ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Oldest, Or Second-Oldest

[ Posted Thursday, September 15th, 2016 – 15:08 UTC ]

Up until the past week, there was one aspect of the 2016 presidential race that most had completely overlooked. Barring any third-party surprises, America is about to elect either the oldest or the second-oldest first-term president ever. Furthermore, if Bernie Sanders had edged Hillary Clinton out for the Democratic nomination, we would have been guaranteed to elect the oldest first-term president in our entire history.

To attach some cultural context, this means 2016 might be the last presidential election where the subject of the Vietnam War comes up (as in "what were you doing during..."). Which would mean no more swift-boats, no more Texas National Guard, no more prisoner-of-war stories, and no more questions about draft deferments or protesting in the streets, ever again. The Baby Boomers might not ever again see a candidate from their generation. OK, admittedly, that last one may be a stretch (and depends on what year you cut off the Baby Boom), but it'll definitely be a generational handoff in a lot of ways.

Some thought we had already seen this passing of the baton, since Barack Obama was indeed the first presidential candidate since the war ended whose answer to what he did during Vietnam was: "attend grade school." But both of Obama's opponents had to answer the Vietnam question (although one had a notably more impressive answer than the other one).

Hillary Clinton, however, turned 18 in October, 1965. Trump came of age in June of 1964. If elected, Hillary Clinton will be 69 when she takes office. Trump will be 70. Ronald Reagan, the current holder of the "oldest-elected" record, was right in between Clinton's and Trump's ages when he won for the first time. If Trump is elected -- but then fails to be re-elected -- Reagan will still hold the "oldest-ever" mark, for his second term (the record we're discussing today is just for "first-term presidents"), because he was 73 when he won for the second time.

Second term calculations are also important to consider, though, because no matter who wins they could be in office for eight full years (assuming they do a passable job for the first four). Trump would be 78 during his last year in a second term, and Clinton would be 77.

Now, there's no upper age limit to holding political office, of course. Lots of senators have served into their doddering years, in fact. Supreme Court justices serve for life, which means we've had quite a few octogenarians on the highest bench as well. But each of those jobs are but one voice in a group (one-in-nine, or one-in-one-hundred). The presidency is different.

Anyone who actually lived through the Reagan years knows that age certainly became a factor -- most notably towards the end of his second term, where Reagan was rumored to fall asleep during briefings and meetings. Reagan looked his oldest and most confused when he had to admit to the country on television that he had essentially lied about the Iran-Contra scandal, and that people in his administration were definitely involved in it. People were of two minds about this speech, in fact -- some thought his aides had just snuck one by the old man, and some thought Reagan might have just forgotten about what he had approved. Either way, it didn't look good for the Gipper. His job approval rating fell a whopping 15-plus points in one month as a result -- far greater than any one-month slide for George W. Bush, in fact.

Like it or not, age is indeed a factor in choosing a president. The public really wants a leader who will remain compos mentis for his or her whole time in office. Which is why I find it rather remarkable that until now age hasn't really played much of a role in the campaign. On one level, this is understandable -- because neither candidate can really challenge the other for being too old. Even in the Democratic primary race, this wasn't exactly possible for Hillary.

The Republican field during the primaries was a lot more varied in age. Some Democrats' biggest fear was that Marco Rubio would win the nomination, because not only is he a lot younger than Hillary Clinton, his baby face makes him look far younger than he actually is. Rubio tried to exploit this in subtle ways, pitching his campaign as one looking toward the future with youthful energy. Unfortunately for Rubio, Donald Trump certainly looked full of vim and vigor during all those debates. There were other candidates who could have made Clinton's age a campaign issue, but Rubio was the most notable (again: just look at his face).

But Rubio didn't win the nomination, of course, which leaves us with two choices for president: oldest first-termer, or second-oldest. No wonder they've both been cagey about releasing their full medical records (which neither one of them has gotten close to doing). Back in 2008, John McCain allowed reporters to sift through his entire medical record, going back years -- because he knew age was indeed a big issue. I've always said McCain's smartest campaign tactic was when he campaigned alongside his mother, who was apparently still sharp as a tack. That's a good-gene argument that's hard to refute. And McCain is still just as feisty, eight years later (this would be the end of McCain's second term had he won two elections). To put this another way: even if McCain had won twice, we would not have had to deal with President Sarah Palin (as many were indeed worried about, due to McCain's age).

Age isn't a disqualifying factor, nor should it be. Some people stay razor-sharp well into their 90s. Modern medicine means we should expect Reagan's record to fall at some point, because people are living a lot healthier and a lot longer lives than they were back then. What's remarkable about this election is that neither candidate so far brought it up -- because they're both rather vulnerable on the age issue. The media really should have stepped into this void by badgering both Clinton and Trump to release full medical records before now, though. Because while few have commented on it, America is about to elect either the oldest or the second-oldest person to take the oath of office for the first time next January. To end by putting this in some historical perspective: both of our major 2016 presidential candidates were born during Harry Truman's first term in office.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

56 Comments on “Oldest, Or Second-Oldest”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Modern medicine means we should expect Reagan's record to fall at some point"

    I don't think you should be so sure about that. Modern medicine depends on antibiotics and the superbugs are winning. That's another one of those real problems that goes unaddressed because Benghazi!™ or pneumoniagate or The Trump Show or whatever other idiocy the deplorable and the gullible are obsessed with.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Reagan wasn't suffering from "old age", he was showing signs from the early onset of dementia and Alzheimer's disease. His confusion was real. Nancy Reagan was extremely protective of anyone finding out just how ill the President was while he was still in office; much like Eleanor Roosevelt had done with FDR. It's a shame that these women aren't given an asterisk by their husbands names when listing all of the past Presidents as to acknowledge how they took over the job of running this country when their husbands became too ill to do so.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    JFC [3] - Good one!

    I was talking with a friend who is a Republican, but won't vote for Trump, about why Republicans in Congress are still supporting Trump. We got stuck on one question:

    Can impeachment procedures begin prior to the person who wins the election actually being sworn in?

    Republicans, while they do not want Trump in the White House, need a Republican to be President or else these past eight years of obstructionism will have been for nothing! The only problem is that they cannot control Trump and he's just as likely to screw them over as anyone. Pence they can control without any problem. If, God forbid, Trump wins the election and it doesn't somehow trigger the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse into action, can Congress prevent Trump from being sworn in? I have no doubt that Congress would have more than enough votes necessary to impeach on the very first vote in both houses. So could they stop him from being sworn in or would his first day also be his last day?

  5. [5] 
    apophis wrote:

    "Can impeachment procedures begin prior to the person who wins the election actually being sworn in?"

    No, they cannot be impeached for something done prior to holding office..

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    With Trump, being sworn in is an impeachable offense ;)

  7. [7] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I just had to cut my sabbatical short to comment on this all-important post which is for some difficult to grasp reason being ignored by everyone since both establishment candidates are old farts who regularly show their age with backwards and out of date policies and thinking that coincidentally the establishment treats as sacred cows.

    If only it were true that with age comes wisdom.

    But, since you mentioned third parties, the ethical path would have been to engage in the laborious task of typing the names of Johnson and Stein and their ages too.

    Speaking of which, the NYT has a hilarious article about Hillary trying to get Al Gore out campaigning to convince Johnson and Stein supporters to rethink their mistake.
    It seems the tightening race has Hillary Inc. all concerned... and her brilliant plan to turn things around is to be more optimistic and mention Ralph Nader a whole bunch.

    I can't be the only one who thinks that's funny as shit.

    Same crappy policies, but fresh lipstick on the pig.

    Go Jill!
    A

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    BTW CW

    Any chance we'll get a column or a contest on what we should or could be spending $38 billion on right here in America?

    A

  9. [9] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    JFC [1]: You're being specious. While I'm happy to blame ODS or the way the press handles the campaigns for many things, the "superbug" issue isn't one of them.

    We've slowly been losing this battle for some time. Big Ag (antibiotic beef, anyone) and superseeds from Monsanto (or is that Bayer, now) are more responsible than anything on that front.

    Legislators not addressing this isn't b/c they want to attack Obama (though they do), it's b/c they get lots of money from the people who make their (exceptionally wealthy) living from doing this to all of us.

  10. [10] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    This issue is bigger than a bumper sticker, unfortunately.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can impeachment procedures begin prior to the person who wins the election actually being sworn in?

    Remember how ya'all once castigated the GOP for all their impeachment talk?? :D

    Once again, proving that there is no difference between ya'all and what ya'all accuse the GOP of... :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC [1]: You're being specious.

    Have you MET JFC??? Specious is too kind..

    Incoherent is the common term.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Same crappy policies, but fresh lipstick on the pig.

    And a near death pig to boot.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, they cannot be impeached for something done prior to holding office..

    Shhhhh Yer gonna upset the Demcorat slaves... :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Legislators not addressing this isn't b/c they want to attack Obama (though they do), it's b/c they get lots of money from the people who make their (exceptionally wealthy) living from doing this to all of us.

    So why didn't Demcorats do anything about it when they had a virtual lock on all aspects of government??

    Answer: Because Demcorats are no different than what ya'all accuse Republicans of....

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Speak2 [9],

    "You're being specious."

    . . . and you're knocking down a strawman.

    "While I'm happy to blame ODS or the way the press handles the campaigns for many things, the "superbug" issue isn't one of them."

    I didn't blame the "superbug" on ODS. I said that it goes unaddressed because of obsession with idiocy. That's exactly how it is. It's not even on the radar and Monsanto does not own every legislative or presidential candidate.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is something just for you, Michale.

    And, I dare you to click on it!

    Challenge accepted.. :D

    So you have a poll where Americans say they are "thriving" under Obama... Kewl..

    And I have a poll that says 81% of Americans do NOT like the direction this country is heading..

    So, who'se correct???

    Well, I guess that would be based on one's ideology, no??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    ChickenBoy,

    . . . and you're knocking down a strawman.

    You always say that....

    It's funny that EVERYONE has a "strawman" except for you...

    The King Of Incoherence ALWAYS has a valid argument..

    Everyone else, it's just strawmen...

    Rrriigggggghhhhhttttt

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Any plans to see the new Stone movie SNOWDEN???

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Where's the link to your poll?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a bunch of them...

    GALLUP POLL
    http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Eight years after hope and change, voters are angry, anxious

    A stunning 79 percent of Americans now believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, a 15-point spike in the past year, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.
    http://elections.ap.org/content/eight-years-after-hope-and-change-voters-are-angry-anxious

    As I said, there are many examples..

    But the point is clear..

    This is an election where the ESTABLISHMENT candidate, the STATUS QUO candidate will lose..

    And, unfortunately for ya'all, Hillary Clinton is that ESTABLISHMENT/STATUS QUO candidate... This is fact...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    When Hillary does have to drop out of the race, Bernie is the Democrat's chosen replacement..

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely Democratic Voters believe Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s primary rival, should be their party’s nominee if health issues forced her out of the race. Twenty-two percent (22%) say Vice President Joe Biden should be the nominee, while only 14% opt for Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the current Democratic vice presidential candidate. Nine percent (9%) of Democrats think it should be someone else.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/which_democrat_should_replace_hillary

    Personally, I think the Party would be better off with Biden, but what do I know..?? :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    How Bernie Sanders Die-Hards Echo Clinton Conspiracy Theories

    It’s not just conservatives pushing the idea that the Democratic nominee is sicker than she admits.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/clinton-health-conspiracy-pneumonia/500078/

    Apparently, Democrats are "deplorables" too... :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Apparently, Democrats are "deplorables" too.

    Some are, but the ones you linked to are maybe just morons. As much as I'd like to add 'idiots' to the basket of deplorables, they don't belong there.

    The basket of Deplorables does, however, include the White Supremacists, ultra-nationalists, and nativists who have been having a little jamboree since Trump got elected. 'Gullibles' and 'lifers' have been trying to pretend those guys don't exist, or have nothing to do with Trump's political success, but anyone outside the big dark Trump tent can see their liddle pointy hoods really clearly..

    Oh, and that poll showing 66% (not 80%) are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, also shows a sizeable percentage blaming the Republicans for their misery. Obama has a 58% approval rating, so it sure isn't his fault (say a majority of Americans).

  28. [28] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I meant, 'since Trump got nominated'. Oops. Better go back to bed.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some are, but the ones you linked to are maybe just morons. As much as I'd like to add 'idiots' to the basket of deplorables, they don't belong there.

    So, anyone who doesn't believe as you do are "deplorable, "morons" or "idiots"...

    Nice....

    It's NOT possible that THEY are right and YOU are wrong... Nooooo That can't be it..

    You have to call them names... :^/

    Nice...

    Oh, and that poll showing 66% (not 80%) are dissatisfied with the direction of the country,

    I am sure you can find a 66% in there somewhere.. Doesn't change the fact that there is also an 81%....

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama has a 58% approval rating, so it sure isn't his fault (say a majority of Americans).

    And Trump is up by 6 points.... :D

    Still like polls???

    Or is it you ONLY like the polls that say what you want to hear?? :D

    "I just love fucking with the clergy.."
    -Loki, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The basket of Deplorables does, however, include the White Supremacists, ultra-nationalists, and nativists who have been having a little jamboree since Trump got elected. '

    Freudian slip?? :D

    White Supremacists??

    Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President
    usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president

    You mean like that???

    Klan leader claims KKK has given $20K to Clinton campaign
    ‘For the KKK, Clinton is our choice’

    washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

    Or maybe you mean like that??

    WATCH: Video Reveals Hillary Clinton Praising Late Klan Leader Robert Byrd
    breakingisraelnews.com/62824/watch-video-reveals-hillary-clinton-praising-late-klan-leader-robert-byrd-jerusalem/#4tUttSRoEfCZMkxO.99

    Or you could mean like that...

    Democrats created the White Supremacist movement, sonny jim...

    If you want to see the origins of racists and white supremacists, you need only look as far as the Demcorat Party... :D

    You should heed the tale of stones and glass house, my friend.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    JFC [16]

    Fair enough. I misunderstood the intent of your comment.

    Though, I do believe that Big Ag owns enough of the legislative process to ensure that very little gets done that cuts into their profits in any way.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    The basket of Deplorables does, however, include the White Supremacists, ultra-nationalists, and nativists who have been having a little jamboree since Trump got elected. '

    I am also constrained to point out that it has been WELL ESTABLISHED amongst Weigantians with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Candidates are not responsible for the actions of their supporters....

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Paula wrote:

    Trump makes a big statement today at the opening of his new hotel in DC: President Obama was born in the United States, period.

    Statesman! Hmm, will the deplorables love it, hate it, ignore it?

    Will Trump reverse his own statement later today/tomorrow? The suspense!

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    Here's how CNN's John Berman led off the top of the 11 o'clock hour (ET):

    All right. John Berman with Kate Bolduan. Remarkable moment in the history of presidential politics. Want to show you live pictures from Washington, D.C. We believe a presidential candidate is about to stage a grand event in a hotel ballroom to essentially declare the sky is blue, water is wet and the sun rises in the east. We are told that today, for the first time, Donald Trump will–might– admit that fact is fact and he wants credit for it. At least in one conspiracy theory that he has flirted with for five years. We think, we think that Donald Trump might say that he now thinks that President Obama was born in the United States of America.

    From: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cnn-john-berman-trump-birther

    Of course he threw in the lie that Hillary started the birther movement, because he simply cannot speak for more than a sentence or two without telling a lie. And he figures his deplorables might forgive his retreat on this particular idiocy if there's a way to turn it against HRC. So long as they can sink their fangs into some form of red meat the deplorables are happy -- that's his calculation. We'll see.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it.” President Barack Obama was born in the United States.
    Period.
    Now we all want to get back to making America strong again.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/media-outraged-after-trump-tricks-them-to-cover-endorsements-from-military-heroes/#ixzz4KR6zb2oc

    Media gets played by Trump!!!! :D

    heheheheheheheheehehe

    How perfect is that.... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Paula wrote:
  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that it has been WELL ESTABLISHED amongst Weigantians with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Candidates are not responsible for the actions of their supporters...

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course he threw in the lie that Hillary started the birther movement, because he simply cannot speak for more than a sentence or two without telling a lie.

    You really think you have ANY moral authority to complain about Trump's lies??

    You have been lying for weeks, claiming that Hillary is in "perfect health"....

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    No comments about Hillary's poll numbers plummeting like a rock??? :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on... Death's Door Hillary has blown a TEN POINT lead in less than 30 days...

    Surely that warrants a comment or an explanation, eh?? :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course he threw in the lie that Hillary started the birther movement,

    While it might not be Hillary herself who started the Birther movement, it is undeniable that a Hillary strategist DID bring it up to Hillary...

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/4097983/Penn-Strategy-Memo-3-19-07

    These are the facts and they are indisputable...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the autopsy of Hillary's campaign is accomplished, it's going to be hard to tell exactly where she scrooo'ed the pooch..

    With her 47% "deplorables" moment or with her near-death collapse.. :D

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5981.html

    Holy crap!!! Trump is kicking Hillary's arse in Iowa!!! :D

    I can't wait for the next ELECTORAL MATH commentary and see how many Hillary states have moved to Trump states!!!

    Safe Blue Wall my left arse cheek!!! :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nation's largest police union endorses Trump
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296342-nations-largest-police-union-endorses-trump

    Don't tell me, let me guess... All cops are "deplorables", right??

    Any cop that supports Death's Door Hillary needs their head examined.... Talk about voting against their own very survival!!

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Trump has seriously looked at the issues facing law enforcement today. He understands and supports our priorities and our members believe he will make America safe again.
    He's made a real commitment to America's law enforcement and we're proud to make a commitment to him and his campaign by endorsing his candidacy today."

    -Fraternal Order Of Police

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course he threw in the lie that Hillary started the birther movement,

    Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager in 2008 until the Iowa caucuses, admitted on Friday that a Clinton campaign staffer had, in fact, circulated the Birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. and therefore potentially ineligible to serve in the presidency.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

    Ya'all have your ideological slavery...

    And I have the facts and reality..

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton’s Supporters, Once Certain of Victory, Now Racked by Doubt

    But as Hillary Clinton lurches toward Election Day, her supporters at times seem overwhelmed by a tsunami of unease, exacerbated by Mrs. Clinton’s bout of pneumonia and a slow-footed acknowledgment of the illness. They are confronting a question they had assumed, just a few weeks ago, they would not need to consider in a race against the most unpopular presidential nominee in modern times: Could Mrs. Clinton actually blow this?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-voters.html?_r=0

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa — I don’t recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy...Hillary made the decision immediately to let that person go."

    Huh. Not exactly a smoking gun, and I'm sure Breitbart was relentless in it's accuracy and fact-checking, so I can be sure the quote is not only accurate, but presented in context.

    bwahahahaha! No, really. The idea that because some soon-to-be-fired volunteer in Iowa forwarded an anti-Obama email constitutes complicity on the part of Hillary Clinton or her presidential campaign is just too absurd to take seriously.

    It might have even ended there, however, had a demented billionaire not picked up the ball and turned it into a bizarre, fetishistic media crusade that, I thought, died on the same night as Bin Laden.

    I was wrong about that, because the demented billionaire turned the public humiliation that he received at the hands of the President that night into a rationale for this surrealist campaign that we're suffering through. That's what I think.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huh. Not exactly a smoking gun, and I'm sure Breitbart was relentless in it's accuracy and fact-checking, so I can be sure the quote is not only accurate, but presented in context.

    It's as accurate as ya'all's SALON or DAILY KOS BS....

    Irregardless of all that, the simple fact is that the birther crap started with the Clinton campaign...

    This is fact...

    Deal with it...

    I was wrong about that, because the demented billionaire turned the public humiliation that he received at the hands of the President that night into a rationale for this surrealist campaign that we're suffering through. That's what I think.

    Yer welcome to think anything you like..

    But facts and reality is quite different...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you can find any birther crap prior to late 2007 that came from the GOP side of the equation, then you would have an argument.

    But you can't, so you don't....

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    the birther crap started with the Clinton campaign

    No, the earliest mention of it that Breitbart could find is that forwarded email of unknown origin.

    That is not the Clinton campaign's doing, and you can't pin it on her.

  53. [53] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Speak2 [32],

    "I do believe that Big Ag owns enough of the legislative process to ensure that very little gets done that cuts into their profits in any way"

    No doubt, but in the case of antibiotic resistant super-bugs, it's much worse than that. You'll have to throw those deplorable faithers into the basket with their infantile, hostile-to-science theology. Them bugs ain't evolvin'. They'd rather hear about fake baby parts videos.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, the earliest mention of it that Breitbart could find is that forwarded email of unknown origin.

    That is not the Clinton campaign's doing, and you can't pin it on her.

    I am not pinning it on Clinton. But the facts are clear that there are MANY connections with the origination of the Birther stuff and Clinton..

    #CNN says #Hillary team in 2008 never raised #birther issue. #SidBlumenthal, long-time #HRC buddy, told me in person #Obama born in #kenya

    Deny the facts all you want.. But the birther crap originated with Demcorats and with connections to the Clinton campaign...

    These are the facts. And they are undeniable..

    Spin all you want.. But facts are facts...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    @HillaryClinton So why did your man #sidblumenthal spread the #obama birther rumor to me in 2008, asking us to investigate? Remember?

    And, for Death's Door Hillary......

    The hits just keep on comin'!! :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    CAMP CLINTON DESPERATE

    David Brock Offers Money for New Dirt on Donald Trump
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-offers-money-new-dirt-donald-trump/

    I wish I could say I was surprised...

    Death's Door Hillary appealing to the greed of the Left Wingery...

    Well, there should be plenty of that...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.