Pneumonia and Dishonesty

As has now been disclosed, Secretary Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, September 9, according to the statement by her physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack. Her campaign revealed the diagnosis on Sunday, September 11–five hours after a videotape aired her condition.

Clinton is helped into van

Setting aside duplicity, spin and careerism, from the perspective of the body politic there are several genuine concerns.

First, for the record–I am still a human being with a heart, and I wish her a speedy and full recovery, as I would anyone. Notwithstanding the poisonous rhetoric around both Clinton and Trump, I wish them good health. To do otherwise would be fascistic.

Also for the record, ‘anyone’ includes prison inmates. Do you wonder how the for-profit private prisons now infesting the United States are treating their prisoners who come down with pneumonia? Linked here is one answer. Here is another.

1. One central concern is Clinton’s untruthfulness. The health of a U.S. chief executive is a legitimate topic for public discourse. Clinton had a coughing fit on camera on September 5 (Labor Day), and made a junior-high joke about being allergic to Trump. According to her physician’s statement, she had a “follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough” on September 9 and was then diagnosed with pneumonia. Pneumonia is a serious illness (see below), regrettably too common in the U.S.
Following the coughing spell in Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton dismissed health questions as “conspiracy theories.” Coincidentally, the trip to Cleveland was the first aboard her new campaign plane, on which–as numerous news outlets have reported–Clinton has also recently begun having in-flight conversations with reporters. During the chats, she made light of her cough, attributing it to “seasonal allergies” and telling reporters that she was taking antihistamines.
Following the September 9 diagnosis, instead of just disclosing through staff that she had pneumonia and would be scaling back campaign activities ‘for a few days’, or some such statement, Clinton appeared in several public events without mentioning the diagnosis. She left the September 11 memorial so abruptly that the press was not aware of her departure. The campaign kept the development from the press for some ninety minutes. Her spokesman then exaggerated the time she had spent at the ceremony. The campaign attributed her leaving early to her being “overheated” as well as “dehydrated,” while temperatures in New York City on that partly cloudy morning hovered in the 80s. Only after the video surfaced did the Clinton campaign disclose the September 9 diagnosis, without specifics as to whether she had had a chest X-ray or how long she had had the pneumonia. Only after the disclosure of the diagnosis have further reports surfaced that several people in Clinton’s New York office had pneumonia last month, some of whom ended up in the emergency room.
Last night (9/12), CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed Secretary Clinton, who phoned in. To polite but probing questions as to why she continued campaigning with pneumonia, Clinton answered that she was determined to be at the 9-11 ceremony. She said again how hot and “muggy” it was in New York. She also said, twice, that her publicly released medical records are equivalent to those released by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Asked why she didn’t just reveal the pneumonia, she said with a warm chuckle that “I just didn’t think it was going to be that big a deal.” This cringe-worthy claim is already much quoted–and is typical of the way Clinton herself keeps giving rise to speculations of must-be-the-blood-thinner. Not only did cable commentators dismiss the assertion (immediately), it is contradicted by reports that Clinton hid the pneumonia from most of her own team.
Following the news uproar, both Clinton and Trump have said that they will release fuller medical records. When Cooper asked Clinton last night whether “details about your medical history” would be released, however, Clinton did not answer the question directly. She also ducked mention of her health problems in 2012. Adding to the other irritants, Clinton brought up her 2012 health problems in responding to FBI inquiries, to explain some lack of recollection and her use of the private email server while she was working from home.
Side note: the best article on Secretary Clinton’s health problems that I have seen so far is this by Todd Frankel.

Condensing three further items, saving two more

–Looking at the length of concern #1, above, I’m realizing that other concerns have to be edited for length. So, shortening the following–

2. That Clinton has media figures openly shilling for her is an ongoing concern. When a legitimate issue flares up on the campaign trail, it gets worse. This item is painful, and I’m going to keep it short. Google “Clinton” “health” “conspiracy,” and millions of results include articles that–at best–dismiss any mention of Secretary Clinton’s health as ‘conspiracy theory’. NBC and MSNBC in particular are ludicrous. NBC has tried gamely to smooth things over for Clinton. Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews have ‘conspiracy theory’ on the brain. Maddow has not hesitated to ‘debunk’ every mention of Clinton’s health as a tinfoil-hat production.
Some of the spin continues even now that the pneumonia has been disclosed. The newest line is that pneumonia is ‘not serious’. I myself am startled by that one (see #4, below). Naturally, Clinton surrogates would try this one, but it is also being pushed by some commentators and a few reporters.
Another line is that Clinton has “walking pneumonia”–which is not actually pneumonia, nor is it a medical diagnosis or a medical term. No, she doesn’t. She has real pneumonia.
Then there’s the Clinton “stumble.” The video clip shows Secretary Clinton unable to stand or walk on her own. She leans on a post and on the arm of an aide. Then she is lifted into the van as she sinks, her feet dragging. This is not a “stumble.”
“Penchant for privacy”? More accurately, Secretary Clinton seems to feel that she must always have things other people never have. The president of the United States gave up his Blackberry. But Secretary Clinton had her own private communications technology installed in-home. (I do not recall whether State was billed for it, or if so, how much.) Other candidates have taken time off during campaigns, for health reasons, and have said so openly. But she seems to feel uniquely entitled to keep her health issues off the grid, even if it means dissembling. This is not a “penchant for privacy.” It is a penchant for tasteless entitlement. (Sorry, but no, I don’t understand it. Neither does anyone else who grew up on Jane Eyre and Jane Austen, Louisa May Alcott and Mark Twain, Shakespeare and Dickens.)

3. Her aides, or her team, do not serve her to handle issues appropriately. Yes, I know; it is unlikely that she allows them to speak frankly. But it is still a concern that Clinton aides won’t, or can’t, tell her the right thing to do. They wouldn’t, or couldn’t, persuade her that openness about the pneumonia diagnosis would be best. Maybe they didn’t realize it themselves; maybe they knew better but couldn’t speak; either way, they are presumably her own personnel choices. This concern is not just a matter of campaign gamesmanship (although if you compare Clinton’s campaign to Barack Obama’s in either 2008 or 2012, you have to cringe a little). The graver issue is that if she has an entourage of this sort when she’s just a candidate, if her people are this way when she is a mere candidate, what chance is there that as president she would appoint people who would counsel her or guide her adequately?

4. Health is a genuine concern. Regardless of political attacks and political defenses, the real concern is the candidate’s actual health. Setting aside the pneumonia for the moment, Secretary Clinton has had a serious concussion that by her own admission gave her double vision and (talking to the FBI) caused some loss of memory. According to her husband in the past couple of days, she has a history of dizzy spells and dehydration. Then there is the blood thinner–a drastically strong medication, and I have seen its effects on people near me.
This is not to imply that everyone on blood thinners is mentally impaired. An old friend of mine takes a blood thinner, with no loss of mental acuity whatever. But then she works out strenuously with a trainer; she watches her food intake–not ‘dieting’, but sidestepping alcohol and sweets in favor of vegetables and proteins; and she paces herself at work, in a high-powered and cerebral job with much responsibility. Does any of this sound like Secretary Clinton? Clinton’s campaign lifestyle is like a World War II-era pamphlet on what not to do–fast pace, grueling schedule, too little exercise and too much food, and rich on-the-road food at that. Anyone who has to travel a lot, or anyone who has to take several trips back-to-back, knows the pull of out-of-town food and scheduling.
Without saying that Secretary Clinton’s ill health is dire, pneumonia is still ill health. Arguing otherwise is ludicrous, and a disservice to the public. I had pneumonia myself, last winter, combined with bronchitis, as I have written elsewhere. I knew about the bronchitis (four severe bouts), did not know about the pneumonia, finally got a chest X-ray on the fourth trip to the clinic–got the diagnosis of “lung infection”–and landed in the hospital. Meanwhile, of course, I had been going to work. Full recovery took me a few months.
So far as I know, I did not infect anyone. However, I caught my bronchitis and pneumonia from a nice guy I ride a shuttle bus with–finding this out when he casually mentioned that he had come down with both, too, a few weeks before I did.
Apparently other people are as unacquainted with pneumonia as I was. A UK periodical just ran a piece posing the questions ‘What is pneumonia?’ and ‘What are the symptoms?’ Answer: pneumonia is a lung infection. Symptoms include coughing, physical weakness, tiredness, and death (as one of my doctors pointed out). The risk of pneumonia is one reason why elderly patients are in danger if they stay in the hospital too long. (In medical argot, these are “Complications after surgery” — cf. “contractions in childbirth,” or don’t-get-me-started.)

A few commentators have already proposed that presidential candidates should be compelled by rule to disclose their medical records. I concur. And the rule should be that declared candidates have to provide their medical records before nomination.

Trayvon Martin, question 4: Where was the iced tea can?

Trayvon Martin, question 4: Where was the iced tea can, when police arrived at the scene?

George Zimmerman’s prominent defenders are not looking more credible on a closer look, with the passage of time. Florida State Attorney Norman (Norm) Wolfinger has popped up in news a few times, before his recent decision to negative arresting shooter George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

 

George Zimmerman

On May 3, 2008, the St. Petersburg Times noted that Wolfinger was among the state’s top-level double dippers:

“Two of the state’s top prosecutors, Lawson Lamar of Orange County and Norm Wolfinger of Brevard County, qualified to seek re-election. Wolfinger is unopposed and Lamar drew a little-known criminal defense lawyer as an opponent.

Lamar and Wolfinger are among the state’s top double dippers.

Lamar “retired” in 2005 without leaving office. He collected $514,927 in lump sum benefits, plus a $115,752 a year pension, plus an annual salary of $153,140.

Wolfinger followed suit in 2007. He collected $447,834 in lump sum benefits, plus an $83,484 a year pension, plus an annual salary of $153,140.

Circuit judges are paid $145,080.”

Titled “SHHH! Judges Keep Seats,” the article reported that a little-noticed amendment inserted quietly into state law by the Florida legislature allowed judges and some other public servants to be re-elected almost without notice—and without opposition—by moving the filing deadline for some officials to a different season than for others.

An Oct. 10, 2008, Florida Today piece referenced Wolfinger as stating publicly that ACORN was being investigated in connection with ‘voter fraud’. This article, published during a period of intense voter registration drives in Florida, was swiftly disseminated as a PR release by the Republican National Committee.

After 2008, the GOP-dominated Florida legislature stepped on voter registration so firmly that even the League of Women Voters, unhappily, no longer conducts registration drives in the state. At the time, however, the investigation of ACORN was so ‘controversial’—read, despised—that Wolfinger handed it off like a political hot potato within a week of the previous report.

Calls placed to Wolfinger’s State Attorney office are directed to the offices of Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the case. Emailed questions to Communications Director Jacklyn Barnard in that office have not yet been answered.

On Nov. 6, 2009, Norm Wolfinger was in the news again. The AP, reporting the release of a Florida inmate, finally freed after spending 27 years wrongfully in prison for a crime he did not commit, includes this item pertaining to Wolfinger:

“Eric Ferrero, a spokesman in the Innocence Project’s national office, said 27 states currently have compensation laws on the books. Of those states, Florida is the only one where a roadblock occurs if the former inmate already had a felony conviction on his record.

Norman Wolfinger, the state attorney in Brevard County, said in a letter to the Legislature that while there isn’t enough evidence to convict Dillon again, lawmakers should consider that his innocence isn’t proven, either.”

It might charitably be argued that after that gaffe, Wolfinger became gun-shy about prosecuting. Something seems to have given him a strong motive for causing George Zimmerman not to be arrested in the shooting, even for manslaughter. Wolfinger, as has been reported, showed up at the Sanford police station in person that night.

Norman Wolfinger

Accuracy is always good news. Recent days have brought out the full 911 call by George Zimmerman, which makes clear that Zimmerman said not only “he looks black” about Trayvon Martin, but also that he said Martin looked suspicious, etc. Zimmerman’s loose statement in the call, accusing Martin of being on something, helps explain why the Sanford police tested the body of Trayvon Martin for drugs and alcohol although the initial police report has negatives for ‘drug related’ and ‘alcohol related’. Too bad NBC edited that 911 call wrong, for which the network has apologized.

The new, cleaned up and sharper images in the police video of George Zimmerman help, too. The newly released video clearly shows a cut or scrape on the back top of Zimmerman’s head. The injury is clearly not extensive.

So, a question: Could the cut on the head have been done with an aluminum beverage can? If George Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon Martin—macho-style, clutching the hoodie at the throat—it would have been natural for the seventeen-year-old to swing at him with whatever he had in his hands. The Skittles bag wouldn’t be much help, but the can would have some clout. So, along with the bloody nose from being punched, in this reconstruction, if Zimmerman grappled with the young man, Trayvon Martin might have swung at his head. If Martin did so, theoretically Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law would protect him—unless it turns out that the law applies only to white people.

 

Trayvon Martin

A call placed to Zimmerman’s attorney Hal Uhrig has not yet been returned.

Rightwing web sites have publicized widely the item that George Zimmerman registered to vote as a Democrat. They are less eager to notice that the weather that evening was hoodie weather.

Were George Zimmerman’s bloodied nose—assuming it was bloodied—and head examined for a match to the iced tea can?

Was the iced tea can bagged as evidence? One of the worrisome aspects of the police video is that it shows police casually tossing George Zimmerman’s jacket into the trunk of the police vehicle, unbagged. But in any case, was the iced tea can examined for George Zimmerman’s DNA as well as for Trayvon Martin’s? Were any fingerprints on it besides Martin’s?

One of the clearer pieces of evidence the public has in this case is the recorded 911 call with screaming the background. I find that call painful to listen to but have listened to it carefully. The voice crying out in the background sounds like a young person, a high schooler, not like a man in his late twenties.

Another of the clearer items in evidence is George Zimmerman’s initial 911 call. Setting aside exactly what language Zimmerman used—something I have not been able to hear clearly—after the expletive, the rest of the exchange is clear. Zimmerman told police, in answer to their question, that he was following Trayvon Martin. The police then told Zimmerman, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman then answered, “Okay.”

Why? Why did George Zimmerman say “Okay” when police tried to get him to stay away from Martin? Was he so convinced that Martin would “get away,” as he put it—[they] “always get away”–that he simply resolved to stay close to him even though the rest of the call makes clear that police were on their way to meet up with Zimmerman?

“Shit, he’s running.”

As noted previously, none of the public statements in George Zimmerman’s defense have come from Zimmerman himself. They have been conveyed secondhand, if that, by Joe Oliver—who will no longer serve as the family’s media consultant—or by Zimmerman’s father and brother. Neither of the latter has made a credible statement to the media.

Now, the family has new representation and will put up a web site to aid in the defense and fund-raising. Attorney Hal Uhrig made the following statement:

“We pray for both the Martin and Zimmerman families for what this incident has caused in suffering,” said Uhrig. “We are confident that George Zimmerman, after being vindicated and exonerated, will continue to feel remorse, not for his justified actions but for the unintended consequences.”

What are the unintended consequences? Is this meant to suggest that the death was unintentional?

That brings to mind another question: If George Zimmerman was shooting only to defend himself against an unarmed man, why didn’t he shoot the person in the leg, or in the foot, or in the arm?

Transcript excerpt from panel yesterday: Tucker Carlson on GOP and evangelicals

Transcript excerpt from panel yesterday, Tucker Carlson on GOP and evangelicals

 

Carlson on air

From the transcripts:

Copyright 2006 National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
All Rights Reserved
NBC News Transcripts

SHOW: The Chris Matthews Show Various Times NBC

October 8, 2006 Sunday

LENGTH: 3972 words

HEADLINE: Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Andrew Sullivan of The New Republic and MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell and Tucker Carlson discuss Foley scandal, war on Iraq, woman like Hillary Clinton as American president and their scoops and predictions

ANCHORS: CHRIS MATTHEWS

REPORTERS: TUCKER CARLSON, NORAH O’DONNELL

BODY: . . . [discussion of the Mark Foley scandal with high school pages]

Mr. SULLIVAN: This–and I think Norah’s right. The real theme here is abuse of power, and so it ties in with corruption, the pork, the abuse of our troops in Iraq who have not been given the support they need or even a war plan to succeed.

MATTHEWS: OK, so everyone agrees here that this story, emblematic of whatever…

Mr. SULLIVAN: Just emblematic of abuse.

CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in… [emphasis added]

MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?

CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they’re beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don’t share their values.

MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?

CARLSON: That’s exactly right. It’s pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out. (Unintelligible).

MATTHEWS: OK. Where are you…

Mr. SULLIVAN: The right is right to be mad about this. They have been duped by these people, and now they’re venting and they have every right to vent.

 

[further discussion on other issues]