Will Hillary's Health Be an Issue Come November?

Wow! I didn't know she was so lame, and she's two years younger than Trump, lol.

Yes they will drag everything into the election. Regardless of whether it is an issue or not. Both sides pull that junk.

The picture you posted is of Hillary being assisted after she slipped in February.

The picture I posted was the one supplied by the authors of the article, but thanks. :-)

The question, though, is whether her health a legitimate cause for concern?

Eating the plebes is bad for your health. :-)

It will become an issue only because in polarized super-partisan American, EVERYTHING is considered a campaign issue. Even broccoli.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/george-h-w-bush-broccoli-twitter/index.html

I think the gal is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, if you know what I mean. And yeah, Trump's no better. Not to be mean, just saying, I doubt either are mentally fit for the position.

Spot on!

It appears the best we can do is a snake in the grass and a snake oil salesman.  That'd be fitting if they were on the same ticket...and hey, it could be argued that they are!

So a candidate's health shouldn't be an issue?

You said a mouthful with that. I don't hate either of them, don't like either of them very much. I kinda feel bad even saying that. Yeah, he's a textbook narcissist, but she does not look well mentally or physically. I've noted a couple of "episodes" with her recently where she gets "the look." I call it "the look" because I've seen my mother present it when she's having a psych-moment. If she's there mentally... Whew, we're going down! Quickly. It's weird because, for the first time, I actually feel bad for her, you know? That make sense?

Why do you feel bad about saying that?  As Christians we're commanded to love our enemies.  There's nothing in there about liking them. :-)

As for the look, here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxWckQbpug

The fact that your article don't clarify that Clinton does not normally need that kind of assistance is the point. It answers your question. Yes they will and are making it an issue.
Personally I don't care if either one of them need help physically up the stairs.

It's tough to watch a person in throws of psychological meltdown, but to air it such a public way. Yeesh, that's rough. I literally was embarrassed for her and how surrounded by vultures must she be that no one has stepped up to say: "Hun, maybe this isn't what's best for you right now." You know? Hell, I'd hope to have at least one person looking out for me at the age she is now.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but my mom was in a horrible car accident... That's what kicked off for her. She too had to have surgery, which I think made it worse, not better. Just throwing out there.

This is "the look:"

@Nimitz -- Find me a few right-wingers who say "Oh my god! I can't believe we elected that Alzheimer's-riddled dolt Reagan to be President!" and we can start the discussion.

Otherwise, no, it's pointless. Partisans will notice the infirmities of the candidate they oppose and ignore the infirmities of the candidate they support.

I differ only slightly: I believe the health (i.e., physical and mental fitness) of a potential president is of critical importance.

@Troll --

1) Red herring: Reagan isn't running for president, I didn't ask you about Reagan, and Reagan didn't manifest the symptoms of Alzheimer's until he was well out of office.  In short, this dog won't hunt.

2) Correct.  A candidate's fitness to assume the office is still critically important.

Agreed on all points--especially the one about feeling bad/embarrassed for her.  You know it's gotta be bad when I start feeling sorry for Hillary!

@Nimitz -- Your reply proves my point. There is substantial evidence Reagan was suffering from cognitive decline prior to his election and early in his adminsitration.

But, for ideological reasons, you need to pretend that Reagan's decline didn't happen until after he left office.

So I stand by my assertion that a candidate's health ***really*** only matters to you if it's A STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL.

@Troll --

1) First you would have had to make a point. You didn't.  At least not one which addressed my original question--i.e., "So a candidate's health shouldn't be an issue?"  I repeat (inasmuch as such seems necessary with you), Reagan isn't running for office NOW even if he WAS suffering from (but not manifesting) cognitive decline prior to X. My question sought to address the importance of the health of a CURRENT aspirant to the office of president.

2) YET MORE examples of a never ending stream of fallacies on your part.  Ad hominem heaped upon evasion/red herring heaped upon prejudicial assumptions heaped upon strawman et al! Do all government apologists 'argue' like this? :-)

As it happens I personally LOATHED Reagan and the faux, jingoistic flavor of 'conservatism' for which he (selectively) stood.  He was one of only two presidents (Clinton being the other) who managed to achieve such emotional reaction from me. Obama and Bush never came close. I don't like Obama. I didn't like Bush (I or II).  I literally could not stand Reagan and Clinton.

3) What's with this "STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL" crap and how is it relevant here?

IKR??