Sunday, September 11, 2016

Hillary's Health Becomes the Issue

Hillary Clinton’s health seems to have become a far more central issue in the presidential race. I note, with special interest, that Washington Post columnist, Chris Cillizza, a man who has been defending Hillary against Republican charges that she is in ill health, just changed his mind. And admitted that he had underestimated the extent of the problem.

When the Washington Post, a paper that has largely been supportive of Hillary Clinton, starts asking these questions, her campaign is in trouble.

Cillizza just wrote this:

Hillary Clinton falling ill at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks Sunday morning will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days.

The campaign has brushed it off in a statement, but, Cillizza noted, they should not be too quick to do so:

What that statement leaves out is that a) it came 90 minutes after Clinton left the ceremony b) reporters -- or even a reporter -- were not allowed to follow her and c) the temperature in New York City at the time of Clinton's overheating was in the low 80s. (A heat wave over the eastern United States broke last night/this morning.)

And the journalist noted clearly that he himself had been defending Hillary against Republican charges that she was in poor health and lacked the stamina for the job. Obviously, many of Hillary’s supporters denounced the criticism as sexist:

That talk was largely confined to Republicans convinced that Clinton has long been hiding some sort of serious illness. I wrote dismissively of that conspiracy theory in this space last week, noting that Clinton had been given an entirely clean bill of health by her doctors after an episode in which she fainted, suffered a concussion and then a blood clot in late 2012 and early 2013.

Coughing, I wrote, is simply not evidence enough of any sort of major illness to assume Clinton is ill and hiding it. Neither, of course, is feeling "overheated." But those two things happening within six days of one another to a candidate who is 68 years old makes talk of Clinton's health no longer just the stuff of conspiracy theorists.

Whereas Clinton and her campaign could laugh off questions about her health prior to today, the "overheating" episode makes it almost impossible for them to do so. Not only has it come at a time when there was growing chatter -- with very little evidence -- that her health was a problem but it also happened at a 9/11 memorial event -- an incredibly high profile moment with lots and lots of cameras and reporters around.

Worse yet, the campaign tried to cover it all up. Wherever did they learn how to do that.

Cillizza continued:

But, the issue is that Clinton kept reporters totally in the dark for 90 minutes following her abrupt departure from the 9/11 memorial service for a health-related matter. No reporter was allowed to follow her. (Clinton has resisted a protective pool for coverage because Donald Trump refuses to participate in one.) This is, yet again, the Clinton campaign asking everyone to just trust them. She got overheated! But she's fine now!

Clinton may well be totally fine -- and I certainly hope she is. But we are 58 days away from choosing the person to lead the country for the next four years and she is one of the two candidates with a real chance at winning.  Taking the Clinton team's word for it on her health -- in light of the episode on Sunday morning -- is no  longer enough. Reasonable people can -- and will-- have real questions about her health.

[Addendum: Last Thursday Kevin Williamson offered these prescient remarks:

Mrs. Clinton of course inspires the conspiracy kooks, an effect that is very much amplified by the fact that her opponent in 2016 is a big-league conspiracy kook leading a team of minor-league conspiracy kooks. Louis Brandeis was absolutely correct about sunlight’s being the best disinfectant, but Mrs. Clinton is a creature of the shade. Given her history of rampant, craven, deep, broad, sustained, overarching, continuous, relentless dishonesty about practically every aspect of her personal and public lives, is it really so implausible that she’d lie about her health? No. She’d lie about her health even if there were nothing to lie about, just to keep in practice.]


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

"No reporter was allowed to follow her."

Says WHO??? Paparazzi photographers and gossip reporters can get all the sources and content they want. Where is the American press?


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Cillizza 5 days ago:

These people have no shame. None.

The only thing absurd is that Chris Cillizza still has a job at the Washington Post.

Actually, what am I thinking... that's not surprising.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Great. Kevin Williamson said all those things. Now... who is Kevin going to vote for?

I'm tired of these conservative intelligentsia NRO/Weekly Standard cowards. It's easy to be a critic. Ares Olympus teaches us this every day.

What are you going to do, Mr. Williamson? Vote for the pothead party? The malcontent party? The Green Party?

Kevin's comments here may be prescient, but Kevin needs to show some courage. Until then, enough.


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Cillizza: "Taking the Clinton team's word for it on her health -- in light of the episode on Sunday morning -- is no longer enough."

Was it ever? How much of a dupe/moron do you have to be to believe the Clinton people.

Perfect example of the willful suspension of disbelief on the part of America's vaunted press corps.

AesopFan said...

When I saw the video, it looked to me like she had already fainted "standing up" and that's why she stumbled on the curb - she didn't actually step down at all, she was being carried.

Whether that is true or not, it is absolutely feckless and irresponsible of the Democrats to have any person in her physical condition as their nominee, and was so from the beginning of the primaries.

But they had already bought her, and there's a no-return policy on politicians.

Anyone been following the Dilbert take on the campaign?

"If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the 9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly “overheated.” Her campaign says she is fine now.

You probably wonder if the “overheated” explanation is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical condition. I’m blogging to tell you it doesn’t matter. The result is the same.

Here’s why.

If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton’s “overheating” wouldn’t matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority.

Hillary Clinton just became unelectable.

The mainstream media might not interpret today’s events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he’s running unopposed."

Sam L. said...

Kevin, I suspect, can stand Hillary more than he can The Donald. Some might say he bears, or will bear, the Mark of Cain.

Anonymous said...

Hillary's 'low energy' is deplorable.

Dennis said...

I have never understood the thinking of the beltway republicans/conservatives. The fear of Trump is ridiculous because;
1. A very large percentage of federal workers in DC are democrat voters and operatives. Lois Lerner anyone. Any action by Trump as president is going to be attacked by those who actually run the system on the behalf of democrats.
2. The "media" is almost all democrat voters and operatives with a byline. If one adds this to federal workers one can see the power they both have to shape the agenda and try to stop anything that Trump would initiate.
3. The lobbyists have made large sums of money utilizing their "friendliness" with the establishment and the power structure. They are not about to kill the "goose that lays the golden egg." Added with the first two group they are going to do everything possible to keep Trump from accomplishing anything that might hurt their "rice bowl."
4. The "Crony Capitalist" have exerted great power over much of what happens in DC through paying off democrats/Clinton through foundations, et al. They are not going to aid Trump.
5. The interest groups that play the system are not going to allow Trump to interfere with the gravy train that is the federal government.
6. The court system has been pushed so far Left that Trump is going to have a hard time getting past the anti-Constitutionalists that now inhabit the Legal system including the Department of Injustice.

I could go on, but I will let you ponder that.

In order for Trump to be successful he is going to have to win big, maintain a Congress that will at the very least actually want to change and stop the growing federal intrusion into almost every aspect of our lives. The real reason people like Kevin does not like Trump has little to do with Trump and much to do with power and money. Like most of the establishment they do not have anything approaching principles. Power and money is the only thing they hold dear and "screw" the American people.

Hillary is nothing more than an example of the parasitical nature of the establishment. It would not matter an iota if Hillary died the first day in office as long as the establishment maintained its power.

If the American people don't start paying attention they will become subjects vice citizens.

Dennis said...

Is it not deplorable that we can still challenge those who would be our betters? Here this deplorable soul has a BS and and MS and have been told that I am irredeemable an stupid, but I am use to that because being in the military during the Viet Nam War gave me a chance to be called almost every name in the book without any safe places to hid. Funny how no matter how much things change the more they stay the same.

Dennis said...

Forgot my main point. Those are the reasons why Trump is the better selection. He will have large segments of the establishment agains't him whereas Hillary will have almost no one to stop her. Hillary is the truly dangerous selection.

AesopFan said...

Here's a round-up of the campaign story lines and why they don't fly:

And Adams has doubled-down on his prediction.

And this says much the same in pictures:

Neat how everything ties together, isn't it?

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @September 12, 2016 at 6:08 AM:

I suspect a Trump presidency would elevate the power of Congress. This would be another key benefit. If we have another Obama-type presidency, we will have an imperial presidency. Congress was outlined in Article I of the Constitution... it's supposed to be the central piece of the system. It's now relegated to irrelevance. This is not good for American republicanism.

Dennis said...


It is, I believe, true as you state that a Trump presidency might actually aid in re-achieving the balance of powers that was envisioned by the founders in the Constitution. I would suggest that that scares the HELL out of the power structure.
Trump needs to ensure he selects strong people for Department heads because they are going to have to battle an entrenched statist cabal intent on maintaining their power.


Many of us have been trying to get people to look at the longterm strategic aspects of the issues we face and the Left's approach vice the short term tactical ones. It truly is all part of the same issue no matter the issue that happens to be the issue of the day.

Did you ever wonder how a party that has large segments of voters who are biased towards, Israel and Jews, Whites, males, religion, free speech, people practicing their Constitutional rights, et all has the gall to call others biased, deplorable , irredeemable and unAmerican? It is akin to the "pot calling the kettle black." HEH