Compared to the youthful Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are walking husks, spotted by age and raked by the hard life dealt to those who, after gathering power, only want to gather more. Trump, 70, looks like an elderly Clydesdale, right down to the mane and the wattles. Clinton, who will turn 69 in October and looks to wear less make-up than Trump, has insisted on a shade of blonde that’s contradicted by all the usual signs of aging—wrinkles, sagging skin, double chin, lost muscle mass, dark circles, et al.
So it’s no surprise that speculations about the physical and mental firmity of these two senior citizens has been raised as a campaign issue. If Trump and Clinton were in the running to take over a troubled Fortune 500 company or assume the presidency of a major university, critics would rightly point out that having collected their three score and ten, both were past their prime and neither were likely to reclaim it in the next four years. It’s not that all the coverage has been kosher. At the risk of being accused of false equivalence, both candidates have gotten bum treatment by the press and in public forums. This month, TV host Dr. Drew Pinsky speculated wildly about Clinton’s health on a Los Angeles radio talk show and questioned the care she was getting, based on the 2015 health summary produced by her physician.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member