The shifting, shifty Karl Rove attack on Hillary Clinton's health

The real issue, Lowry argues, is whether it’s legitimate to take “the fact that she will be 69 if elected and 77 if she serves two terms” into account in judging Hillary’s candidacy.” He goes onto devote the bulk of his column to proving that when candidates of Hillary’s age have run in the past, their opponents have implied they’re too old for the job.

Notice the sleight of hand? Rove didn’t say anything about Hillary’s age. Of course her opponents—if they’re younger than here—will play up their youthful vigor, just as she’ll likely stress their lack of experience. There’s nothing wrong with that. (Although, ironically, Rove has denounced Democrats for raising the age issue in the past.) Ronald Reagan had to voters convince he wasn’t too old when running against the younger Walter Mondale in 1980; Bob Dole faced the same challenge against Bill Clinton in 1996, as did John McCain when battled Barack Obama in 2008. So will Hillary.

That’s all beside the point. Lowry says that Rove’s comments “caused a volcanic eruption of denunciation” because they were deemed “ageist.” No, they caused a “volcanic eruption” because he implied—based on zero medical evidence–—that she’s sick in the head.