The Media is often compared to a bunch of sharks: When there is blood in the water, they frenzy around it, almost mindlessly. Today, it seems Hillary Clinton is proverbially bleeding.
PR Newswire:
Concerns about Hillary Clinton's health are "serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records." Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern."While this doesn't definitively say that Hillary Clinton, or anyone in her situation, cannot be president. But how often do we see people take actions which could be hazardous to their health, just for glory? It happens in sports all the time.
While more than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion, only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous thrombosis.
More than 78% said the health concerns had received "not enough emphasis" in the media, and only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis."
But SHOULD a medical condition disqualify a candidate? That is up to the individual voter, but only if the candidate is being completely transparent about their condition. If the candidate is lying about their health, then what else are they lying about? But a candidate's honesty is another issue. If a candidate's health is a problem, it will show up in the campaign trial, and voters will inevitably get to decide if the person is healthy enough for the office or not.
So why is this an issue with Hillary? Two reasons: First, she is normally dishonest, which leads one to worry if she could be covering up a more serious condition; second, because she seems to be getting "propped up" by her handlers far too often. I am reminded of the movie Weekend at Bernie's:
(hat tip to Giphy for the GIF)
Maybe Hillary's health is much ado about nothing. But with her dishonest track record, it is difficult to look past her health or any other subject:
Washington Post
JUDGING BY the amount of time NBC’s Matt Lauer spent pressing Hillary Clinton on her emails during Wednesday’s national security presidential forum, one would think that her homebrew server was one of the most important issues facing the country this election. It is not. There are a thousand other substantive issues — from China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea to National Security Agency intelligence-gathering to military spending — that would have revealed more about what the candidates know and how they would govern. Instead, these did not even get mentioned in the first of 5½ precious prime-time hours the two candidates will share before Election Day, while emails took up a third of Ms. Clinton’s time.
...In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently.Was this editorial written by Mrs. Clinton's spin team? Here are their very invalid points:
- "First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about.": This is the same James Comey who said that other people would have face "sanctions" in Hillary Clinton's situation, leaving open the question of why she didn't. This isn't "second-guessing the FBI", but rather asking why they didn't do their job, which he even admitted?
- "Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials.": Powell did it, so it's ok for Hillary to do it? This logic doesn't get you off the hook in a court of law, nor should it in public opinion. Your mother wouldn't accept that logic, so don't expect the American voter to accept it. As your mother would say, if Powell jumped off a cliff, would it be ok for Hillary to do it too? (Ok, so maybe that's a bad example...)
- "Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them.": Were they classified? Classified information doesn't recognize whether it should be classified or not. Also, were they the only classified information that Hillary sent by email? According to Politico, the total number of classified emails on Hillary's private server was more than 400. The email issue wasn't about Benghazi.
I find it sad that the newspaper of Woodward and Bernstein so clearly misses the point of the email scandal. Not only was there a crime committed, but there has been an extensive effort at the highest levels of government to cover it up. This is shameful in itself, but even more so that a newspaper with the history of the Washington Post would actually assist in the government conspiracy.
In another Washington Post story...
CNN:
In a late and likely consequential move, a co-founder of Facebook is donating $20 million of his fortune to Democratic coffers in a bid to help defeat Republican candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.Don't you love it when rich people excuse their large political donations as somehow connected to a higher cause? "We don't like it when people use money to influence elections, but..." If you don't like it, then don't do it. Your principals don't go out the window just because life isn't going your way.
The funds are a surprising infusion of cash from an individual who has never before been active in politics.
Dustin Moskovitz, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur with a net worth of more than $10 billion, announced early Friday that he and his wife would make a historically large donation to a half-dozen Democratic groups. The donations, once issued, will make Moskovitz the third most generous donor in the 2016 campaign.
He is a supporter of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
"This decision was not easy, particularly because we have reservations about anyone using large amounts of money to influence elections," Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, wrote in a post on Medium. "We hope these efforts make it a little more likely that Secretary Clinton is able to pursue the agenda she's outlined, and serve as a signal to the Republican Party that by running this kind of campaign — one built on fear and hostility — and supporting this kind of candidate, they compel people to act in response."
Congratulations Dustin. You are now what you proclaim to dislike. Sleep well.
In other news...
Washington Post:
Another legacy of Hillary's time as secretary of state:
While Americans savored the last moments of summer this Labor Day weekend, the U.S. military was busy overseas as warplanes conducted strikes in six countries in a flurry of attacks. The almost simultaneous bombing runs across Asia, Africa and the Middle East spotlighted the diffuse terrorist threats that have persisted into the final days of the Obama presidency — conflicts that the next president is now certain to inherit.
In Iraq and Syria, between Friday and Monday, the U.S. conducted about 45 strikes against Islamic State targets. On the other side of the Mediterranean, in the Libyan city of Sirte, the U.S. also hit fighters with the group. On Sunday in Yemen, a U.S. drone strike killed six suspected members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The following day, just across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia, the Pentagon targeted al-Shabab, another group aligned with al-Qaeda. And the military conducted several counterterrorism strikes over the holiday weekend in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and the Islamic State are on the offensive.
Militants in each of those countries have been attacked before, but the convergence of so many strikes on so many fronts in such a short period served as a reminder of the endurance and geographic spread of al-Qaeda and its mutations.Six countries? Notice how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have spread? This is absurd. We are playing the international version of "whack-a-mole", and losing badly. At what point do we realize this is a losing game?
(hat tip to Democratic Underground for the GIF)
No comments:
Post a Comment