Just read a commentary in the main stream media that says the candidates' medical records should be an open book. Sorry, but I disagree.
First, it was yet another thinly-veiled swipe at Senator McCain's age (". . . if he wins, he will be the oldest man sworn in for his first term as president."). I know lots of 72-year-olds who are healthy, vibrant, and capable. Time to stop age discrimination. And time to stop inserting it into discussions just for the sake of drawing attention to it yet again.
Second, I really didn't need to know that Joe Biden takes medication to help with urine flow or with his sinuses or with his cholesterol. Can't some things remain personal and private? Where is dignity when you need it?
Third, if you go down this path, then would you really be satisfied knowing a candidate's current health status? Do we need to go back a generation or two and find out the causes of death of their parents and grandparents? How about gauging their work-out routine? Who's going to be on the nutritional analysis squad, checking the fat grams in every bite they take? Or, who's going to keep the tally on the smokes the 47-year-old presidential candidate bums from the press core or how many pieces of Nicorette he chews?
Should we have general information about a candidate's health? Yes. But do we need to have their entire medical record on display for all to see? No.
One indicator of the candidates' general physical fitness is the stamina they've shown on the campaign trail. Under that analysis, they all are generally fit.
Knowing a candidate's current health status is no guarantee of future health. None of us is guaranteed tomorrow. So, let's take it as a given that the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are generally in good health, stop with the lists of medications, and move on to more substantive issues.