For well over a year now, I have periodically blogged my suspicion that Hillary Clinton may not run for President because her health will not allow her to.
Partly, this was a pure gut feeling, partly it was the way she has looked over this time (older, squatter and more haggard – I do not mean these adjectives to be mean or sarcastic, only honest), and partly it was – and is – based on the generic fact that running for President requires maintaining near-herculean strength and mental acuity for months, which I seriously doubt that 67 year old Ms. Clinton has.
Today\’s article by Alex Pappas of dailycaller.com is doing nothing to dissuade me. Here are a few salient excerpts:
Ifyou listen to the chattering class in Washington, D.C., HillaryClinton is a virtual certainty for the 2016 Democratic nomination,and the front runner in the next presidential race.
Butin private, rumors persist that the former Secretary of State may noteven be capable of making it to Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton,these skeptics often say, will not run for president again because ofhealth concerns.
Askedabout her health on Thursday, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrillsaid in an email to The Daily Caller: “To your question, verycaring of you to ask. She\’s 100%.”
Butthese rumors suggesting otherwise date back to the end of 2012, whenClinton\’s health made headlines as she finished her term assecretary of state: aides explained then that she developed a stomachvirus, hit her head, suffered a concussion and subsequently developeda blood clot in her brain but was being medicated and was expected torecover.
Butskeptics say there is much more to the story of her health, which hasrecently been the subject of increased speculation inWashington.
Somehave noted Clinton\’s change in appearance, including the additionof thick glasses, since her hospitalization. “One doesn\’t need tobe a physician… to have seen that Clinton has not appeared exactlybright-eyed and bushy-tailed of late,” Mary Stanik, a formerMinnesota health care spokeswoman, wrotein 2013. “She looks to have gained a significant amount of weightsince 2008. She seems pale, tired, and yes, aged. She\’s said thatshe would like to know again what it\’s like to not be tired.”
As you can see, Mr. Pappas\’s article hits all the food groups of my suspicions about Ms. Clinton.
Wouldn\’t it be something if media – which have spent the last year anointing Hillary Clinton the inevitable 2016 Democrat candidate (just as they did in 2008 – how\’d that work out?), while sneering at the lack of any similarly jump-out-at-you counterpart on the Republican side (and assiduously working to take down the closest thing to one, Chris Christie, a couple of lane closings for four days on the George Washington Bridge) – suddenly found themselves scrambling to figure out who would replace her?
Suppose Hillary did not run. Do Democrats really want a loose cannon – and a 73 year old one at that – like Joe Biden as their standard-bearer? Do they really want an anonymity like Maryland Governor Martin O\’Malley or Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy? Would they actually resurrect what\’s left of John Kerry – 72 years old and already a Presidential loser 12 years before? Howlin\’ Howard Dean? Who?
Put another way, absent Hillary Clinton, how are Democrats in any better shape on this front than Republicans?
They better hope that Ms. Clinton – horribly flawed as a candidate, yet terminally beloved by mainstream media – is tanned, rested and ready. But if I were them, I wouldn\’t bet the ranch on it.