Assuming that she doesn't have anything more wrong with her than the pneumonia, she'll still be hurt because this plays into the image everyone has of her to whom mendacity is the natural state of affairs.
For example, John Hinderaker points to her story about men insulting her when she took the LSAT for possibly taking their spot and forcing them to be drafted instead.
My friend and I were some of the only women in the room.
Oh, come on. Hillary was a senior during the 1968-1969 school year, and presumably took the LSAT in the fall of 1968. Women were not exactly pioneers in the law business at that time. Seven percent of the first year law class of 1969 was female, a percentage that rose rapidly over the next few years.
I was feeling nervous. I was a senior in college. I wasn’t sure how well I’d do. And while we’re waiting for the exam to start, a group of men began to yell things like: ‘You don’t need to be here.’ And ‘There’s plenty else you can do.’ It turned into a real ‘pile on.’
I don’t believe this. It was just two years later when I took the LSAT, at Dartmouth, and it is inconceivable to me that men shouted such things at women who showed up to take the test anywhere in 1968, let alone at Harvard. This is an after-the-fact fantasy of the supposedly horrible pre-feminist days.
Now we come to the demonstrable lie:
One of them even said: ‘If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam, and I’ll die.’ And they weren’t kidding around. It was intense. It got very personal.
When I first read this, I thought it was ridiculous. College students got deferments during the Vietnam era, but graduate students, including law students, didn’t. Hillary’s account made no sense. Ann Coulter corrected my memory: there was a time when graduate students were immune from the draft, but that era was over before Hillary took the LSAT....
So the climax of Hillary’s story: “If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam”–is a lie. Trust me, anyone taking the LSAT in the fall of 1968 knew exactly what the law was on draft deferments for graduate school.
Katherine Timpf is exactly right about all the hoo-ha over Gary Johnson not knowing what Aleppo was. If that is disqualifying then both Trump and Clinton should also be disqualified. She quotes from an interview from last summer when Trump didn't know what Brexit was. He didn't know the Quds force or what the nuclear triad is. And then there is Hillary's supposed ignorance of classification markings or that potential drone strikes should be considered classified.
It’s one thing to say you think that Johnson is, overall, unqualified, and to support Trump or Clinton instead. But if you’re saying that it’s his Aleppo flub in itself that disqualifies him? Well, in that case, you logically can’t support either of the other two — because the standard you yourself have set would disqualify your preferred candidate as well. It’s one thing to acknowledge a bad moment; but to make it the news of the day? To consider it a “disqualifying moment,” given the gaffes and records of the two major candidates? Johnson’s gaffe was bad, sure, but you cannot look at the big picture and think the response to it was fair.
Sean Davis recommends that the Clinton campaign hire better liars.
Let’s take a look at all the different, and contradictory, explanations we’ve had for Hillary Clinton’s health problems over the last week, going back to her nearly unwatchable coughing attack on September 5:While some Democrats like Cokie Roberts muse about the Democrats pushing Hillary out and bringing in someone less compromised, I was thinking of the support the Democrats showed Bill Clinton to block his conviction after being impeached. At the time, I thought they were making a political mistake because they could have brought in Al Gore as president which would have helped him win in 2000. Running as the incumbent president who helped focus the government's attention after the impeachment would have probably been enough to help him win, especially with how the economy was at that time. Instead they circled the wagons and lost in 2000. And now, if the Democrats pushed Hillary out and brought in someone else like Joe Biden or Tim Kaine, I think they would win in a walk. The only reason Donald Trump is even in this race is because Hillary is such an awful candidate.
1) She’s fine.
2) Okay, maybe she coughed a little, but it’s just allergies.
3) Calm down, she just tripped at that 9/11 memorial event.
4) Okay, maybe she didn’t exactly trip, but she overheated because it was so hot outside.
5) Okay, maybe it was only 79 degrees and she was in the shade, but she was totally dehydrated and stuff.
6) On second thought, she has a really bad case of pneumonia.
7) Actually, she’s “feeling great” now and not contagious so we’re going to make a spectacle of her hugging a kid in the street.
8) Yeah, about that not contagious thing: the whole campaign pretty much caught the plague from Hillary.
9) Hillary Clinton feels so great right now that her campaign just canceled two days of events.
10) She’s fine.
....When your lies contradict each other and reality, that’s a pretty good sign that you’re a really bad liar.
Kindle Deals up to 80% off
Today's Best Deals
Deal of the Day in Books
When you hear Hillary talk about how much she cares about college students, just remember how much she and her family charge students for the privilege of being in their presence.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has come under fire from college students for charging hundreds of dollars just to attend a “Conversation with Chelsea” event.
Penny-pinching students from Penn State University had little hope on Wednesday of engaging in a “conversation” with Mrs. Clinton’s daughter since attendance alone cost $500. A photo with the former secretary of state’s daughter could be obtained with $1,000 donation and access to a special reception required $2,700.
I guess Hillary set a pattern for future secretaries of state to follow to funnel money to relatives.
More than $9 million of Department of State money has been funneled through the Peace Corps to a nonprofit foundation started and run by Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.The project could be very worthwhile and be doing fabulous work. But why award it non-competitively? Do other nonprofits get that treatment? Not from what I know about other groups funded by the State Department from people I know who work in nonprofits getting money from State. If it were all aboveboard, wouldn't they bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of corruption? Apparently not.
The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.
Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group – now called Seed Global Health – with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.
Seed secured a four-year extension in September 2015, again without competition. This time, the Peace Corps gave the nonprofit $6.4 million provided by the Department of State while John Kerry was secretary of state.
It’s unclear when that modification was added, but Kerry drew a salary from Seed for the first time in 2014. She was the only officer listed on the nonprofit’s 990 tax form to receive compensation – some $140,000 for a reported 30 hours per week.
Discussion about the $6.4 million extension also provides questionable details. Peace Corps officials noted that contracts could not extend beyond five years and considered competing the next award, but decided they would “go forward with sole-source option if mandated by OGAC,” minutes from a July 17, 2014 meeting said.
Ultimately, the extension was awarded without competition on Sept. 10, 2015. It’s unclear why the Peace Corps violated its five-year policy by giving Seed seven years of non-competitively awarded funding.
Mollie Hemingway contrasts the way the media cover Trump's attitude toward Russia and the way they cover Democrats and Russia.
Remember all the way back to four years ago when Romney said Russia was our greatest geopolitical foe? The context was that President Barack Obama had been caught on a hot mic being very convivial with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev “This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev said in response, “I understand you. I transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”She cites several examples from the MSM chiding Romney for his Cold War-approach to Russia. It's quite a contrast to his year when it's the Republican who is talking about having good relations with Putin and Hillary jumps all over that.
This alarmingly friendly posture toward Russia was pooh-poohed by many in the media. In fact, in the very interview in which Romney made his comments about Russia, Wolf Blitzer defended the president. “That is a factual statement that the president is making. If he doesn’t have to worry getting reelected, he doesn’t have to worry so much about domestic politics.” But then he asked, “Is there anything wrong in – when in comes to national security issues, to be saying something like that to the Russian leader?”
Does the New York Times find Hillary Clinton’s comments reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender? Do they display a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs, or just craven politics?I happen to agree with Romney in 2012 and Hillary today. There. That isn't hard.
The U.S. relationship with Russia and its authoritarian strongman Vlad Putin is complicated. I’m not even talking about Hillary Clinton signing off on a Russian company with many ties to the Clinton Foundation taking over 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves. I’m not talking about her embarrassing multi-layered failure to “reset” our relationship with Russia. Some see the country as a menacing threat that seeks world domination and some see it as a potentially valuable partner in the fight against global Islamism. Some see it as both.
But whatever one’s views on Russia, they shouldn’t change diametrically depending on whether a Republican or Democrat is talking about them.
And if the New York Times is going to flip out over Trump’s lack of concern about Russia, perhaps they could at least do so after a heartfelt apology for their unseemly and indefensible role in unfairly tearing down Mitt Romney in 2012.
Jazz Shaw points to a story that the Clintons had ties to Russian oligarchs when she was Secretary of State, but that didn't seem to alarm the media.
New emails show Clinton Foundation staff pushed Hillary Clinton's State Department to approve a meeting between Bill Clinton and a powerful Russian oligarch as her agency lined up investors for a project under his purview.The story goes on to demonstrate how Vekselberg and his investors were giving money to the Clinton Foundation and giving money to Bill Clinton for speeches while the State Department was working to find investors for his project. The media should be asking her about those contacts and why, if Putin is so terrible, how does she explain these interactions and the money going to her husband?
The Clintons' relationship with Viktor Vekselberg, the billionaire whose name appears in the documents, has taken on new significance amid an expanding criminal investigation into his company. Last week, authorities raided the offices of Vekselberg's firm, Renova Group, following allegations of bribery from several of Renova's subsidiaries.
Vekselberg had been named head of a partnership dubbed the "Russian Silicon Valley" just three months before a Clinton Foundation employee began pushing the State Department to approve Bill Clinton's proposed meeting with Vekselberg and a handful of other Russian executives....
Vekselberg's Renova Group has donated between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show. Another firm associated with Vekselberg, OC Oerlikon, donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Renova's interests in mining, oil and telecommunications have helped Vekselberg become one of Russia's wealthiest individuals and an influential figure within the Kremlin.
Best Deals in Auto Parts
Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming
Deals in Jewelry
Michael Barone questions how Obama's "fundamental transformation" of the country is working out for us.
Consider Obamacare. "Insurers are pulling out of exchanges and premiums are rising," as Bloomberg's Megan McArdle writes. Fewer people are uninsured, but mostly because they're shoved into bare bones Medicaid-type plans, which some studies indicate don't improve health outcomes. We may be seeing death spirals, with higher premiums making healthy people drop coverage until only the very sick buy policies.And then there is the main foreign policy accomplishment of the Obama presidency.
One reason for Obamacare's problems is that it was jammed through Congress in defiance of public opinion and contrary to legislative regular order. The public, speaking through the unlikely medium of the voters of Massachusetts, made clear their views when Scott Brown won a January 2010 special election after promising to cast a decisive vote against Obamacare.
That left Democrats with no ideal options. In December the Senate, with Democrats' 60-vote supermajority, had passed a placeholder measure with plenty of wrinkles to be ironed out. With the 60th vote gone, their options were to jam that bill through a reluctant House or to drop back and negotiate with Republicans on a more limited alternative.
Politicians have to act without the luxury of knowing the future. Obama, at the urging of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, decided to push ahead, in the hopes that after the bill was passed and (as Pelosi said) people learned what was in it, it would be popular. Don't people always want more free stuff?
Not necessarily, it turns out. Obamacare has been tested in hundreds of polls since it became law in March 2010. In just about everyone, pluralities and usually majorities have expressed negative feelings about the law. That helped Republicans win majorities in the House in 2010, 2012 and 2014, majorities unwilling to improve the law in ways Democrats would like.
Obama's gamble that the law would work as he hoped and promised has failed to date. Health insurance markets and healthcare delivery have been transformed, but not fundamentally and not sustainably. Mark him incomplete, at best.
It's part of his basic approach of spurning traditional allies and courting traditional enemies.Are you starting to sense a trend? Obama wants to do something that does not have the support of the American people and he uses gimmicks to force it through. And then no one should be surprised at the disaster that results.
Sometimes this works: friends stay friendly, enemies change course. But Iran's mullah regime has certainly not done so to date. In lengthy negotiations it extracted concession after concession that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry had said they'd never make. They even got secret approval of transfers — in cash! — of at least $400 million and apparently $1.3 billion more.
It's plain, however, that Iran's extremists have not given up on their goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, deliverable to Israel, India, Europe and maybe beyond. The best the deal's defenders can say is that it delays the process.
The Iran deal lacked and lacks majority support from the public and in Congress. To prevent a congressional veto, Obama Democrats pushed through an unusual procedure which reversed the constitutional requirement of two-thirds Senate approval for treaties. Now it just needed one-third.
Now the FBI is saying Congress has to file FOIA requests to get more information on Clinton's emails instead of responding to a subpoena. I guess they figure they can thumb their noses at Congress with impunity.
Spring Savings in Grocery and Gourmet Food Groceries under $10
Best Deals in Pet Supplies Office and School Supplies
The list of things people are choosing to find offensive seems to grow exponentially.Now saying "you guys" is a microaggression or, pardon me, a "microinvalidation." And you better not imply that everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough. You know - what used to be considered the American dream is now a microaggression.
Marlowe, an attorney by trade with a degree from laughably terrible Golden Gate University, instructed wide-eyed new freshmen not to say “you guys” because some women might feel left out.
It’s also a “microaggression,” Marlowe pontificated, to advance the theory that “everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” Equating hard work with success is a “microinvalidation” because it implies that race is not the central feature of human life which controls individual destiny.
Don't you just hate it when you step outside and you get hit in the face by a catfish?
Sometimes you eat the catfish, and sometimes the catfish falls from the sky and smacks you in the face.
Lisa Lobree learned that lesson Labor Day morning when she was walking to meet her CoreFitness class near the Art Museum, heard a "rustling" in the trees, and then -.
"Suddenly I was slammed by something," Lobree recalled Friday. "I was like, 'What?!' I was freaking out."
The injuries: Minor. The trauma: Immeasurable. The theory: A bird was flying with the fish in its mouth and accidentally dropped it. On her face.