is in good health, with all of his mental faculties intact. Same with Hillary Clinton. Age shouldn't be a consideration for either, it seems to me.

By the time he left office he didn't even recognize people he had worked with for years. His handlers covered this up pretty well but just who was in charge those last few years?


In 2010, a book marking the 100th anniversary of his birth included claims by his son Ron, that he saw early signs of dementia in 'an out-of-touch president' during the 1984 campaign.

He says he saw those signs again in 1986 where he claimed his father could not remember the names of the familiar California canyons he was flying over.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3020517/Did-Ronald-Reagan-Alzheimer-s-office-Early-signs-dementia-revealed-former-president-s-speech.html#ixzz3dL4tc9wj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A lot of folks seemed to think it was perfectly appropriate to attack him for his age rather than his policies.

of his ideas and his poor performance in office. He's also a war-mongering Republican. Those seemed quite enough to me.

I wasn't suggesting that you were among the chorus that seemed to think that it was appropriate to attack a candidate for his/her age. Just noting that it was pretty common then and I'm not surprised that it would happen again, both as to Sanders and Clinton. I suspect the Repubs, hypocrisy being in their blood, will have no problem trying to make an issue out of the age of either Sanders or Clinton if one of them is the nominee.

Much in the same way that Romney was too rich to be in touch with average Americans, but no one here thought that was an issue when Kerry ran for president.

71, 81, 91, 101?

Now, Ronald Reagan was clearly in the mid stages of Alzheimers by his second term, but I thought he looked befuddled long before that. I don't see any signs that either of the two current leading candidates have any deficits.

Age doesn't matter. Minds matter.

The argument that Sanders supporters may want to make is about the pope. The pope was 73 when he took office and has been mostly vibrant. But Sanders would be 2 years older than the Pope when taking office. Would Americans elect a 75 year old and re-elect a 79 year old?

It seems to me to be a silly question. There is a vast difference between a 75-year-old and someone over the century mark. Do you not know any 79 year olds who are perfectly competent? I know many of them. Currently, though, I know nobody over 100. I knew my wife's grandmother at 100 years of age, though. She was physically feeble, but her mind was clear, as was her wit.

If Sanders served two full terms, he'd retire at 83. How old is Jimmy Carter? He's still getting along very nicely.

Its a negative in many people's mind thinking about how difficult it is to be President with all the traveling, late nights, stress etc.

he's got plenty of energy, etc. It might be an electability issue just from the point of view of perception.

The Republicans will raise it constantly. They'll raise it about Hillary Clinton, too, if she is the nominee.

in that case we would never have had FDR at the helm.
I would say, it depends on the candidate.