Karl Rove: Hillary Clinton Has Brain Damage
Karl Rove claims that Hillary Clinton has brain damage http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/12/foxs-karl-rove-reportedly-claims-hillary-clinto/199277 http://pagesix.com/2014/05/12/karl-rove-hill...
By: David Pakman Show
Read the original here:
Karl Rove: Hillary Clinton Has Brain Damage - Video
Hillary Clinton has tried to steer clear of partisan fights while considering a second bid for the Oval Office.
Karl Rove just changed that.
The mastermind behind George W. Bushs two presidential victories drew Clinton back into hand-to-hand political combat by raising a question about her health.
Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, shes wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? Rove said, referring to Clintons 2012 fall, concussion and subsequent diagnosis of a blood clot, according to a New York Post report. We need to know whats up with that.
Clintons camp didnt hesitate to fire back. Karl Rove has deceived the country for years, but there are no words for this level of lying, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill, a former State Department official, said in a statement.
She is 100 percent, Merrill added. Period.
Since Clinton resigned from the State Department in February 2013, her aides have declined to respond to most Republican attacks, preferring not to engage in campaign-style rapid response for a boss who insists she hasnt made up her mind about whether to run.
Two prospective presidential Republican rivals have taken shots at her. Florida Senator Marco Rubio gave her an F as secretary of state. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul raised the specter of Monica Lewinsky. And just this week, Rush Limbaugh said she didnt designate Boko Haram, the group that kidnapped more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls, as a terrorist organization because many of the groups members are black. None of it was enough to get a real rise out of Clinton.
The difference between Roves comments and the others, said one Democratic strategist who does not work for Clinton, is that health problems could disqualify a presidential candidate in the minds of voters.
For that reason, Clinton had to respond quickly and forcefully about her health, said the strategist, who asked not to be identified talking about a potential political vulnerability of a possible Democratic presidential candidate.
Originally posted here:
Rove Draws Clinton Back Into Fray With Health Remarks
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(CNN) -- Karl Rove's suggestion that Hillary Clinton suffers from a brain injury is coming under attack.
Rove, the mastermind behind George W. Bush's two presidential election victories, appeared at a conference last Thursday, where he discussed a 2012 incident that sent the then-secretary of state to the hospital, according to the New York Post's Page Six, the newspaper's well-known gossip column.
"Thirty days in the hospital?" asked Rove, a Fox News Channel contributor, according to the report. "And when she reappears, she's wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what's up with that."
Clinton, who's seriously considering a second bid for the White House, suffered a blood clot in December 2012, after falling. After first going to the hospital for testing, Clinton later was admitted for a three-day stay at a hospital in New York City.
Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight
Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight
Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight
Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight
Hillary Clinton's career in the spotlight
Read more:
Rove hints Clinton has brain damage
Clinton, 66 and the presumptive Democratic front-runner for the 2016 presidential race, was admitted to hospital in New York for three days to treat a concussion and blood clot she suffered in the fall, and which prevented her from testifying at the time about the deadly attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Rove's comments could be seen as a bid to inject the question of Clinton's health and whether she is physically and mentally prepared for another gruelling presidential run into the conversation about 2016.
Clinton's team quickly rejected Rove's comments.
"Karl Rove has deceived the country for years, but there are no words for this level of lying," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said.
As to her health, "she is 100 per cent. Period."
Several Republicans had assailed Clinton for possibly exaggerating the seriousness of her condition in order to avoid testifying before Congress about the deadly September 11, 2012 attack.
In January 2013, she testified for seven hours about the crisis.
Clinton testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (AFP)
On Tuesday, Rove insisted he never said Clinton might have brain damage, as Page Six suggested.
"I never used that phrase," Rove told Fox News.
Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton '100 per cent' healthy after Karl Rove 'brain damage claim'
Remember Justine Sacco, the PR exec who famously tweeted, Going to Africa. Hope I dont get AIDS. Just kidding. Im white! before hopping aboard a flight to South Africa last December? The tweet went viral while she was airborne and, by the time she landed, half the planet thought she was an insensitive racist jerk. Then she got fired.
But that wasnt the worst of it, not by a long shot. To this day, Googling her name generates hundreds of thousands of results that, near as I can tell, all reference her ill-conceived brush with infamy. Shell probably have to change her name to escape the episode and Googles web crawlers and indexers.
Unless, of course, Sacco moves to Europe. In its infinite wisdom, the European Union Court of Justice has ruled that people can demand that Google (GOOG) remove links in search results for their name, and the Silicon Valley company has to comply. And theres no appeal on such a ruling by the EUs highest court. This is a done deal.
Bet you didnt see that coming. I know I didnt. Apparently, neither did Google.
On the surface, it sounds reasonable enough. Youve done something dumb or somebody important posts something terrible about you, why shouldnt there be a recourse to set the record straight?
Someone who really wants to dig stuff up on you might still be able to find whatever it is youd like hidden (although, among the billions of online pages, without a search engine, Im not sure how). But why should one or two incidents dominate the first place everyone looks to find out about you and color your personal brand for all of eternity?
But when you stop and think about it, when you let the implications of this unassailable ruling sink in, the idea is so wrong and its implementation will have to be so subjective that it will undoubtedly threaten not just the integrity of the Internet the integrity of what used to be a free society.
Consider this: Should we erase an entry from the Library of Congress for any reason? We wouldnt burn any books Fahrenheit 451 style but just delete the references so we can make believe they dont exist that the events they chronicle never really happened and make everyone search through thousand of shelves to find them.
And which references to which books would we erase? The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Youve got to admit, that was some pretty evil stuff. Im sure there are white supremacy groups that would love to see that go away. How about Ball Four, the blockbuster that embarrassed Major League Baseball and tarnished Mickey Mantels pristine reputation? Or The Smartest Guys in the Room, about the Enron scandal? What about novels like Atlas Shrugged? I know an awful lot of people that would kill to see all references to Ayn Rands controversial and politically charged work simply vanish into thin air.
The EUs highest court says we all have the right to be forgotten, that events from the past however lawful and accurate their representations might be simply stop being relevant or become excessive, in time. We should all have the right to move on with our lives and let the past be forgotten. Let bygones be bygones.
See the article here:
EU's Google Ruling is Institutionalized Censorship