It is a fair criticism that Hillary should have made her diagnosis of pneumonia public and cut back her schedule immediately. It is fair to expect both candidates to release their medical and tax records. In fact I think it should be a requirement that candidates release that info within one month of gaining the nomination. What is not fair is all the speculation about her condition from people who have no idea, although I do understand she brought a lot of that upon herself. It's amazing to me that even after decades in public life some people don't understand that disclosure is the key to avoiding scandal.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, US presidents have a long history of not only being ill but DENYING it and asking their physicians to LIE. Past medical history does NOT predict the future. Any one of us could die of an embolism whether we are in perfect health or have a list of chronic diseases. To me, the state of a candidate's health doesn't matter unless it's a deteriorating brain disease.
Who knows? Maybe HRC thought she had a cold and it turned into something worse. She's off the trail now. Everyone happy?
To answer your main question, No. Politicians since Nixon have not learned the lesson that it's not the crime it's the cover up.
To me, the state of a candidate's health doesn't matter unless it's a deteriorating brain disease.
It matters to me. What also matters is a candidate's tendency to be secretive or open. I prefer open although we rarely see that. Even if you think a candidate's health is irrelevant (a silly notion in my humble opinion) can you at least see that disclosing, rather than concealing, is just good politics, especially when under the microscope of a presidential campaign? Hillary's decision about how to handle the pneumonia diagnosis is more damaging than the illness itself.
This plays more into the mindset of the Clinton machine, to deny , deny , deny rather than come forward with the truth.
Please insert "the mindset of the Taylor, Wilson, FDR, Reagan, GHWB, JFK, and GWB machine" to be factually correct.
If it was pneumonia, it is contagious and there she is hugging and kissing the children and elderly on the trail and prior to the 9-11 ceremony.
I hate to have my invitation to the party rescinded, but pneumonia may be bacterial or viral. One is not contagious. Do you know which one she has?
To me, the state of a candidate's health doesn't matter unless it's a deteriorating brain disease.
It matters to me.
I genuinely wonder WHY it matters. If a 68-year-old woman has diabetes or a 70-year-old man has prostate cancer how would that affect their ability to lead? Or are there only specific illnesses that you consider to be deal-breakers? I'm sincere and would like a genuine answer. It mystifies me.
Way back at the start of this nightmare campaign I posed the question of whether the age of a candidate matters given that we had a 68, 70, and 75-year old in the lead and the answer on this site was no. I thought it would be yes because health might become an issue, but apparently no one cared then. Now they care.
Exactly. Look at what a great job Mary Roslin did on Battlestar Galactica, dying of cancer and led them to Kobol.
Hillary's decision about how to handle the pneumonia diagnosis is more damaging than the illness itself.
Non-disclosure, opponents will think she's lying.
Half-disclosure, opponents will think she's lying.
Full disclosure, opponents will think she's lying.
"I've been overworked and I'm sick and it was hot and humid and you try wearing a kevlar vest in those conditions."
That might have done it, though, you may have a point.
To me, the state of a candidate's health doesn't matter unless it's a deteriorating brain disease.
It matters to me.
I genuinely wonder WHY it matters. If a 68-year-old woman has diabetes or a 70-year-old man has prostate cancer how would that affect their ability to lead? Or are there only specific illnesses that you consider to be deal-breakers? I'm sincere and would like a genuine answer. It mystifies me.
I'm pretty sure I can't answer to your satisfaction. I'm just as flabbergasted to hear that in making your decision on who should be the leader of the free world for the next 4-8 years the health of the candidate should not be a consideration as you are to hear that I think it should. To me it's so simple that an explanation isn't necessary. Let's leave it at that.
You didn't address my other point, which is that regardless of how you view the relevance of the health information full disclosure would be a better path politically. The fact that she has pneumonia won't hurt her among voters. The fact that she tried to hide it might.
Exactly. Look at what a great job Mary Roslin did on Battlestar Galactica, dying of cancer and led them to Kobol.
Full disclosure, opponents will think she's lying
But she won't be. Besides, they won't think she's lying, they'll just claim she's lying. 
cyclone88, I'll use this Detroit News editorial as an answer to your question about why I think a candidate's health matters. Not sure it will change anyone's opinion, but it fairly well expresses mine other than the fact that it focuses on the candidate's age. I'd feel the same way regardless of age.
Editorial: Candidates should come clean on health
The Detroit News 11:44 p.m. EDT September 12, 2016Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two of the oldest candidates ever to run for president as major party nominees, and two of the least transparent. Count as some progress that both have now agreed to publicly release their health records.
The ages of the contenders — he’s 70, she’ll be 69 on Election Day — make health a legitimate concern in a campaign. Voters should be comfortable that whomever they vote for is healthy and fit enough to take on four years of the most stressful job in the world.
The issue is elevated this week, after Clinton stumbled and nearly collapsed Sunday upon leaving a 9/11 memorial ceremony early in New York because she said she felt overheated.
As usual, her campaign went into full spin, at first blaming hot humid temperatures (it was in the low 80s). Later, the campaign issued a statement saying she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, which, they say, also explains a lengthy coughing episode earlier in the week.
Last month’s release of the FBI report on its interview with Clinton revealed she explained she could not remember certain events during 2011 and 2012 because of a brain clot she’s been treated for, she says successfully.
While certainly plenty of people in their late 60s and 70s remain vibrant and productive, it is an age at which the wear and tear of time begins to take its toll.
Voters should be assured, as much as possible, that these two candidates are physically capable of doing this very difficult job. Both Clinton and Trump should release their unredacted health records.
Trump was first to pledge he will release his records after a complete physical this week. Clinton on Monday matched that commitment, though without a specific timetable.
As always with these two candidates, but particularly the former secretary of state, the public should be concerned that it is getting all of the information, not redacted or edited reports.
That concern is heightened by the way the Clinton campaign handled her Sunday episode.
The campaign did not at first disclose her pneumonia diagnosis and, in fact, appears to have aggressively tried to hide it, keeping the candidate on the campaign trail and dismissing the coughing episode as allergies.
Pneumonia kills about 50,000 people a year. Has Clinton had it in the past? If so, is she more susceptible to future bouts? Why was she not hospitalized?
As Clinton’s husband said in 1992, when answering questions about his own health, “The public has a right to know the condition of the president’s health.”
Clinton’s defenders are rallying to dismiss the health concerns as rooted in sexism. But both John McCain and Ronald Reagan faced similar questions during their presidential runs. Clinton should not get extra scrutiny because of her sex, but she should not expect less, either.
Presidential health is a fair issue, and one that should concern voters who are picking a leader for the next four years.
As Bill Clinton said, they have a right to know whether the candidates are physically up to the job. Releasing complete health records is the surest way to reassure voters.
[Edited on 9/13/2016 by bob1954]
I read something else from a European news source which seems to be conjecture or they are protecting their sources, they said they think she has vascular dementia, which is a condition where due to damage to the blood vessels, ie. blockage from a blood clot, trauma, parts of the brain suffer loss of oxygen effecting cognitive functioning. The problem is, IF someone has this condition, they do not live more than 3-5 years. They believed the difficulties walking were due to that.
That "benefit of the doubt" thingy you mentioned in your initial post sure didn't last long.
Not so, I believe she did not feel well, I think she was overcome by the heat and humidity, the pneumonia disclosure and dehydration/fatigue from the antibiotics she has to be on for pneumonia could have contributed to it. That being said, I do have concerns that she might have other things going on they have not looked into lately since they believe the original blood clot was resolved.
The doctor who discovered CTE is afraid that Trump and Putin are working together to poison Hillary. What, sounds totally plausible to me.
I know you are being sarcastic, but high level figures have been poisoned over the years. Yasser Arafat to name one, was poisoned with polonium during a meet and greet party. His wife spent a long time getting to the truth and that is what was determined. He remembered that he began feeling unwell after that party. His symptoms seemed vague and unrelated and no one knew what was wrong with him but he was assassinated. IF high level people want anyone out of the way, there are a variety of ways they can accomplish it. Benazir Bhutto had her brains liquefied with Electromagnetic Frequency weaponry aimed at her during a ceremony when her motorcade was greeted by citizens. The Pakistani Taliban set off a bomb at the motorcade which was credited with killing her, but that is NOT what did her in. The bomb merely caused her to fall backwards and hit her head on the sunroof, when she was examined at the hospital one of attendings said her brains were liquefied, the only thing that does that is EMF weapons, which the military and intelligence communities have.
In this case, IF Hillary is having ongoing problems, she needs to get good diagnoses AND if her Dr.'s think she is fit to serve, then you have to trust their opinions, because they know more than the public.
The doctor who discovered CTE is afraid that Trump and Putin are working together to poison Hillary. What, sounds totally plausible to me.
I know you are being sarcastic, but high level figures have been poisoned over the years. Yasser Arafat to name one, was poisoned with polonium during a meet and greet party. His wife spent a long time getting to the truth and that is what was determined. He remembered that he began feeling unwell after that party. His symptoms seemed vague and unrelated and no one knew what was wrong with him but he was assassinated. IF high level people want anyone out of the way, there are a variety of ways they can accomplish it. Benazir Bhutto had her brains liquefied with Electromagnetic Frequency weaponry aimed at her during a ceremony when her motorcade was greeted by citizens. The Pakistani Taliban set off a bomb at the motorcade which was credited with killing her, but that is NOT what did her in. The bomb merely caused her to fall backwards and hit her head on the sunroof, when she was examined at the hospital one of attendings said her brains were liquefied, the only thing that does that is EMF weapons, which the military and intelligence communities have.
In this case, IF Hillary is having ongoing problems, she needs to get good diagnoses AND if her Dr.'s think she is fit to serve, then you have to trust their opinions, because they know more than the public.
I believe that she may be smart enough to have figured that out, Capt. Obvious.
Instead of publishing spin pieces, the NYT should do some investigative journalism into her health. Now with this video there is no denying that there are legitimate health concerns. In fact , if there was no video, there would be nothing but denials coming from (Crooked) HRC campaign HQ. This plays more into the mindset of the Clinton machine, to deny , deny , deny rather than come forward with the truth. If it was pneumonia, it is contagious and there she is hugging and kissing the children and elderly on the trail and prior to the 9-11 ceremony.
Personally, I think it is not pneumonia and something else based on the evidence of previous episodes of loss of balance, falling, wearing glasses prescribed to people prone to seizures, lack of strength by being unable to climb stairs, concussions and blood clots. The MSM is downplaying this, pretending it was sweltering in the Northeast on Sunday, when in fact it was pleasant (77 degrees, low humidity). There is a real concern here that has been revealed. The video highlighted a complete collapse of motor function- a total shutdown. What was surprising is that the reaction of her staff was very well coordinated- meaning that this is something they have not only been trained to expect at any moment and react too, but have lots of practice handling this "overheating episode". This is not an odd fainting spell but a regular occurrence.
Now let me also add that I am not a medical professional, so there will be a dismissive tone to any replies, but if she can perform well for the 90 minute standing upcoming debate in two weeks and not disappear and wander off stage and lose track of time than health concerns may be diminished.
As one who lives here in NY I can tell you that Saturday was hot as eff, it was 90-95 with high humidity. Sunday it was 85-90 and the humidity was less, but it was NOT comfortable. It doesn't really get comfortable here till November. September and October the temps and humidity go up and down. It was 85 today, and they say tomorrow will be worse. I think she might have been fainting. Maybe her blood sugar was low, the ceremony started early, she probably did not have time for a good breakfast, and her schedule was pretty full for the days before the event. To me the video looked like she misstepped off the curb, then started to faint. I don't think anyone can conclude a stroke or seizure from that.
I'm pretty sure I can't answer to your satisfaction. I'm just as flabbergasted to hear that in making your decision on who should be the leader of the free world for the next 4-8 years the health of the candidate should not be a consideration as you are to hear that I think it should. To me it's so simple that an explanation isn't necessary. Let's leave it at that.
You didn't address my other point, which is that regardless of how you view the relevance of the health information full disclosure would be a better path politically. The fact that she has pneumonia won't hurt her among voters. The fact that she tried to hide it might.
From personal experience, catastrophic illness strikes anyone at any time. Doesn't matter how healthy they are. My premise as I said before is that past health is not a predictor of future health. So, unless it's a progressive mental illness, I don't care if the president has certain conditions.
I believe I did answer your question. No pol since Nixon understands the cover up is worse than the action. However, presidents have a long history of hiding illness, including complete debilitation.
Still friends?
SO WHAT? She or Trump could have any number of diseases that commence in people in their late sixties. SO WHAT? Does that make them unfit for office?
If it is Parkinson's?.....Hell yes it makes them unfit for the Presidency...It would be just like either party to keep quiet about it....
And if it is announced or discovered that she does indeed have Parkinson's?
cyclone88, I'll use this Detroit News editorial as an answer to your question about why I think a candidate's health matters.
Got it, but I think age and health are very much linked.
I do wonder why HRC didn't get a pneumonia shot. Every drug store I pass has a "get your pneumonia shot here" sign in the window.
Personally, I think it is not pneumonia and something else based on the evidence of previous episodes of loss of balance, falling, wearing glasses prescribed to people prone to seizures, lack of strength by being unable to climb stairs, concussions and blood clots. The MSM is downplaying this, pretending it was sweltering in the Northeast on Sunday, when in fact it was pleasant (77 degrees, low humidity). There is a real concern here that has been revealed. The video highlighted a complete collapse of motor function- a total shutdown. What was surprising is that the reaction of her staff was very well coordinated- meaning that this is something they have not only been trained to expect at any moment and react too, but have lots of practice handling this "overheating episode". This is not an odd fainting spell but a regular occurrence.
I repeat my question. SO WHAT? She or Trump could have any number of diseases that commence in people in their late sixties. SO WHAT? Does that make them unfit for office? If we're going to choose candidates over 65, then expect health issues. According to history, the only illness that disqualifies a person from being president is depression (McGovern/Eagleton). Statistically, that's more common that heart disease, diabetes, and lung cancer.
BTW, 2 of the most conditioned athletes in the world played a 4 hour match starting in the late afternoon on Sunday at the US Open Final and both commented on the sweltering conditions.
I think that if she had a disease like epilepsy that caused seizures or Parkinsons, any neurological dystrophy, or something that causes fainting, people could have legitamite concerns because she has to be able to respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea or other attacks immediately. The concern is can she respond to a national emergency because she would be Commander in Chief of all the armed forces that have to protect the country. That's a huge responsibility. I also think that IF she was not able, Bill (her husband) would not be supporting her candidacy. He did an interview with Charlie Rose from his office in Harlem. Charlie asked him 'do you want her to win, so that you can be First Man in the White House', and he said 'no, I want her to win because she is the best one for the job'. He also mentioned she has a specific jobs plan to create 14,000,000 new jobs. He is involved in her campaign, and is aware of her condition.
[Edited on 9/13/2016 by gina]
I think that if she had a disease like epilepsy that caused seizures or Parkinsons, any neurological dystrophy, or something that causes fainting...
I think if she had simply put out a statement that said she had pneumonia and was taking some time from her schedule people wouldn't be speculating about epilepsy, seizures, Parkinson's, neurological dystrophy, and a host of other things none of us understand or can even pronounce.
I think that if she had a disease like epilepsy that caused seizures or Parkinsons, any neurological dystrophy, or something that causes fainting, people could have legitamite concerns because she has to be able to respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea or other attacks immediately. The concern is can she respond to a national emergency because she would be Commander in Chief of all the armed forces that have to protect the country.
[Edited on 9/13/2016 by gina]
Gina, I was the first to agree with your original post. #1 it was hot and humid in NYC despite what the numbers look like on paper. #2 I've said I agree that any illness than impairs brain function and progresses over time matters.
Is this the I SUPPORT HILLARY forum?
Funny how not much of anyone come's round here anymore.And it's not because ABB is no longer touring etc.The fact is this place makes most shake their head in disgust when they read the crap that runs over,under and thru here.And i ain't talkin bout the regular cub scouts around here.I am talking about those in the inner circle of ABB that use to come and browse thru the content over here.They didn't post,but they did read.And i have heard one on one from quite a few how they think it's a damn joke of the XXXXXXXX liberal,Obama,Hillary defense team that frequents the core of this site.But like they say,can't fix stupid.
Carry on
Is this the I SUPPORT HILLARY forum?
Funny how not much of anyone come's round here anymore.And it's not because ABB is no longer touring etc.The fact is this place makes most shake their head in disgust when they read the crap that runs over,under and thru here.And i ain't talkin bout the regular cub scouts around here.I am talking about those in the inner circle of ABB that use to come and browse thru the content over here.They didn't post,but they did read.And i have heard one on one from quite a few how they think it's a damn joke of the XXXXXXXX liberal,Obama,Hillary defense team that frequents the core of this site.But like they say,can't fix stupid.
Carry on
Always good to hear from you Luke. Thanks for checking in.
am talking about those in the inner circle of ABB that use to come and browse thru the content over here.They didn't post,but they did read.And i have heard one on one from quite a few how they think it's a damn joke of the XXXXXXXX liberal,Obama,Hillary defense team
Hahaha! You would never find the Allman Brothers Band performing at a Trump rally. Your "inner circle of ABB" is a myth, at best a few "southern rock" wannabe KKK *sswipes who somehow think the Allman Brothers represents a return to the glory days of the south. I'm sure the type of folks you are talking about would make the Allman Brothers family and friends nauseous.
Which explains why the only posters I have ever seen get banned are generally ultra-conservative, extremely rude, unfriendly, humorless and sociopathic ignorami, pretty much like you only a little more intense. So, why don't you send a pm to the webmaster and inquire why they keep booting the oinkers?
It will be a great day when the Whipping Post boils down to the few decent folks left in the true ABB inner circle, that represent the ideals of brotherhood and peace that the Allman Brothers always stood for.
SO WHAT? She or Trump could have any number of diseases that commence in people in their late sixties. SO WHAT? Does that make them unfit for office?
If it is Parkinson's?.....Hell yes it makes them unfit for the Presidency...It would be just like either party to keep quiet about it....
And if it is announced or discovered that she does indeed have Parkinson's?
How about dementia like reagan?.
I do not believe President Reagan had dementia while seeking the office. Big difference, huge.
I do not believe President Reagan had dementia while seeking the office
Then why was he having so much trouble finding his office? 😉
SO WHAT? She or Trump could have any number of diseases that commence in people in their late sixties. SO WHAT? Does that make them unfit for office?
If it is Parkinson's?.....Hell yes it makes them unfit for the Presidency...It would be just like either party to keep quiet about it....
And if it is announced or discovered that she does indeed have Parkinson's?
How about dementia like reagan?.
I do not believe President Reagan had dementia while seeking the office. Big difference, huge.
There is little doubt that he had signs of dementia when he ran for his second term. The fact that he refused to resign when it was obvious that he could not perform his duties says a lot.
Pneumonia is easily curable. Dementia is not curable and fatal. Big difference.
There is little doubt that he had signs of dementia when he ran for his second term. The fact that he refused to resign when it was obvious that he could not perform his duties says a lot.
Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, 10 years after he ran for his 2nd term and 6 yeara after he left office. There was never a suggestion that he resign from office because "it was obvious that he could not perform his duties", so it is disingenuous to say that he refused to do so. There were suggestions that he resign over Iran/Contra but that is another matter entirely.
There is little doubt that he had signs of dementia when he ran for his second term. The fact that he refused to resign when it was obvious that he could not perform his duties says a lot.
Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, 10 years after he ran for his 2nd term and 6 yeara after he left office. There was never a suggestion that he resign from office because "it was obvious that he could not perform his duties", so it is disingenuous to say that he refused to do so. There were suggestions that he resign over Iran/Contra but that is another matter entirely.
Setting the entire Presidential day-to-day schedule in accordance with astrology readings for seven years of his term, however...