The age issue: Reagan would be 77 at the end of a second term, a fact of which Democratic partisans--particularly those who do not back the 69-year-old Cranston--have increasingly taken note. But Democrats should think twice about going after Reagan on the age issue, as justified a concern as it may be.

The first reason is historical. The Democrats unsuccessfully tried to pin Reagan's age on him in 1980, it's hard to believe it'll work now. Indeed it's hard to remember a time when age or health concerns did defeat a presidential nominee. Back in 1956, with Dwight D. Eisenhower recuperating from a massive heart attack of the year before. Adlai E. Stevenson declared that "every piece of scientific evidence we have, every lesson of history and experience" indicated that Eisenhower would conk out by the end of a second term. Of course, he didn't--but Stevenson's campaign collapsed, in small part because his followers were jarred by his descent from classiness.

The other caveat against using the age issue--or levelling other personal attacks--is simply that Reagan the man remains quite popular. Having weathered an assassination attempt, he acquired a slightly mythic quality. If William Manchester's description of Eisenhower after his heart attack--"Having passed through the valley of the shadow of death he was now a greater hero, more beloved of the populace than before"--overstates Reagan's case, it also indicates the perils of savaging the President.

The Democrats would do better to unleash all their venom on Reagan's henchmen, many of whom are grossly unqualified and do not share the President's vencer of personal unassailability. James G. Watt is the leading example: Caspar W. Weinberger '38 and Margaret Heckler are others And it's about time someone went to town on National Security Advisor William Clark, a foreign affairs novice who, according to Newsweek, "is commonly judged a 'disaster'"

THE point here is simple. The Democratic Party has a strong chance to unseat an incumbent next year. It has a rare opportunity to run against an Administration with no notable foreign policy successes, with an economy that can only be called in shambles, and with a line-up of high-level officials that may be the worst since Herbert Hoover's day.

At the same time, the Democrats must beware of playing into Ronald Reagan's hands Stressing economic fairness, not efficiency, elevating the freeze high above all other foreign policy goals; and attacking the President personally are three sure-fire ways to court defeat Those politicians who succeed in setting the terms of public debate almost always win. That is a lesson the Democrats should have learned three years ago, from Ronald Reagan.