Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege
More of Hillary’s Phantasmagorical stories.
Another campaign gaffe by Hillary… She rambles on in a continuing trend of campaign lies.
Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.
The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”
Now if Hillary is that gullible to believe everything that she hears, she isn’t responsible enough to become President.
Oh no she’s in trouble now. The MSM, specifically ABC, is running with the story. It is not good to be Hillary again this week…
t/b: Hot Air
Tested to lie, from her early days on the impeachment jo on President Nixon, this woman, spouse of President “IS”, has been practicing lying as others drink water. The media never bothered to report how odious her conduct on the commitee was, for which she was later fired, once the President, left Washington. Her entire career is based on a charade. Inspired by a Radical Marxist, SSaul Alinsky, in Chicago, on whom she wrote ger final College paper, well hidden from the public until recently, by a sympathetic President of Wesley, she left a trail of lies where ever she went, this includes the Whitewater Scabdal, the phony one time hit on hogs on the Mercantile Exchange, the undercover work on the Health Plan, secretive conspiracy with another Lefty, Ira Magaziner, and the spooky “suicide” of Mr. Foster….I don’t have time to spend the weekend, listing the many tall tales, all the way to Tuzla…but she is not fit to serve in a diner, she could steal the other waiter’s tips. Watch out!
http://www.tinyurl.com/yjyrtn
Is it just me or has everybody else also noticed how hypocritical Hillary looks lately with that overly enthused look she manages to contrive using disproportionately enlarged eyes and an artificial, fixed smile? The whole Hillary persona seems to exude a convoluted, complex, colossal lie. I don’t think the term “ageing gracefully” has ever been a part of her vocabulary. With $109 M in my bank account and a whole bunch of fables in my repertoire to narrate, I’d happily renounce my political aspirations and go on a world-wide speaking tour, even if I can never find an audience that would care to listen to my prattles. Why America continues to give ear to Hillary’s tall tales at the expense of their valuable time really befuddles me.
As an AA who was excited to see Obama as a viable candidate early on, I am constantly amazed at the ignorant lack of civility displayed by Clinton haters. Explain to me exactly how this type of commentary is suppose to induce Clinton supporters, 50% or more of the democratic party, to vote for Obama if he is the nominee. As a matter of principles, I cannot vote for someone who wins by default, i.e, based on bias media coverage and cheerleading for one candidate over another without a fair assesment/critique of both.
Clearly, Hillary has done some things that are questionable and for which she should be taken to task, but so has Obama. The media refusal to critique him to the same level as Hillary is truly disgusting and unprofessional. Their actions as well as those of some democratic “leaders”, who have done or said nothing in her defense is appalling and border on criminal.
I cannot in good conscious vote for Obama as the nominee due to the conduct of blogs like yours and other Hillary haters, who cannot defend/support Obama without demeaning Hillary. My vote will be for Hillary or I will stay home during the GE. If that means 4 years of McCain, so be it, but I will not approve of the vile conduct that helped get Obama the nominee by voting for him in the general election.
As a AA I believe in the proposition of fairness and being judged on your abilities. You can’t stand for that propositon, and on the other hand approve of bias treatment for Obama because of this country’s racial history or personal dislike for Hillary. Two wrongs don’t make it right. If Obama had won a fair and hard fougt battle, I would have whole heartedly supported him, but that clearly has happened.
To Dennis,
You say you cannot in good conscience vote for Obama because of the unfair treatment Hillary has received from blogs like this one, the MSM, Democrats in general, and Obama surrogates and supporters in particular? Yet, you then go on to state that you believe “in the proposition of fairness and being judged on your abilities.”
How can you propose to abstain from voting for someone (Obama) due to the actions of others (people who are not Obama) when according to you people should ONLY be judged upon their own abilities. I suppose it’s fine; however, to judge Obama and refuse to vote for him based upon the ACTIONS of others.
Your sense of “fairness” defies all logic. Two wrongs do not make a right, but neither does the alternate wrong of being against someone due to the actions of another. If you wish to vote for Hillary, do so, but don’t try to justify it as being “appropriate” because of something (the misdeeds of others) that Obama has no control over.
Harold,
You incorrectly asume that I believe that Obama is the better candidate absent the media bias, he is not. My earlier comments asserts that his nomination would be based on unfair bias against Hillary and toward him, rather than his ability to win the nomiation on his own ability. I thought I was fairly clear in that regard. I have always felt that the best thing for the party and the country would be a Hillary/Obama ticket, where he could gain the experience that he clearly lacks and have the opportunity to have more of white america get comfortable with the idea of an AA in that role. There is no contradiction in my position. Yes, I am disgusted with the unfair treatment that Hillary has received from the MSM, Obama supporters, etc. I am also disgusted with the way Obama injected race into the campaign by claiming the Clintons were racist and/or made racist statements. He was complicit with the MSM, his supporters and other assorted haters in pushing the race card. That is not the caliber of person that I can respect and support as president. There is a lot to dislike about the Clintons, but being racist is not one of them. I won’t give him a pass simply because he is black. You should be upset at the way democrats are treting fellow democrats, it is inexcusable. It has gotten so bad that I now watch Faux News, becuse I know both will be treated bad equally.
The media bias swings both ways. Senator Clinton just has a much richer experience with negative baggage. She’s owns and embraces so many more incredible lies, scandals, cover-ups, hypocrisies, delusions, and fantasies (like the co-presidency & ready commander-in-chief make believe), etc… Naturally, she would seem to receive the lion’s share of negative coverage.