As you watch tomorrow’s presidential debate, here’s something we all should remember – the issue here is not, repeat not, about a candidate’s age. That’s especially true when both candidates are clearly old – repeat old – men, separated by only some three years.
So while one candidate may at times mumble and reach for words, the other will regularly blather incoherently. This will not be unexpected, in large part because they both are old men.
So rather than focusing illogically on the age of one or both of these old men, let’s pay attention to what these old men have to say.
In particular, where do they stand on the mighty issues of the day – issues that will become even more crucial for the person we elect president in November?
For example:
Who has the most logical approach to Ukraine?
Which candidate consistently would play into the hands of Russia’s Vladimir Putin?
Which person has the best plan to support NATO and why?
What’s the best way each candidate plans to curb Benjamin Netanyahu and still protect Israel?
Which man has the best proposal to end the bloodshed in Gaza and provide a safe future for Palestinians?
Which candidate’s immigration plan is kinder and more effective?
Which candidate’s abortion stand is best for American women?
These issues, and where each candidate stands on them, should be our focus as we watch and listen to tomorrow’s debate, not the candidates’ respective old ages.
So let’s not pay attention to possible old-guy verbal stumbles by one candidate and mindless blathers by the other old guy. That’s not where we should be tuned in tomorrow.
William Babcock is former senior international news editor for The Christian Science Monitor.
