The problem isn’t his numerical age. People age in different ways. In some cases, people hardly age at all, they’re so physically fit and mentally astute. But even the most robust 80-year-old would be challenged to keep pace with the White House job. Far younger presidents have turned gray in the Oval Office.

Biden’s steady decline the past few years — his stumbles, his search for words, his occasional blank stare — has been impossible to ignore. Such change isn’t a reflection of character; it’s part of the natural order of life, and it isn’t ageist to take note. But Biden and former president Donald Trump, 78, have forced the issue to the forefront of our politics.

Thus, we see North Dakota’s recently approved ballot measure to establish an upper age limit for congressional candidates — the nation’s first serious attempt to grapple with America’s perceived gerontocracy. Until someone challenges the measure as unconstitutional, as expected, you can’t run for Congress in North Dakota if you would turn 81 during your term. Neither Biden nor Trump could run for Congress in North Dakota.

For now. Under a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, states cannot create eligibility restrictions beyond what’s in the Constitution. Of course, a solid argument can be made that elections take care of the age question. If candidates are deemed too old, voters don’t elect them.

Inarguably, a significant obstacle to a Biden win is Kamala Harris, whose low popularity has not been improved by her lackluster performance as vice president. More independents and disenchanted Republicans might swing for Biden if it weren’t for the prospect of a President Harris — not because of her sex, race or any other demographic category, but because of her competency, or lack thereof.

The question now is, how risky would it be for Democrats to replace her? Some worry that a change would jeopardize Black votes. It was never clear, however, that Harris was a draw for Black American voters, even if some Black women celebrated her rise. When she dropped out of the presidential race in 2019, she was polling below Pete Buttigieg in South Carolina.

Moreover, does anyone really think any Democrats are going to suddenly turn to Trump because Biden changes running mates to improve his chances of reelection? Herein lies one of the problems with identity politics. Bloc voting by skin color is among our most racist assumptions. Democrats, regardless of pigmentation or cultural heritage, want to win elections, presumably to advance a worldview consistent with their values.

I’m not alone in suggesting that Biden replace Harris, perhaps in exchange for a key role in his administration. Serving as attorney general at least would be in her wheelhouse. Several alternative candidates have been suggested, including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth and, needless to say, Taylor Swift. (Kidding, though her outspoken contempt for Trump isn’t nothing.)

By now, you’ve probably forgotten about the second part of the news collision earlier mentioned. It was a brief story Wednesday alleging a controversial development in a New York congressional race: Hillary Clinton had endorsed Westchester County Executive George Latimer for the House seat currently held by incumbent “squad” member Jamaal Bowman.

In a post on X, Clinton wrote: “With Trump on the ballot, we need strong, principled Democrats in Congress more than ever. In Congress, @LatimerforNY will protect abortion rights, stand up to the NRA, and fight for President Biden’s agenda — just like he’s always done.”

The controversy seems to stem mostly from the vitriol between the two candidates. Bowman has alleged that Latimer is an anti-Muslim racist controlled by Republican billionaires who want to end voting rights. (Now that’s a mouthful.) During a recent debate, Latimer claimed that Bowman looks out only for people of color and ignores other constituents.

These volleys have come amid divisions over Israel’s continued military operations in Gaza. Latimer is supported by the pro-Israel AIPAC, while his supporters accuse Bowman of using antisemitic tropes. As for Clinton, the question is, why now? Why would she suddenly get involved in a congressional race?

We are left to speculate about motive, but the effect of Clinton inserting herself into the news cycle is to remind voters that, but for her defeat in 2016, we wouldn’t be stuck in this old-White-men dilemma. She is also reminding people of her relative centrism, her support for Israel and her broadly respected role as secretary of state.

No one has mentioned her as a possible running mate for Biden far as I know, but why not replace Harris with Clinton? At 76, she might want no part of it, but it’s hard to retire when you feel your job isn’t done. If Biden needs to step down, even those who didn’t vote for Clinton would have confidence in her ability to keep the country on track. It’s just a thought, but worse ideas have met with regrettable success.