & thinking about it as a healthier way to go about pushing the subliminals for a candidate.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hillary Clinton date of birth October 26, 1947 (Scorpio, if anyone cares
Bernie Sanders date of birth September 8, 1941 (Virgo, if anyone cares)
IMO, the ideal age for a candidate running for a first term as President is around 55-57 or so. However, I don' see the few years separating Bernie and Hillary as important.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Bill was the first President who was younger than me. Dubya was too, and now Barack. I find this a disturbing trend, which plays no small part in my backing Bernie. He's my last chance to get someone senior to me into office.
merrily
(45,251 posts)all my heart that you get your wish this time.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)He's going for his old seat.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It would be even better if he were running for President, though. sigh.
The ONLY Senator to have voted against the Patriot Act of 2001, portions of which even a Republican SCOTUS found unconstitutional. Of course, he voted against the Iraq invasion as well.
TBF
(32,060 posts)bottom line than 35. But in 2016 we have a whole bunch of baby boomers voting. I wouldn't be surprised if the average age of candidates is higher. Experience can be a good thing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)13 relatively sparsely-populated colonies?
Even at that, it seems much too young. I doubt anyone that young would get elected President today.
On the other hand, all kinds of health risks do increase with age. We should consider not only the age of a person running, but also what his or her age will be four and eight years out from the date of the first inauguration.
TBF
(32,060 posts)I am in my 40s with a chronic illness. I consider myself a good candidate for writing on message boards (!) but not running for office. Even local office. But some folks get to their 80s with very little difficulty and have no issues to speak of other than being older. Maybe the candidates will decide to voluntarily release their medical records?
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's not like an ordinary job where the people who hired you can observe you daily and fire you if you don't seem to performing up to standard for any reason. Once the President is elected, the White House protects him and impeachment is the only way to remove him or her, absent resignation.
The health of President doesn't usually make news except for the first time he runs and if there is a problem that we learn about. In the meantime, the public is in the dark and isn't even aware of it because its attention is not focused on the health of the President on a daily basis. Even if it wondered about health daily, how would it find out?
Recently, I've been watching West Wing, where the President did not affirmatively disclose his multiple sclerosis. Because it was dormant most of the time, it would not show up on his annual physicals, which showed him to be in excellent health, which the press secretary would announce.
In real life, Paul Tsongas ran for President. He disclosed that he had had cancer, but apparently did not give all the details. I once met the woman who had his medical files locked in her desk. He ran for the election and died in 1997. I don't know at which point he became incapacitated. Had he won the nomination, presumably the party and country would have expected him to serve a full term at peak health and to be able to serve a second term, if re-elected. And they would have been SOL on that account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas
More importantly, we have reasons to believe that Reagan's Alzheimer's was affecting him while he was in office, but concealed by his wife and staff. If so, people for whom not a single American had voted may have been having the final say on decisions.
On the other hand, McCain, whom many Democrats considered too old to run in 2008 seems as healthy as ever. So, we don't know.
So, we have to look eight years out from election day and play the odds and pray or cross our fingers, or whatever our beliefs lead us to do.
This go round, all the candidates but O'Malley are older than I personally consider optimal, including my own favorite candidate. So is Warren, who did not announce, but whom many wanted to run. It is what it is. But that doesn't mean we kid ourselves.
TBF
(32,060 posts)my favorite candidate is Julian Castro, but I'm told he's too young! So, it goes both way. Hard to get that optimal age. But I do see that although he was a very successful mayor of San Antonio (#7 in population in the nation), and is now Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, he hasn't been in Washington very long. At least with Bernie and Hillary they are seasoned inside the beltway.
Interesting tidbits: Martin O'Malley 52, Rand Paul age 52, Scott Walker 47, Marco Rubio 43, Julian Castro 40.
Looking at that list I'm kind of surprised we're not seeing O'Malley running? Maybe he'll step in at some point?
Anyway, interesting to mull over.