Mediaboss Marketing

Of course Hillary Rodham Clintons health is a legitimate issue for the 2016 election.

So is Donald Trumps. So is Gary Johnsons. So is that of any presidential candidate.

Mrs. Clintons media allies (which is to say, the media, more or less) are circling the wagons on this issue, and it is curious.

The Washington Posts Chris Cillizza made an unpersuasive attempt to explain why it was legitimate to treat John McCains health as a campaign issue in 2008 but illegitimate to do the same with Herself in 2016. McCain, he points out, would have been 72 years old at the time of his election, the oldest person ever elected to the office; Herself will, if elected in November, be a sprightly...69 years of age. McCain bore the scars of Vietnam and Arizona: He was grievously wounded and tortured by the Vietnamese, and he suffers from a recurring melanoma, which necessitates occasional trips to the doctor to have a patch of dodgy skin removed. Skin cancer is no joke, but millions of Americans live with melanoma of the sort McCain has with very little effect on their lives other than inconvenience.

Mrs. Clinton, in spite of her probably fictitious attempt to join the military, was never a prisoner of war, nor does she, so far as any record made public shows, suffer from cancer or any other chronic condition.

Still, she is not exactly the picture of health. As Cillizza notes, she suffered a concussion as a result of an unfortunate tendency to fall down, purportedly stemming from an upset stomach. There is at least one thing that leaps to mind that causes both digestive revolt and falling on ones ass, and it is whispered that Mrs. Clinton drinks immoderately, though there is no evidence that this is in fact the case. She sometimes requires a helper step to get into the SUVs that whisk her hither and yon in her pursuit of the presidency.

RELATED: My Brain Injury Made Me Forget, but My Health Is Not an Issue!

Mrs. Clinton is also remarkably forgetful: During a midsummer interview with FBI agents investigating her furtive and illegal e-mail practices, Mrs. Clinton used the words I cannot recall or similar formulations more than 40 times. Doctor Johnson once remarked that the prospect of being hanged concentrates the mind wonderfully, and perhaps it is the case that the prospect of being brought up on federal charges related to the handling of classified material has the opposite effect, producing a kind of special-purpose dementia.

Mrs. Clinton of course inspires the conspiracy kooks, an effect that is very much amplified by the fact that her opponent in 2016 is a big-league conspiracy kook leading a team of minor-league conspiracy kooks. Louis Brandeis was absolutely correct about sunlights being the best disinfectant, but Mrs. Clinton is a creature of the shade. Given her history of rampant, craven, deep, broad, sustained, overarching, continuous, relentless dishonesty about practically every aspect of her personal and public lives, is it really so implausible that shed lie about her health? No. Shed lie about her health even if there were nothing to lie about, just to keep in practice.

RELATED: Proverbial Sins

Of course reporters and her political opponents should dig into questions related to Mrs. Clintons health. We can be sure that her research staff was not in the least bit assuaged by that hugely entertaining letter from Donald Trumps personal physician, which stopped just short of declaring kryptonite the candidates only weakness.

Gary Johnson, like the man Hillary Clinton was not named for, has climbed Mount Everest (theres getting high, and then theres getting high) and is in remarkable condition for a 63-year-old man.

On the other hand, Winston Churchill drank Pol Roger like it was his job, lit up a hell of a lot more blunts on the average day than Gary Johnson does, and maintained a diet that would have horrified Michelle Obama, but he was one of the greatest leaders in modern history and lived to be 90 years old.

If the president of the United States of America were limited to his proper role chief executive of the federal bureaucracies and commander in chief in times of war then we might not worry too much about his health. Indeed, if ever we are able to reinvigorate this republic and return its public and private spheres to their proper roles and proportions, that will be one of the ways we know weve succeeded: Dont worry if President Smith dies in office; well just get another one.

Is Mrs. Clinton as sickly as some say? Or is she just a dotty old bat of the ordinary sort? We can be absolutely sure that we will not get the truth of it from Mrs. Clinton, and we can be reasonably sure that we will not get the truth of it from reporters and editors who have renounced all curiosity on the question.

Mrs. Clintons health is a legitimate issue, even if it offends the tender sensibilities of the Washington Post.

Kevin D. Williamson is National Reviews roving correspondent.

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clintons Health Is a Legitimate Campaign Issue ...

Hillary Clintons health has deteriorated to the point that she now travels with an ambulance in her motorcade.

Now it has been revealed that Clinton also has an ambulance traveling in her local motorcades. All the while, the democratic nominee has refused the notion that she is suffering from any debilitating illness, even though it has been quite apparent for some time.

An ambulance is a part of Hillarys motorcade, which underscores the candidates major health issues.

In a video by Infowars correspondent Millie Weaver, an ambulance is seen following behind Hillarys campaign bus with its lights on, indicating its part of Hillarys motorcade as she visited Cleveland, Ohio on Labor Day weekend.

A Secret Service source also told Infowars that Hillary has major neurological health problems which could be linked to Parkinsons or a similar disease.

Hillarys campaign also keeps Hillary away from the press because camera flashes can cause her seizures, the source stated, adding that a half-million dollars was spent to adapt three SUVs with lowered floods and disabled access to prevent Hillary from tripping.

Hillarys attempts to ignore the constant media scrutiny of her health are no longer working, and now that her symptoms are on full display of her traveling press corps, we can only expect the excuses and charade to become more bold.

You can read more here.

Read more here:
Hillary Travels With Ambulance As Health Worsens - Patriot ...

That drubbing is similar to Mitt Romney's dominant performance over President Barack Obama in the first 2012 presidential debate.

Voters who watched said Clinton expressed her views more clearly than Trump and had a better understanding of the issues by a margin of more than 2-to-1. Clinton also was seen as having done a better job addressing concerns voters might have about her potential presidency by a 57% to 35% margin, and as the stronger leader by a 56% to 39% margin.

The gap was smaller on which candidate appeared more sincere and authentic, though still broke in Clinton's favor, with 53% saying she was more sincere vs. 40% who felt Trump did better on that score. Trump topped Clinton 56% to 33% as the debater who spent more time attacking their opponent.

Although the survey suggested debate watchers were more apt to describe themselves as Democrats than the overall pool of voters, even independents who watched deemed Clinton the winner, 54% vs. 33% who thought Trump did the best job in the debate.

And the survey suggests Clinton outperformed the expectations of those who watched. While pre-debate interviews indicated these watchers expected Clinton to win by a 26-point margin, that grew to 35 points in the post-debate survey.

About half in the poll say the debate did not have an effect on their voting plans, 47% said it didn't make a difference, but those who say they were moved by it tilted in Clinton's direction, 34% said the debate made them more apt to vote for Clinton, 18% more likely to back Trump.

On the issues, voters who watched broadly say Clinton would do a better job handling foreign policy, 62% to 35%, and most think she would be the better candidate to handle terrorism, 54% to 43% who prefer Trump. But on the economy, the split is much closer, with 51% saying they favor Clinton's approach vs. 47% who prefer Trump.

Most debate watchers came away from Monday's face-off with doubts about Trump's ability to handle the presidency. Overall, 55% say they didn't think Trump would be able to handle the job of president, 43% said they thought he would. Among political independents who watched the debate, it's a near-even split, 50% say he can handle it, 49% that he can't.

And voters who watched were more apt to see Trump's attacks on Clinton as unfair than they were to see her critiques that way. About two-thirds of debate viewers, 67%, said Clinton's critiques of Trump were fair, while just 51% said the same of Trump.

Assessments of Trump's attacks on Clinton were sharply split by gender, with 58% of men seeing them as fair compared with 44% of women who watched on Monday. There was almost no gender divide in perceptions of whether Clinton's attacks were fair.

The CNN/ORC post-debate poll includes interviews with 521 registered voters who watched the September 26 debate. Results among debate-watchers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Respondents were originally interviewed as part of a September 23-25 telephone survey of a random sample of Americans, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over.

Continued here:
Post-debate poll: Hillary Clinton takes round one ...

By Gerard J. Gianoli, M.D.-

I've encountered some interesting responses to my several articles on Hillary's health. While I am a physician, Ive never proclaimed a diagnosis in her case. I have simply asked if two of her known diagnosesher concussion of 2012 and the left transverse sinus thrombosis (blood clot in the brain)have been assessed for long-term consequences. What I have asked for, and I am still waiting for, is some medical records reporting on whether she has any of the well-known, long-term sequelae of these two potentially life-threatening disorders with well-known, often permanent cognitive impairments.

Most of the responses to my editorials have been favorable. However, the negative responses are actually more helpful, and they reveal a lot about those who write them. There are basically five different themes.

First: It's nothing. She's completely normal and healthy. This is just a right-wing conspiracy.

This remark cant even be made with a straight face by the Clinton campaign since her collapse after spending 90 minutes hanging out at the 9/11 memorial ceremony. It is an even harder sell since last Mondays speech at Temple University where Mrs. Clinton had to be helped up a few steps to the dais and then, during her speech, displayed crazy eye movements that are most consistent with a lateral rectus palsyweakness of one of the eye muscles. Even if we ignore the recurring medical episodes she has had frequently (according to her husband), the concussion, the transverse sinus thrombosis, the deep vein thromboses, or the fact that a healthy patient does not have to take Coumadin the rest of their life, the eye movements are potentially ominous on their own. Im still waiting for a serious physician (not paid by the Clintons and not ideologically blind) to put his reputation on the line by sayingshes completely normal and healthy.

Second: Privacy laws are such that it is unethical for a physician to say anything about Hillary's health.

Mrs. Clinton is not my patient and therefore I am not obligated to Mrs. Clinton is any way regarding discussion of her health. However, Dr. Lisa Bardack is Mrs. Clintons private physician. Consequently, Dr. Bardack cannot make any comments about Mrs. Clintons health without Mrs. Clintons consent. If Mrs. Clinton wants Dr. Bardack to make a statement about pneumonia but not about any neurocognitive testing she may have undergone, then Dr. Bardack has an ethical and legal requirement to not discuss any of the neurocognitive testing. If Mrs. Clinton were to tell untruths about her medical problems, Dr. Bardack cannot legally speak out to correct the record. Dr. Bardacks letters are approved directly by Mrs. Clinton.

Third: A doctor should never speculate about a diagnosis of someone he's never seen or examined personally.

This is utter nonsense. Ive never speculated about her diagnoses. Theyve been given to us by Mrs. Clinton and her doctor. Ive only asked what are the consequences of these diagnoses. Both concussion and transverse sinus thrombosis have known long-term negative consequences for cognitive function. It is not out of place to ask whether Mrs. Clinton has any residual cognitive dysfunction from these problems.

I contend, however, that it is more than acceptable to speculate about Mrs. Clintons medical diagnosis. I think it is important for physicians to speak out about this. Mrs. Clinton has been less than forthcoming about her medical problems, and her reticence to a full release of her medical records suggests to the public that she is hiding something. For a private individual, this would be fine. But she is applying for the job of Commander-in-Chief. If she will not disclose the problem, we need physicians to let the public know what are the possibilities of her disability.

Fourth: This is a non-issue. The public doesnt care about it.

The media has reported on polls that claim the majority of the voting public think Mrs. Clinton is healthy enough to do the job of president. Of course, those polls ignore the fact that the majority of the voting public does not even know Mrs. Clinton has any medical problems. In a recent poll, when registered voters were asked if they knew Mrs. Clinton had any medical problems, roughly half did not. However, if they did know, most would be less likely to vote for herand that concern crossed party lines.

Fifth: You're exactly right and I agree with you, but I don't want to speak out and get harassed by the Trump-haters.

That one says it all, doesnt it? Physicians have been bullied into silence.

My final diagnosis of Mrs. Clintons health problems can be summed up in her own quote: What difference, at this point, does it make? We know that she has medical episodes that are frequent (Bill Clinton), not frequent, rare (Bill Clinton), or a couple of times, I cant remember how many (Hillary Clinton) that leave her completely incapacitated for a period of time. They are frequent enough that she travels with a nurse and the Secret Service does not rush her to the hospital when they occuras after the 9/11 event. Should we elect a candidate that we know will not be responsive to the needs of the presidency on a regular basis? I think not.

________

About the author/contributor:

Gerard Gianoli, M.D., F.A.C.S. specializes in Neuro-otology and Skull Base Surgery. He is in private practice at The Ear and Balance Institute, located in Covington, Louisiana but is also a Clinical Associate Professor in the Departments of Otolaryngology and Pediatrics at Tulane University School of Medicine. He pioneered treatments for Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence and other vestibular disorders. His private practice has a worldwide reach, with patient referrals coming from all over the United States and from around the world. His research interests include the diagnosis of increased intracranial pressure and was co-investigator in aNASA study, which led the use of a non-invasive device for intracranial pressure monitoring on the international space station.

Dr. Gianoli opted out of Medicare in 2001 and has had a 100% third-party-free practice since 2005. Hes lectured and written extensively (as well as had numerous media interviews) on third party free medical practices and free market medicine. His editorials have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investors Business Daily, The Hill and other popular periodicals.

He has received numerous awards, including the American Academy of Otolaryngologys Honor Award, and has been named in Americas Top Doctors and Americas Top Physicians every year since their inception in 2001 and 2003 respectively. Dr. Gianoli practices all aspects of neuro-otology but has a special interest in vestibular (balance) disorders. He has researched, lectured and published extensively on the topic of vestibular disorders. Website: http://www.earandbalance.net

Made available through American Association of Physicians and Surgeons

Read more:
Skull surgeon on Hillarys Health: What difference, at ...

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been plagued by conspiracy theories throughout most of their life in the public eye, perhaps more than any other politicians in history. The Clinton BS Files are aweekly in-depth look at the stories behind some of these conspiracy theories.Readlast weeks post.

From the moment she stepped into the national spotlight during her husbands 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Clintons body has been an object of widespread scorn. Even though she was younger than her predecessor, Barbara Bush, and wore boring preppy clothes, the press was absolutely obsessed with policing the way she presented herself and generally judging her to be a failure at meeting its standards of femininity.

Hillarys hair bands: Zippy or just dippy? read a USA Today headline in February 1992. In the article, writer Elizabeth Snead negatively compared the headstrong bands to Nancys red suits or Barbaras classy pearls.

Clinton changed her hair, as many women do, repeatedly. Her critics were never satisfied. But as Sneads odd use of the word headstrong suggests, perhaps theobjection wasnt really to her hair but to the head underneath it, filled with all sorts of unwomanly impulses, such as ambition and feminism.

In the same year, Lois Romano of The Washington Post described Clinton in her early days in Arkansas as looking like an overweight, underdressed policy wonk who hadnt seen daylight for a while and said her 90s-era Talbots wife look caused some to wonder aloud if she had had plastic surgery.

And thats just the nicer things you can find. Clintonslegs were endlessly dissected, especially in the right-wing press. Even in 2008, Rush Limbaugh was blathering on about how Clinton supposedly could not cross her legs.

Denigrating womens looks is a tried-and-true way to attack them for being smart, outspoken or ambitious.

This is the context of the numerous conspiracy theories on the right about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintons heath. Claiming to believe a woman is unhealthy isa way todemean her looks under the guise of concern.

This is something fat women who put themselves in the public eye see all the time. Photos of a fat woman having fun, modeling fashionable clothes or doing important work anything, really, except hiding in their homes in shame will draw out a chorus of voices expressing concern for her health. As if she would somehow be healthier if she hid her body away where you cant see it!

You see this pattern enough and it becomes clear that these folks arent really that worried about a strangers health. Rather, they are looking for a socially acceptable way to express displeasure at women who think they have a right to exist in the world as something other than decorative but silent objects.

Something similar is going on with the supposed concerns about Clintons health. Conservatives have become aware that in todays environment open sexism can backfire on them in electoral terms. So instead of calling Clinton ugly, they have resorted torattling onabout her health.

Whats funny is that the current rumors that Clinton is sick started out as another kind of sexist urban legend that Clinton was actually faking illness.

(The stereotype about women frequently faking or exaggerating illnessis so widespreadthat it actually affects the level of medical care women get. Doctors tend to neglect women out of a belief they are faking their symptoms.)

In 2012, Clinton had to postpone her testimony before a congressional committee on Benghazi because she got dehydrated from the flu, fainted and suffered a head injury that led to concussion. Sherecovered, but the right-wing noise machine was already off with the crazed accusations abouther faking her illness. Fox News and Glenn Beck both helped push the rumors that Clintons concussion was just a little lady getting the vapors rather than facing the supposed Benghazi watchdogs.

But leave it to Karl Rove to see that there was a greater opportunity here: achance to create a conspiracy theory about Clintons health, which taps into an even darker vein of cultural misogyny.

Rove floated the idea that Clinton was suffering brain damage on Fox News shortly after her concussion. He immediately walked it back but not until the damage was done and the idea had started to burn through right-wing land. No longer did conservativesneed to carry on about her having thick legs or bad hair. Now they can just say she looks tired and claim that they are just,you know, concerned.

The ridiculous conspiracy theories floating around about Clintons health are too numerous to recount here, but heres a sampling: Clinton comically faking a double take was really her having a seizure. Or there are leaked medical records showing that Clinton has brain damage. Or she has Parkinsons disease.

Oodles of right-wing bloggers are obsessed with a Secret Service agentwho works with Clinton a lot and who they claim is a secret health care worker there to rush in with a shot if she has a seizure.

The biggest proponent of that last one isMike Cernovich, who helped organize the anti-feminist harassment campaign known as Gamergate and is one of thosebizarre self-help gurus pushing a chest-thumping, woman-hating version of masculinity. (Tom Cruises character in Magnolia is a dead-on parody of the subculture, which includes the self-styled pick-up artists as well.)

It is not a coincidence that someone so immersed in misogyny and toxic masculinity is obsessed with the Clinton health conspiracy theory. Its just furtherproofthat concerns about womens health are a coded way to attack women for being ambitious and in the public eye.

In the United States, powerful women who make bids for education, status and position have long been seen as sick: weak, sterile, overweight, ugly or broken, Rebecca Onion recently wrote in Slate. For instance, she said, in the 19th century, opponents of college education for women argued that it would damage womens health and fertility.

In early 20th-century American and English debates over womens suffrage, anti-suffrage propaganda depicted suffragists as overweight, ugly and mannish their bodies and faces physically reflecting their own unnatural sentiments, Onion continues.

That strategy continues today.

Does Feminism Make Women Ugly? asked a 2015 headline at Breitbart.

The author,Milo Yiannopoulos, believes the answer is yes: Merely embracing feminism has the power to distort a womans body, he argued, and somehow damages her health and femininity.

So the research suggests that relentlessly assertive women, particularlywomen in positions of authority, are unwittingly throwing their hormones out of whack, Yiannopoulos wrote.

His link supposedly proving this goes toa story about how adopting a confident posture can make both men and womenfeel temporarily more confident. There is not a single word in there about permanent changes to physiology or even any indication that its unnatural for women to feel confident.

Higher testosterone levels can producedramatic changes, most noticeablyto a womans face.Muscle mass and distribution can shift and hair grows faster and more thickly, Yiannopoulos wrote, with a confidence that is inversely proportional to the actual evidence he has for this malarkey.

High on the smell of his own bullshit, Yiannopoulos even ventured to speculate that feminism can change a womans bone structure.

(Full disclosure: Im one of the women whose hormone levels Yiannopoulos, uh, diagnoses, with a photo from 2009.)

This isnt just nut picking, unfortunately. The misogynist trope equating feminism with ill health has percolated into mainstream discourse, through the great orange conduit known as Donald Trump. The notoriously misogynist Republican presidential nomineehas been hitting this conspiracy theoryhard on the campaign trail, accusing Clinton of not having stamina and letting peoples ability to use Google do the rest.

Because the mainstream media all too often lets Trump lead them by the nose, these accusations have caused journalists to swarm like locusts at the smallest hint that Clinton isunder the weather. It turned out she had a mild case of pneumoniaand rather than own up to the shame of letting paranoid misogynists shape your coverage, many journalists have tried to blame Clinton for the whole episode, accusing her of hiding stuff from them because she didnt publicize her initial diagnosis.

Watching self-evidently silly right-wing nonsense gain traction in the mainstream media is depressing, but this history of obsessing over the bodies of feminists and over Hillary Clintons especially shows why conservative propagandists like Rove were right in thinking this could take off. The belief that ambition is unnatural and therefore unhealthy for women runs deep. It didnt take much tickling for the sexistimpulses lurking under our countrys veneer of decency to come erupting out.

Read more:
The Clinton BS files: Conspiracy theories about Hillarys ...