Hillary’s health and our right to know

[Katashi_itto]

We the people feel entitled to a president of the United States who is in good enough health so that he or she can endure the pressures of the job without suffering a heart attack, stroke or sudden death.

Of course, any good physician will tell you that she can’t be entirely sure of health risks, and our presidential candidates shouldn’t be gauged entirely by physical criteria alone. Still, full health disclosure must be a prerequisite for running for the highest office in the land.

This was why the disparity between the political parties was glaring when it came to disclosing health history back in 2008. I traveled to Phoenix and joined other members of the news media poring through thousands of pages of Sen. John McCain’s health records. At the same time, Sen. Barack Obama was releasing only a single page of health affirmation from his personal physician. True, Mr. McCain had a history of a melanoma requiring extensive facial surgery for a cure, but Mr. Obama was a longtime smoker.

I am expecting more of the same kind of disparity in the 2016 election. Full disclosure has never been a strong suit of newly announced candidate Hillary Clinton. From Benghazi to the email scandal to reported money-making schemes rocking the Clinton Foundation, secrecy has been the operative term rather than transparency. I can easily imagine deleted emails that referred to the heart valve or heart arrhythmia problem mentioned in Ed Klein’s 2014 book, “Blood Feud.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/marc-siegel-hillary-clintons-health-and-our-right-/

[artislife]

1. They wanted it to be an issue, lets make it an issue for both.

And someone should demand Trump's mental health..

[Katashi_itto]

4. +1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The Washington Times is a more sophisticated version of the NY Post.

And the author of this article (who cites a book by the egregious liar Ed Klein) is a medical correspondent for Faux News. I am not a supporter of Hillary but I think we need to stick to reliable sources.

[Tanuki]

19. Good catch! Look what the author, Dr. Marc Siegel, has to say

about health care reform!
http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/09/19/bad-medicine-fox-news-physicians-are-a-prescrip/181962#siegel

Heck of a source you've got there, OP!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. She released her medical info after this article was written.

But points for "worrying" over things mentioned in an Ed Klein book.

[sufrommich]

5. Ed Klein and the Washington Times.

Classy.

[mcar]

6. Washington Times?

This is the third RW media outlet cited on this Democratic board to flag this non issue. Such a shame.

[Sheepshank]

9. It not surprising that the OP does this

Not too long ago. This op was posting 2000 posts a month to get count numbers up. There was a reason then to make things look established, and there are reasons for these types of posts now.

[Katashi_itto]

11. Wtf are you babbling about?

Whoa a real CTer!

If I had a high post rate. It could have been back when I had a hip replacement and was totally laid up. But this theory of yours is so much cooler.

Thanks!

[Sheepshank]

20. Your babbling buffoonery is evident today

Posting RW memes. But you just go ahead and offer that phony high road crappola.

[Katashi_itto]

21. Snicker your wearing your tinfoil to tight

[Sheepshank]

23. Boy are you so quick off the block today. 0-o

[Katashi_itto]

27. Not as far as you have gone.

[Sheepshank]

29. I was speaking to speed, why would you introduce distance in such an unrelated manner?

[Katashi_itto]

30. Whooosh it goes over your head.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. This is also bullshit, just with a better wrapper.

Again self delete would be the honorable thing to do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Res ipsa loquitur (REDUX)

The political views of The Washington Times are often described as extremely conservative.[48][49][50] The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."[5]

Conservative commentator Paul Weyrich commented:

The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And the Washington Times has forced the Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence.[51]

In 2007, the left-leaning Mother Jones news magazine said that the Times had become "essential reading for political news junkies" soon after its founding, and quoted James Gavin, special assistant to Bo Hi Pak:

We're trying to combat communism and we're trying to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values. The Washington Times is standing up for those values and fighting anything that would tear them down. Causa is doing the same thing, by explaining what the enemy is trying to do.[52]

In a 2008 essay published in Harper's Magazine, historian Thomas Frank linked the Times to the modern American conservative movement, saying:

There is even a daily newspaper—the Washington Times—published strictly for the movement's benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries.[53]
In 2009 The New York Times reported:

With its conservative editorial bent, the paper also became a crucial training ground for many rising conservative journalists and a must-read for those in the movement. A veritable who's who of conservatives—Tony Blankley, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Larry Kudlow, John Podhoretz and Tony Snow—has churned out copy for its pages.[34]

Though not listed, another conservative writer who trained there was New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks, a Washington Times editorial writer in the 1980s.[54]

The Times has also been criticized for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay".[55] In 2010, the Times published an editorial opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it granted legal protective status for transgender people. The editorial criticized some transgender people and said that gender identity can be a choice, not an innate characteristic.[56][57][58]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

[JanetLovesObama]

10. And even MORE Unadulterated

B U L L S H I T !!!

[MineralMan]

13. Please self-delete this garbage.

Thanks so much.

[yardwork]

14. How old is Bernie Sanders?

You want to play this game? Bring it.

[cali]

15. Fuck posting this.dogshit

[Tanuki]

16. The Moonie Times? Since when did this become a credible source? nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. Strange that Hillary raises the health issue when she has had a history of illness

puts he more in the firing line.

[Metric System]

18. Ed Klein, The Washington Times and Sanders supporters. A threesome made in hell. Feel the burn

indeed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Please note that many of the posters in this thread

who find the source in the OP objectionable are Sanders supporters. It's extremely offensive to compare us to the likes of Ed Klein when we are trying to defend Clinton from his lies.

[loyalsister]

22. Hillary and Bernie are physically vulnerable

If you look at age of onset for a myriad of diseasesdisorders they are both sitting in that window. Our bodies break down with time. It's natural. Should we put ourselves in a position where our presidential nominee is running a higher than average risk of health problems? Apparently, we already did. Yea us.
Neither really has a "health advantage" over the other.

[Agschmid]

24. Oh look another one.

Lol wow, what crap.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Since he has had surgery recently it would be important to

Know if Sanders is fit. Hillary has had her letter out since July, haven't seen a letter for Sanders yet.

[emulatorloo]

28. Why are you obsessed with right-wing sources? Murdoch's NY Post, now the Moonie Times?

will you be enthusiastically posting their attacks on Bernie as well?