Gerald Seib also noticed that “the list of young leaders lining up behind Mrs. Clinton isn’t a long or obvious one. It’s an unusual position for a party whose core constituencies include young voters. Meanwhile, Republicans have a veritable youth movement going on by contrast.”

AD

The result is Democratic leadership that is not only uniformly old, but also one that has been on the national stage for decades. Pelosi and Harry Reid both entered office in 1987, more than a 1/4 century ago. Hillary entered the White House more than 20 years ago. And if that were not enough, none is an anti-establishment or maverick Democrat.

AD

Even worse, Hillary Clinton is not likely to get much, if any, opposition from up-and-coming Democrats. Not a single serious contender under the age of 65 (Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s age) may run for the Democratic nomination.

By contrast a number of GOP potential candidates are much closer in age to Clinton’s daughter Chelsea. Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Gov. Bobby Jindal are all 43, Gov. Scott Walker is 47 and Rep. Paul Ryan is 44 years old. Others are high-energy 50-somethings (Gov. Chris Christie is 52, and Sen. Rand Paul is 51.) The Republicans may nominate an older candidate like Jeb Bush (61) or Gov. Rick Perry (64), but they too would be more youthful than Hillary and neither has ever served in Washington D.C.

AD

Certainly after Obama the country may crave a president with relevant experience and a track record 0f competence, but they can have any one of the GOP candidates above without getting a Beltway barnacle. The race may be a role reversal from 1992 when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the young up-and-comers taking on George H.W. Bush or 1996 when Clinton went up against 73-year old Bob Dole.

AD

Youth does not necessarily denote a forward looking, energetic candidate, but fairly or not many voters (especially young ones) assume age denotes a preference for the status quo, resistance to innovation and unfamiliarity with concerns of young people. In order to counter that stereotype and capture younger voters (as Ronald Reagan did), one has to run against the status quo in Washington, be brimming with optimism and tap into youthful idealism. Republicans should avoid clumsy comments that question whether Hillary Clinton is capable of running for president. Instead they should focus on how backward-looking and staid she is. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was pitch perfect when he commented, “She embodies Washington. She embodies that old, tired top-down approach from the government. I think in the states as governors, we offer a much better alternative and I think there’s a number of us who would be good prospects out there.”

Bill Clinton could credibly offer “to build that bridge to the 21st century” but will a promise to take us back to 1992 really fly with voters who weren’t born then or were in grade school? (Just to refresh your memory, in 1992 Leona Helmsley went to prison for tax evasion, Microsoft released Windows 3.1, Prince Charles and Princess Diana were still married, “The Silence of the Lambs” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and Helmut Kohl of Germany and Francois Mitterrand of France were still in office. Marco Rubio turned 21.)

AD

The problem with President Obama was not that he was too young, but that his ideas were rooted in 1960’s liberalism and that he lacked executive know-how. He was “cool” so he attracted many the casual, often younger voter. Hillary Clinton has the same infirmities, but is among the least “cool” politicians around. The GOP should be able to make some real inroads with younger voters, especially those who during the Obama years did not see themselves attaining, let alone surpassing, their parents’ success.