"Protect your queen!"
Umm . . . if Hillary Clinton wins, she will be 69 when she takes office - - tying Ronald Reagan as the oldest president in history (and, likewise, hopefully, 77 when she leaves).
Her principal primary challenger, Bernie Sanders, is already 73. Some wondered if VP Joe Biden (age 72) would throw his hat in the ring [answer today: No], or maybe Al Gore (Hillary's rough contemporary at age 67) would run. Or, Democrats could go with dream "newcomer" Elizabeth Warren (age 66).
BTW: Secretary of State John Kerry is 71, Jerry Brown is 77 and even Howard Dean is 66. Dem House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is 75 years old. Dem Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (age 75) plans to turn the reins over to Sen. Chuck Schummer, who will be a spry 66 at the time. Indeed, the only two "young'ish" Democratic politicians with a national profile that I can think of are: (i) Andrew Cuomo (age 57) and (ii) Kirsten Gillienbrand (age 48).
Anyone I am missing? And are others unconcerned? Truth is that the Democratic party is becoming one old-timer of a party.
But that is not the only problem. Kudos to Mathew Yglesias for writing a piece that long needed to be said: "Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble."
Read Yglesias's piece in entirety because it raises the obvious, if depressing, point that Democrats are getting their asses kicked at every level of government other than the presidency:
The presidency is extremely important, of course. But there are also thousands of critically important offices all the way down the ballot. And the vast majority — 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state — are in Republicans hands. And, of course, Republicans control both chambers of Congress. Indeed, even the House infighting reflects, in some ways, the health of the GOP coalition. Republicans are confident they won't lose power in the House and are hungry for a vigorous argument about how best to use the power they have.
Not only have Republicans won most elections, but they have a perfectly reasonable plan for trying to recapture the White House. But Democrats have nothing at all in the works to redress their crippling weakness down the ballot. Democrats aren't even talking about how to improve on their weak points, because by and large they don't even admit that they exist.
While Democratic presidential candidates are rightly asked how they expect to enact any of their ambitious policy proposals in the face of Republican obstructionism, the larger issue is that the next Democratic candidate to win the presidency has to oversee a "five alarm" commitment to investing in, developing and re-invorgating the Democratic party at all levels of local and state governments, as well as grooming candidates within the federal sphere. This matter is too crucial to be left to the like of DNC chairpersons like Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
Because as smug as I am in watching the Republican disarray, they are only one presidential race - and some quirk within it - from total domination of all three branches of the federal government and the overwhelming majority of state and local governments.
Given the level of our opposition, how the hell did Democrats find themselves in this position? Yglesias's answer - denial - rings true.
Either way, I think this is as large an issue facing Democrats as many substantive policy questions that get openly debated, but as far as I can tell it is not even acknowledged. That needs to change, now.