Yet she is tearing the party apart?

But it's a little more complicated than all one way or the other. If Clinton had noted that she had heard this story from the deputy, in other words, had she sourced it, there would be no room for any BS about her lying now. But politicians - not just Clinton, obviously - give a lot more power to these examples by falling into storytelling mode themselves rather than diluting them a little by saying, "I was told..."

As it is, the whole story is still not known for certain. Did a hospital turn Bachtel away; did she actually have some insurance; if she was under the care of an obstetrician associated with the hospital that did treat her, why go to the other one? Those details wouldn't matter, to repeat, if Clinton had just said "I was told..."

But, again, I think those calling her a liar over this are looking for any excuse they can to blast her.

If you call Clinton a liar, then given the MSM's CDS, that's what will get coverage, not healthcare.  Works like a charm every time.  

"The hospital said, `Well, you don't have insurance.' She said, `No, I don't.' They said, `Well, we can't see you until you give $100.' She said, `Where am I going to get $100?' "The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance," Mrs. Clinton continued. "She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn't save the baby."

The hospital was implicated.  In the above quote, Hillary is referring to only one hospital, the one in which the baby died, as being the same one that denied Bachtel care.

The hospital was setting the record straight, as it should, for although the hospital wasn't mentioned by name, it could be discovered and they would get a bad rep for no reason.  I note that the hospital doesn't accuse Hillary of being inaccurate, but rather the story.

(from BTD's first post)

Since Ms. Bachtel's baby died at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O'Bleness Memorial said. . . .

Either Clinton misspoke, or she was misquoted, or some of the story was missing from the article.

The coconut telegraph story as told by the folks in her small town who knew her is at least as reliable as the hospital in my mind, if not more.

The point of the story is that the woman had a non-emergency problem and was not treated because of whatever draconian insurance rules that applied that day - and that problem turned into a life threatening and ultimately deadly ailment.  That is the point of the story.

So, the fact that what bloggers reported over the weekend, and what the media are reporting today, is not true, becomes irrelevant; what will lodge in the average, non-political junkie person's mind - and in the minds of political junkies who only care about the truth when it works for them - is that once again, Hillary fibbed, misstated, conflated, misspoke - whatever.  It's one more salvo at Hillary's trustworthiness.  Ka-pow!

On the other side of this, as has been pointed out, we have seen instances of Obama having his own problems with facts, and what happens is that he gives an explanation, the media says, "oh, okay!" and that's the end of it.   I mean, this is the guy who wrote books that purported to be autobiographical and included "composite" figures - leaving him free to write whatever he wanted.  There have been people from Obama's past who have come out and contradicted some of what he wrote, and the media yawned.  Ho-hum.

It's getting to the point where I don't understand what the media and the bloggers hope to gain by not having any standards for reporting the truth, and if they honestly (if such a thing is possible) believe that we will all be better served by a nominee and potential president who achieved his position this way.  Isn't this in part how we ended up with George Bush, instead of either Al Gore or John Kerry?  And do bloggers in particular not have some concerns that if/when Obama is the nominee that the same disregard for the truth that got him to that point will then be turned on him?  And how do they then complain that there is no fairness in the media?

I cannot believe the level of short-sightedness that has afflicted people who not only are supposed to know better, but presumably got into blogging because they had a desire to speak truth to the media and hold them accountable.  I am astounded that they do not realize that the swords they wield are now double-edged and are capable of inflicting fatal wounds not only on their candidate of choice, but on blogging in general.

In fact, I suspect this particular "gotcha" is being done to degrade the argument against universal health care as much as to embarrass Senator Clinton. The Clinton Rules state that if any part of a story is proven true, the entire story is true. The corollary is that if any part of a story about a Republican is proved to be false then the entire story is false.

Randi Rhodes
Ed Schultz
Keith Olberman
Stephanie Miller
DailyKos  (Supported Nader in 2000)
MSM talking heads
Left wing ... so called Democrats

These people have been relentless on this woman.
I have never voted republican ever...... Since 1988.
Until Nov. 2008

Ed Rendell is right, Foxnews has been more fair than any other news organization to Hillary Clinton.

Obama Does take lobbyist money and has lobbyists working for his campaign. Ooops he lies!!

How difficult it is to require all her writers to CHECK the facts FIRST?

Quote - "There is nothing I know of in Hillary's health care plan (to be fair, in any health care plan) that would keep hospitals from misdiagnosing patients."

It seems that he most basic elements of this story still escape you.