Upon first glance, House Republicans made a courageous move today in defeating the supposedly bipartisan bailout bill. After the bill failed, the Dow Jones index dropped nearly 800 points - the largest point (not percentage) drop in the index's history.

But the real story is that House Republicans simply lashed out against Speaker Pelosi's blame-placement speech earlier that day. They won't show any backbone when the Democrats ask nicely. Pelosi faulted Republicans for the crisis, ignoring years of Democratic cries for "social justice" via subprime mortgage loans and Democratic resistance against stricter oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Those two institutions went on to make totally irresponsible investments at the behest of Congressmen such as House Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Those investments cost the taxpayer $200 billion. Now that the real estate bubble, created via the Fed's artifically low interest rates, has burst, many subprime borrowers are losing their homes. What kind of social justice is this?

Unforunately, it is not likely that the House Republicans will vote against the bailout bill. Instead, they'll vote with the Democrats to initiate a period of serious inflation that will only end when we reform our monetary policy.

Fact: Obama proposes no decrease in personal income taxes at any marginal rate.

Obama says that he proposes a "tax cut for 95% of workers." No he doesn't. His website reveals what he means by "tax cut": a one-time, debt-funded tax credit of $500 to $1,000 check in the mail to anyone who Obama deems worthy. This includes a large number of people who pay no taxes to the federal government. Since the United States is running both a huge debt and a huge annual deficit, this check must be sent with money created out of thin air - or with money borrowed from China or other countries. This former is inflationary and will hurt working families. The latter poses a national security risk.

Fact: Obama will raise capital gains taxes on the economy's engine of growth.

This one is straight from the Obama website, too: "Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today." So he won't hurt middle-class investors. But Obama will raise the capital gains rate on the engine of economic growth - the investors that make above $250,000. This is a very misguided plan given the current state of the U.S. economy. If the financial markets implode, we'll need to regain strength as soon as possible. The worst thing to do in a time like this is to discourage investment.

Fact: Obama proposes 10 tax credits to achieve "tax relief for middle class families." But few will help middle class families in the long run.

Each one is debt-funded, and many credits will arrive as checks straight from the Treasury to people who do not pay taxes.

Among the credits is a $4,000 college tax credit that will make college more affordable - for a short while, until tuition rises to match the increase in federal funding. Under Obama's leadership, we should also expect the cost of child care to rise.

It is fine to offer a limited number of credits for badly-needed services like health care. It is not fine to starting mailing out checks from the debt-laden U.S. Treasury. The checks, not the deductions, will cause the most price inflation.

Thoughts: Instead of sending debt-funded, inflationary checks to temporarily prop up working families, Obama should focus on creating real jobs and real economic opportunity for working families.

Obama should lower all cap-gains rates, cancel all of his tax credits except the health care credit (badly needed after government intervention in the health-care sector drove up costs to unaffordable levels), and propose tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts - not debt-funded tax credits.

8:01 -- Moderator opens the debate by asking how many democrats are in the audience, followed by a huge cheer... Then he starts the debate, failing to acknowledge the Republicans in attendance. Nice one...

8:06 -- College Republicans are given the first statement, and use it to ask the Young Democrats how Obama's plans will be able to succeed without raising taxes, as well as to question the validity of his proposed actions.

8:10 -- The YD's respond with a token Obama talking points, choosing to extol the virtues of the enigmatic concept of "change", saying that we do not need "Four more years of the same" and citing John McCain's voting record. Just as expected...

8:13 -- First question concerns the current economic situation. YDs respond with their usual talking points of "middle class tax cuts", with little address to the underlying problems.

8:20 -- The moderator asks the CRs to respond to the accusations that the Republicans are to blame for the current financial crisis. CRs respond by pointing out that 95 house democrats voted down the bill as well. In response, the YDs totally misconstrue the CR's statement, accusing house Republicans of voting down the bill because they were offended by Nancy Pelosi's Speech.

8:25 -- YD's assert that the economy is fundamentally better under the control of democrats, with absolutely no data to back up their claims. Then, again the YDs hit their beloved point that Obama will lower middle class taxes. CRs challenge this point, as Obama will only give tax breaks to the middle class in the form of income tax breaks.

8:29 -- YDs simply cannot seem to make their points without making obnoxious sarcastic comments, and the YDs in the audience have evidently never attended a debate, as they are unwilling to remain quiet.

8:34 -- YD's say that foreign policy must be based on more than just buzzwords such as "victory" and "freedom". How ironic, considering the great, deeply intellectual idea of "change" Senator Obama has tricked much of our country into supporting.

8:40 -- Finally, someone brings up the point that Obama's assumption that all human beings will eventually get along is brought up. Debate on fundamentals is bringing this debate back from the stagnation of the foreign policy question. Some minds may be changed here...

8:45 -- Of course 2/3 of illegal immigrants pay taxes, they buy food and other goods don't they? What a ridiculous point from the YDs

8:48 -- If the guy who spoke out from the crowd is reading this, just go home now...

8:50 -- All of a sudden, the YDs disagree with one of their party members, something they've been criticizing the CRs for this whole time.

As the floor opens for debate, many interesting (and likely ignorant) questions are expected. This debate wasn't a bad one, but the YD's unwillingness to address the real issues at times reduced this debate to little more than the same old talking points weve heard for the past six months.

We have recently distributed the September issue of the Review. As a (presumably tantalizing) preview, here's the letter from the Editors introducing the issue (I have no idea what the deal is with the font):

Dear Readers,

As this school year kicks off, there are many exciting things happening on UNC’s campus. From reuniting with old friends, to starting new classes with new teachers, to joining any of hundreds of student organizations, there is plenty to preoccupy an undergraduate’s mind.

And yet, our attention is inevitably drawn elsewhere: the election. Every four years we are bombarded with the quadrennial refrain that this is the most important election in our lifetime, if not the history of the Republic itself. However, unlike other obnoxious clichés, this actually seems true.

With the continual expansion of government well beyond its rightful powers and responsibilities, each election is increasingly important. Either the electorate will accept more statism, or it will empower those who would curb the interference of the government with our lives.

While it would be a tad histrionic to declare that this election will determine whether the great American experiment will meet with its final demise or experience a glorious resurrection, this election will determine (however temporarily) the relation between the federal government and the individual. And, in the immortal words of William F. Buckley (although, frankly, it’s questionable whether WFB ever spoke a mortal word), “There is … something in the system that warns us, warns us that America had better strike out on a different course rather than face another four years of asphyxiation by liberal premises.”

With that in mind, we have focused this issue on national issues, most of which will play significant roles in the coming election.

Our cover article deals with the rise of a liberal Christian theology within the evangelical movement. Lydia Walker examines the increasing influence of visions of so-called social justice and tolerance among what used to be a reliably conservative voting block, tying the issue back to our campus with interviews from UNC’s evangelical Christians on both the Left and the Right.

Anthony Dent’s article focuses on the many flaws in Obama’s healthcare plan. Though Obama promises to fix the system, Dent’s piece skewers Obama’s plan, as it would take us in quite the opposite direction of the true solution.

Brad Smith analyzes potential reforms to education. He focuses on Obama and McCain’s plans to reform our woefully broken public education system, concluding that McCain’s solution, which is influenced by market principles and emphasizes school choice, is superior to Obama’s, which focuses on vague ideas of “accountability” and other solutions that have proven to be abject failures.

The common thread in our critique of Obama is that he has refused to learn the lesson of the 20^th century: policies based on faith in the central government, rather than the individual, are bound to fail.

Sincerely,

Bryan Weynand and Nash Keune
Co-Editors

So far, this blog has been exclusively about national stories. With that in mind, I thought I'd start off with some campus issues.

• Campus Conservatives are rarely disappointed with the DTH, because we've come to expect the DTH's [insert invective of choice here]. However, that changed (at least for me) on Thursday. The DTH ran a cover featuring a dozen or so student quotes about 9/11. One that they decided to put in bold: "Would we even be in Irag if Sept. 11 hadn't happened?" And another for good measure: "I think people's emotions about it were manipulated in the aftermath to promote an environment of fear." Now, there is a time to discuss these important topics, but that time was not Thursday. That should have been a day for remembering those who were killed and their loved ones. I'm sure the DTH could have found less impudent quotes.
  
• Last year, the Student Stores carried the National Review (hereafter referred to as NR) in its periodical section. This year, it doesn't (or at least, they haven't had any copies the numerous times I've checked). I realize that this story might very well affect only myself, and that the library has a copy, but this is still rather irksome. I also understand that I could just as easily get a subscription, but subscriptions come at discount prices, and I like the idea that my $4.35 (minus the sales tax) doubles the amount that I'm subsidizing NR's existence. Reverse boycott anyone? [Update: On Wednesday, September 17th I did find a single copy of the Sept. 15 copy.]
  
• Now, for the inevitable election coverage. This week, polls have mostly stayed stable, giving McCain a 2-5% national lead. It seems that McCain got more just than just a "Hey I saw that guy on TV" convention bounce. His new lead is built on a (however temporary) mass movement of white females to his side. That said, we all know that this election will be decided by swing states. Rasmussen published a series of polls from the most likely swing states. McCain now has slight leads in: Missouri, Nevada, Virginia, New Mexico, and Ohio (where he leads by 7%). Obama has maintained his slight leads in Colorado (the site of his convention), Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They are tied in Florida. Basically, the race is still unnervingly close.
  
• Excluding their genuflecting at the altar of Obama, the media's bias has been exhibited two ways recently. Of course, we all know of the monomaniacal focus on Sarah Palin. The other side of that coin is a presumably willful silence concerning the gaffes and other mistakes of Joe Biden. This week, for example, he admitted that Hillary Clinton might have made a better VP pick. Well, actually, that might not have been a mistake; that statement seems to be getting increasingly accurate.
  

• After both conventions, the polls are all back to where they were two weeks ago. Rasmussen, which had shown a six point Obama bounce earlier this week, has Obama up 46-45%. Gallup has Obama's lead shrinking from 8% to 2%. CBS has the race tied at 42%. [Sunday Update: Rasmussen has the race tied at 46%, and Gallup has McCain up 48-45%.]
  
• McCain's speech- As I wrote during our coverage, I don't think McCain's very good at speaking, though he is an effective speaker (I hope the distinction is clear). Further, nomination speeches are rarely memorable (most memorable speeches come during inaugurals, trips to the Brandenburg Gate, etc.) and his dragged on for a bit too long. That said, I'd like to give a tempered approval of McCain's speech. It reinforced the populist, reformist and maverick narratives. There were some things missing (more comprehensive middle-class tax cuts and such), but it seems like people might start being swayed by McCain's more concrete vision for Changing Washington.
  
• I think the convention persuasively repudiated the silly notion that McCain is the second coming of GWB (which I've been calling for; see below).
  
• During Cindy McCain's speech, she asked, "How about that Sarah Palin?" My thoughts exactly.
• It's a bit early to start picking favorites for a McCain cabinet (Lieberman would work as a Secretary of State, Fred Thompson would make an excellent Attorney General...), but McCain-Palin certainly has the momentum right now. In this amnesia-riddled election cycle (anyone still worried about McCain's housing gaffe, once the World's Worst Quote Ever Ever?), that might not matter very much, but things are looking up. The Evans-Novak Report (affiliated with Robert Novak) even predicts that McCain will surge ahead in the coming weeks.
  

Once again, our live blog concludes after the Presidential nominee gives his speech. We had a great night, and we hope you enjoyed our coverage. We'll post some more thoughts later on tonight and into tomorrow.

11:04 - Great ending from what he saw. Resounding applause, powerful words.

11:03 - We're back and he's still talking!

11:00 - Our feed died! UNC is out to get us ...

10:57 - McCain learned the limits of his selfish independence in a prison cell in Vietnam. Obama learned the limits of his selfish indpendence after years of cocaine and marijuana use... yup...

10:56 - The speech is beginning to drag on ...

10:51 - I love how the McCain campaign is, for lack of a better term, changing what the Obama campaign calls "change" into something more concrete.

10:49 - We have a feeling the speech is nearing its wrap-up stage.

10:49 - John McCain isn't afraid of threats, he is prepared for them. Yes we can!

10:48 - Anyone remember any serious discussion of the Russian invasion of Georgia in Obama's specch?

10:46 - Love the tacit implication that Obama is not a member of the group entitled "Americans."

10:45 - Drill, Baby, Drill.

10:42 - Obligatory shot to children during education discussion. BTW - school choice is a winner.

10:41 - Love the line about Obama "wishing away the global economy."

10:39 - I'd like to boo the booing.

10:35 - The CR loves his diatribe against corporate welfare.

10:33 - Swing state shout-outs. Like it.

10:32 - Love the shout-out to Petreus... noticeably lacking in Obama's speech.

10:30 - Subtitle guy at FOX has some trouble. "Vito?" Someone should vito his spelling.

10:26 - Yes, Palin has all of that going for her ... and she's really hot. Just say it.

10:25 - Can there be too many "USA" chants?

10:24 - Handled the situation with that lady (... lady?) adeptly. Let the man speak, please.

10:22 - Let's admit- McCain is, in a classical way, a very bad speaker. He emohasizes the wrong words, stumbles over others, and has no range to his voice. However, people listen to him, because he has a moral gravity forged by his harrowing experiences; it can'not be gained by any amount of practice. .

10:20 - I love McCain, but it's "whom they intend to vore for," not "who."

10:20 - Calls from the CR staff for McCain's mom to crowd surf.

10:19 - We thought there would be no podium, but alas we were wrong. He is at least at the end of the thrust, amongst the crowd, setting him apart from the other speakers.

10:18 - It looks like he's standing in front of a green screen, but it's another random picture and he happens to be in front of the grass.

10:15 - It's over. We clocked it at 2:34, unofficially four seconds longer than Senator Obama.

10:14 - It continues.

10:13 - It continues.

10:12 - Ovation starts

10:08 - We would so vote for McCain's mom. Guess that makes us "McCain's mama's boys."

10:07 - The Orrin Swindle Read-along!

10:05 - As per McCain's mommy - John McCain is a "Mama's boy."

10:04 - Cue the McCain video.

10:01 - WE had a DNC DaNCe party; now we have a GOP dance party... GOPartying (attribution to Rosie Bucherati... send your complaints to her).

9:58 - FOX is giving us a little tease of McCain's speech. Apparently he won't reference President Bush by name but will reference the administration, though not much. His major focus? The McCain-Palin ticket is ready to take over Washington and change some policies. He will "take off the Republican hat and put on the American hat."

9:57 - We'll be treated to another video presentation before McCain takes the stage.

9:55 - This stage will allow McCain more room to walk around and talk to the audience. After all, he won't have to dodge the angels as Obama did.

9:52 - Bad timing on that applause and continued speaking by Cindy. While she was describing the atrocities of what happened to the Rwanda woman, the audience was clapping for her being there. Ouch.

9:50 - It will be interesting to see if John McCain walks around more than Cindy. Though I suppose there are some restrictions with the teleprompters.

9:46 - REAGAN reference.

9:45 - "So how about that governor Sarah Palin?" We agree.

9:43 - Have to love the quotes FOX is scrolling along the bottom of the screen. Goldwater? Why yes, thank you.

9:43 - I'm liking this "town-hall" style speech. I think it's going to work really well for John McCain. I think it personalizes the speaker moreso than simply standing at a podium does.

9:40 - Just a note. Cindy mentioned that Americans are the most charitable people. Indeed. Professor Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University did a study that showed that, though Conservatives make 6% less income on average, they give more than 30% of that income to charity. Just a note.

9:35 - Cindy McCain just took the stage. No podium for her as she stands with her family.

9:30 PM - I think we are about to get our feed back here in the room. The presentations are almost over. FOX News has a Cindy McCain video playing.

9:27 - Let me take a minute out from our momentarily paused coverage to give a shout-out for a great political website. Peter Robinsona and Rob Long run a site that aggragates conservative political commentary. You can access it here.

9:22 - We have lost our feed here for now while the CRs give a presentation. We got the shaft.

9:19 - I guess that McCain will look better by comparison.

9:18 - Love the unexplainanble images of the countryside behind Ridge.

9:15 - The subtitles really aren't cutting it. Tom Ridge is speaking now.

9:11 - FOX News goes to commercial and the feed gets turned down here in the room. Hopefully nothing important happens for another good few minutes.

9:10 - The infamous Clinton finger wag makes an appearance. "WTF" = wagging the finger. That's what we're going to say.

9:07 - "It's not that he doesn't care; it's that he doesn't get it." Nice flipping of the Obama line.

9:05 - We want a "Drill, Baby, Drill!" chant.

9:03 - Graham has quite the accent. "Benchmarks" are "beeenchmarks."

9:01 PM - Lindsey Graham is speaking right now. We have the FOX News feed on so he will probably get cut off in mid-speech.

We'll be live blogging the closing night of the RNC tonight. We don't know yet when we'll start posting because we're watching it with a group, and there is a lot going on right now. Hopefully we'll get settled down here soon. Stay tuned.

A short post, because there isn't much that needs to be said...

Palin: This was probably the most important speech of the convention, and, well, she delivered. She was great. I'd hate to shoehorn her into an clumsy comparison, but I definitely got some serious Margaret Thatcher (who was known as the "Iron Lady") vibes from her. I can't go much further without sounding like I'm genuflecting in Matthewsian tones. If you didn't get a chance to, watch it here.

Giuliani: Best line, after recalling Obama's recent flip-flops: "If I were Joe Biden, I'd get that Vice President thing in writing" (not verbatim). Giuliani, though he did run a bit long and (of course) a lot of what he said was repeated, hit the right tone. And I'm very glad that people are finally mocking the "community organizer" line on Obama's resume.

Steele: Though I know that he's relatively unknown to people who live outside of Maryland, he's something of a hometown hero to beleaguered Maryland Republicans. Our one-time Lieutenant Governor, his (surprisingly close) loss in the race for the Senate was the most disappointing individual result during the 2006 election for many of us. Anyways, his speech, though it didn't feature many new lines of attack, was rousing. Frankly, who else could have been nearly as persuasive in describing his dream of a color-blind society (Michael Steele is incidentally black)? And who didn't just love the "Drill, baby, Drill" line (and ensuing chant)?

Tuesday night was the first full night of convention events. The headliners were Thompson and Lieberman. For the sake of brevity, I'll only comment on the most salient components of their two speeches.

Thompson:

Fred Thompson was slated to give the traditional biographical refresher speech tonight. As he said, "My role is to help remind you of the man behind to vision."

One might reasonably expect this to be a dreadful assignment, and an even worse speech. After all, we all know the whole McCain story. Yes, it was an exciting story the first time I heard it, but now it's gotten so overused.

Well, no. Thompson covered some well-trod ground, following McCain from his Academy days, to his jet school days, to the first mission during which he was shot down, to his decision to return to battle, to his eventual capture, and through the solitary confinement, beatings, cracked ribs, broken teeth, legs and arms of his POW days. But, Thompson's retelling of the story featured anecdotes and other aspects that even I, an early McCain supporter, had never heard. Some were amusing, such as the fact that, "When his captors wanted the names of other pilots in his squadron, John gave them the names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers." Others were more gruesome, such as the detail that while in solitary confinement, "the oppressive heat" caused "boils the size of baseballs under his arms."

The vividly detailed story crescendoed to one of the best lines I've heard in a while: "My friends, that is character you can believe in." So far, that is my favorite line of the convention.

Taking a step back, let's compare Thompson's speech to Hillary's. Both were onetime-opponents-turned-endorsers who gave headlining Tuesday night speeches. Whereas Hillary seemed as if she only attended the DNC and endorsed Obama because she would have been blamed for his loss (if he went on to lose), Thompson seemed to be re-introducing us to a close, personal friend of his. Hillary's endorsement seemed forced, and her speech was very sparse with approbation for Obama's character; Thompson's entire speech was a moving character witness. It should be telling that, all speeches considered, there really were no "Let me tell you about this man, Barack Obama" speeches at the DNC. It should be equally telling that the designated "Let me tell you about this man, John McCain" speech at the RNC was so compelling.

[The speech did include some policy specifics, making some subtle and some not-so-subtle jabs at Obama. But those messages will surely be repeated often this week. As I said, in the interest of brevity, I will only cover the character message, the most singular aspect of Thompson's speech]

Lieberman:

It would be easy to think that the sole purpose of Liebernman's speech was proving that Republican talking points sound more impressive when said by Democrats (and that is manifestly true, at least when that Democrat is Lieberman). The speech also served another, very important role, one for which Lieberman is uniquely suited: repudiating the idea that McCain= Bush's third term. This message, which I've said is of utmost importance (see below), was (I think persuasively) conveyed in the middle of his speech:

"My Democratic friends know all about John's record of independence and accomplishment. Maybe that's why some of them are spending so much time and so much money trying to convince voters that John is someone else. I'm here, as a Democrat myself, to tell you: Don't be fooled. God made only one John McCain, and he is his own man."

If Thompson's speech was important for revealing who McCain is, Lieberman's was critical for dealing with who McCain isn't. Even if these were the only lines of the speech, it would have been a good, effective one. As it was (even with its paragraph in adoration of Clinton's presidency, apparently included either to prove that Lieberman is a Democrat or to test whether the delegates were really listening), Lieberman's whole speech provided a powerful witness to McCain's (and Palin's) maverick/reformer (in other words, anti-Bush) side.

As Hurricane Gustav made landfall yesterday just west of New Orleans, the Republican National Convention had to roll back their schedule for the day. The original plan was to order the days thematically according to the John McCain campaign slogans. Monday's theme, "Service," was axed in favor of a longer, yet somewhat relating theme of "Serving a Cause Greater Than Self." Instead of hosting the numerous speakers, including President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, over a seven-hour period, the Republicans trimmed the convention activities to just about two hours. First Lady Laura Bush and (future First Lady?) Cindy McCain spoke, asking to aid those in need along the Gulf Coast.

President Bush's speech will, of course, be rescheduled for tonight in a primetime speaking slot, though his remarks will be cut to just eight minutes. He won't even be in St. Paul, however; he will make his case for a McCain presidency from the White House. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Fred Thompson will also speak tonight. Rudy Giuliani was supposed to be the keynote speaker for tonight. Convention officials have said he will retain that role, but it will be pushed back a night or two.

What still remains is what convention officials are calling a "reintroduction" to McCain and a "high-profile introduction" for Sarah Palin. It is not known yet whether the other themes will remain in tact - "reform" for tonight, "prosperity" for tomorrow night, and "peace" for Thursday night. The RNC may just run on one common theme this year in helping aid those affected by Gustav.

A day removed from Gustav making landfall, though, and it looks like the majority of those along the Gulf Coast dodged a bullet. Luckily the storm wasn't that strong when the eye reached land; it was once projected that it would make landfall as a Category 4 storm. Since it wasn't as destructive as once thought it could be, it should pave the way for the RNC to get (somewhat) back on track tomorrow. Politically, though, the storm came at a bad time, interrupting what could have been a surge in the polls for the Republicans riding the Palin wave. Michael Moore realized the opportune timing of Gustav saying that it was "proof that there is a God in Heaven."

We'll see what the polls look like as the next few days unfold. The Palin announcement effectively canceled any boost Obama got from the DNC. Now it's up to the Republicans to forge ahead as November nears.

The McCain campaign capped a great August with a stellar VP selection. While something in me wants to be a rebel and buck the conventional wisdom in conservative circles by criticizing the pick, the evidence is just too much. This selection immediately thwarted whatever momentum Obama might have hoped to gain from his convention. By Friday afternoon, was anyone still discussing Obama's nomination speech? This move reinforces McCain's reformer cred, and it will steal away Obama's "soft media" advantage (note the upcoming cover of People). It has already enthused the conservative base: reports are going around that the McCain has received upwards of $7 million this weekend.

The polls are already reflecting this Palin effect. According to Gallup, Obama's 8 point post-convention lead instantly shrank to 6%. A Time poll was more dramatic, showing a 5% Obama lead shriveling to a statistically insignificant 1% advantage.

Of course, she is not perfect. Her main flaw, of course, is her inexperience. The argument goes: the McCain campaign has tried to make this election primarily about experience. Aren't they undercutting that with such a callow VP nomiee? To that I'd say there should necessarily be different expectations for a President than for a Vice-President. Further, she already has more executive experience than the Obama/Biden ticket, and anyways, our current Vice President had quite a bit of experience before taking office, and, well, this sentence finishes itself.

The next most problematic question: Will her youth only highlight McCain's age? Perhaps. But I doubt it will be a critical difference. The people who are going to vote against McCain for his age would probably do so no matter how old his VP nominee was. It's not as if voters are going to all-of-a-sudden realize he's 72 because he's standing next to a 44-year old.

I'd say her negatives, if not insignificant, are manageable, and far outweighed by her already manifest positives.