Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) has criticized elderly homeowner and potential 2016 Joe Biden rival Hillary Clinton for being a "20th-century candidate." His heart may be in the right place, but Rubio is wrong. The 66-year-old Clinton is not a 20th-century candidate; she is a 19th-century candidate straight out of the Gilded Age.
For example, Clinton’s personal fortune is so massive that she has trouble keeping track of all the money, and thinks struggling to buy two mansions is a sign of financial distress. She has pocketed at least $12 million since quitting her job as secretary of state in 2013, and typically earns (at least) four times the median annual income for every one-hour speech to a group of financial executives.
The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative rank up there with some of the most influential organizations founded by the wealthiest barons of Gilded Age—Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Morgan, Vanderbilt, etc.—and have helped the Clinton’s establish a global empire unmatched by any other political dynasty.
Speaking of political dynasties, Clinton is a big fan, obviously. She adheres to the centuries-old belief that "certain families" have a "predisposition" to rule over the unwashed masses. She laughs like we might expect a late 19th-century villain to laugh:
Rubio recently clarified that his criticism of Clinton was not a reference to her advanced age. (If elected, she would be one of the oldest world leaders in history.) Rubio is right that "you can be 40 years old and be a 20th-century candidate." But to be a 19th-century candidate, as Clinton is, it probably helps if you’re pushing 70.