I would like to address whether it is ageism or realistic to address candidate's ages

[highplainsdem]

18. Hi, flotsam! I think the fact you support Warren even though she's 70 should tell you NOT to worry

very much about age.

But please don't beat yourself up wondering if the worry is ageism, either. (Our culture unfortunately encourages ageism.)

Are you worried about Nancy Pelosi being Speaker at her age? I'm guessing you probably aren't. Which again should tell you not to place too much importance on age.

Being a few decades younger doesn't guarantee good health. All of our younger-than-70 candidates, if not already at or past the age at which heart attack risk rises significantly (45 for men, 50 for women) will reach that age within an 8-year term.

The risk of cancer increases significantly after age 50, and again, that is relevant to most of our candidates.

The risk of stroke increases greatly after 45, too.

If we were concerned only about health, we'd set the minimum age for POTUS at 18. That's never going to happen, for obvous reasons.

Health IS important. I think it's important for candidates for president to release medical records (and not the ridiculous puff pieces Trump has allowed to be released about his health).

But experience is equally important, and that's something that can only be gained with time.

And wisdom is probably most important...and again, that takes time to acquire.