I'm with you.

I don't give a crap about the age of my potential partners. (other than being over 18 ) Why should I give a crap how old the President is?

Constitutional requirement. I just want someone who will not continue to impose trickle-down, benefit the plutocrats almost entirely and give a few extra crumbs to the peasants economics upon us. Social issues seem to be on a roll at the state level, so let's see the federal gov't actually address income and (more importantly) wealth inequality as it is adversely affecting the country.

-- bankers, racketeers, intel agencies, fake 401(c) 4's, tax dodgers, corporate personhoods, voter suppressionists, dominionists, lobbyists, police, generals -- through an aggressive DOJ, accountable before constitutional law.

No one person is really equipped to do the job. They need like-minded assistance to really get things done that need to be done. For example, FDR probably could never have gotten anything close to the New Deal passed if he had not had people like Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins working with him. He had a Cabinet that held a similar philosophy. Perhaps that is what we need?

Bill Clinton did not do it, Obama did not do it, Hillary WILL not do it

Bernie is about the only one who would.

He would need a Cabinet that agreed with his agenda. He would need a House of Representatives to pass his ideas into law. He would need a Senate to approve it. Even then, he would have to fight a very right-wing, partisan Supreme Court.

But first, the seed needs to be planted...

of interest, an aggressive DOJ and a quality review and budget overhaul every governmental department.

It's easy for us to say but it is difficult to find a leader to run for the Presidency who is not tied to the Washington establishment, who is not making millions off the talk circuit and Wall Street, who is not working for some huge conglomerate as a lobbyist. Or who is not working with the Defense Department, as a retired General or a decorated hero. Or who is not a tool of the corporations that run this country.

Unless we find someone different, I don't know if we will ever make this country more equitable or more democratic?

and parcel of the whole leadership problem that we ourselves cannot solve.

We're stuck in a totalitarian state in which the rich buy their hostile security forces and know how to use them.

I'm feeling lately that we're past the point of no return, because I don't think even a landslide vote for a promising progressive will result in reining in the MIIC.

So long as money is free speech, we are screwed!

It would only defeat our purpose if we tried to raise more money than the other side, because the same people would end up with the money anyway. So, I do not see that as an option?

In some way or other, we need to educate people about what is happening politically around them so they are not screwed by the 1%.

"The point of no return"? I have felt the same way at times.

We need an "education" crusade. And then we would need a strategy to put it into place? We could only do that under "democratic" rules. We would need a House and Senate that would pass the laws. We would need a President and Cabinet that were working from the same page.

Will we ever reign in the MIC?? I don't know.

Strategies are out there that don't include or need us. Right now, my hopes are low.

Give me someone bright, dynamic and effective .... that shares my core values ... they will get my vote.

There are benefits to youth and benefits to age

I certainly would.

So long as they were not dead?

At least for me. Dead guys like Reagan and Cheney shouldn't have been president. Same thing for mentally dead guys like George W. Bush.

that big a deal for me as long as they are not in their 70's. I'm reminded of Reagan and what a disaster he turned out to be.

Jerry Brown looks as sharp as a tack...

I still prefer someone in their late 40's or 50's.

I'd like to see one who has lived through the 60s and the Vietnam War and also, one who was educated in the more reliable school systems of the past.

I'd be thrilled to get a President who is competent to do the job rather than one everyone would like to have a beer with.

but a firm grasp of history should. As you say, American history shouldn't begin at Reagan.

Age is not especially important unless the person is either too young to have any useful experience (the Constitution requires a president to be at least 35) or too old to be healthy enough for the job. If a qualified person is within that very broad range I really don't think it should be an issue.

and get things done. Anything else is a bunch of jackass trivia.

There is certainly something to be said for wisdom. But, "a leader that has no memory of the Vietnam War or the "Sixties" experience" is eventually all that will be available. I think that was probably said about WWII as well.

With the exception of Reagan vs. Carter, in every election over the past 50 + years when there was a significant age difference the younger candidate has won. I don't think that's an accident, and I doubt the Republicans haven't noticed.

I would love to see Hillary as president, but the experiences of my parents, grandparents, their friends, and now that I am getting older- myself tell me that there is a risk of losing the best qualities in a president too soon if the president isn't in optimal physical\mental form.

FDR died in office, Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, and Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimers. Our minds and bodies naturally decline with age. What good does wisdom do if the expression is thwarted or limited?

Institutional memory, experience, and wisdom are definitely desirable qualities. I think that wisdom and awareness of institutional memory are qualities available to younger candidates who are studious and have taken the time to listen and learn. And, people can gain a great deal of valuable experience in their youth. For example, I believe Obama's experience as a community organizer has been an asset.

I think there is something to be said for being practical about the ordinary undesirable facts of life. I knew a woman who lived to be 97. By the time she was in her mid 70s, she was exhausted and wanted to enjoy the time she had left. I have a hard time understanding why a person would want to take on such a grueling job when they could finally slow down. Hillary and Biden have served our country well. I would think they deserve to finally rest.

I have thought about this: "there is a risk of losing the best qualities in a president too soon if the president isn't in optimal physical\mental form."

Being President takes a toll. It can be a very demanding job.

I think we've done a piss poor job so far.

If a peanut butter and jelly sandwich can vote for getting us out of war and restoring taxes on the rich to historical levels (like the 90's) than it will have my vote.