Hillary And The Trina Bachtel Story: Part II

By Big Tent Democrat

Update [2008-4-7 18:38:43 by Big Tent Democrat]: Meteor Blades updates. And I must update, kudos to daily kos and John Cole for covering the story. Way to go. One additional point - Bachtel was denied medical help because she did not have $100 to pay down a debt she incurred when she was uninsured.

Via No Quarter:

As No Quarter reports, in fact the story told to Hillary Clinton by Ohio Deputy Sheriff Brian Holman did not implicate the hospital that decided to inject itself into the story. It told a story, a real story, about our health care crisis. But since some Obama blogs were more intent on demonizing Hillary Clinton than shining light on the health care issue, this important story was buried under an avalanche of Hillary Hate. Shame on them. This is the worst manifestation I have yet seen of the sickness that has infected the Left blogs. My original post on this subject here. More . . .

Blogometer provided a roundup of the blogger coverage of this story on the weekend:

CLINTON IV: Here We Go Again

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Clinton for telling a story about an uninsured mother and her child that turns out to be false:

* Daily Kos' SusanG: "Sigh. Another Hillary Clinton stump speech story comes under scrutiny for truthiness. [...] Are there really not enough honest to God nightmare health care stories out there that you have to make 'em up? And what does this say about the Clinton operation's ability to verify information -- a minimal requirement, one would think, for the position of commander-in-chief?"

* AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Since the Clinton campaign is talking to superdelegates about 'electability,' the superdelegates should ponder the narrative that is developing about Hillary Clinton's ability to tell the truth. It's not like she just relayed this health care story or just told the Tuzla story. Watch those videos again. She was emphatic in both cases and went into great detail. Yet, neither are true. Now, I don't imagine the Republicans would make hay out of this pattern in the general election, do you?"

Big Tent Democrat defends Clinton: "If you are intent on hating Hillary Clinton, you can make a big deal about this honest potential mistake -- which came from relying upon an honest Ohio Sheriff's Deputy. If what you care about is blasting Hillary Clinton -- if you do not care about reforming health care in this country -- then by all means -- act as if you see this as a big Clinton lie."

Do not hold your breath waiting for retractions.

< Media Follies | More "Progressive" Blogger Sexism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Shameless. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:55:25 PM EST

    Totally disgusting that it is more important (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    to some of these blogs to try to make Hillary out to be this big liar than it is to fight for universal health care....Speaking as someone that needs insurance in a large way right now, I resent that totally...

    The woman in the story died (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST
    because she couldn't pay for healthcare.  

    That's what real liberals and progressives should be upset about.

    That Hillary got some of the minor facts wrong (because that's how they were given to her) shouldn't matter.  

    A woman died in this country because she couldn't afford healthcare!

    That's what is important.  But HillaryHate is is like that.  It rots the brain and distorts reality.


    Clinton not a liar (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by magster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    Clinton is not careful.  

    That was SusanG's point. On the heels of Tuzla, she needs to say to her staff "is there anything in my stump speech that needs a double check. She didn't. And now, every half hour on MSNBC (yeah, I know, MSNBC) they're running a story on Clinton's sorry weekend of Penn, hospital story and Gallup poll.  Like SusanG said, there's no shortage of actual health-care horror stories to use.  


    Sorry (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    but this is not a lie and there's nothing wrong with what she did or said.

    Senator Clinton is held to a standard that no human being could possibly achieve, and then gleefully ripped to shred by so-called progressives whenever she fails to achieve it.

    What happened to attacking Republicans? We used to know how to do that.


    What part of the story is true (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    don't you understand?  It was not and is not a lie, so what's your problem?  

    This is a health care horror story.  These people, like SusanG, have no point except to go off half-cocked and not admit it when they're wrong.


    wow (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    I guess you are privy to what Clinton did and did not say to her staff.

    That ABC keeps calling this story a lie while they have footage of the guy relaying it to Clinton is gobsmacking.  How low does investigative journalism have to go before we have aboslutely no trust in the press?

    And anyone who has had any contact with an American hospital in the last ten years should look at any statement they make (especially in violation of patient confidentiality) as a load of crap.


    THat the media is also infected (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    with CDS, we have no argument there.

    This is an actual health care story. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:52:55 PM EST
    And SusanG's point should have been aimed directly at herself.  She's the one who didn't have the facts.

    I swear to God, it's unbelievable that DK is doing to Clinton the exact same thing it despised the MSM for doing to Gore.  Un-be-freaking-lievable.

    SusanG has disgraced herself on this one.  A woman died over a $100 bill in an American town, and her concern is with . . . wait for it . . . Hillary's ability to meticulously parse words.

    She didn't say "an urgent care facility" turned the woman away.  She said "hospital".  And that makes her a Gore-style exaggerator.



    I'm expecting an apology from the MSM (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by vicsan on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST

    Will they correct the story they've been pushing all day? Will they admit they lied and never bothered to FACT CHECK before they repeated the LIES? Of course they won't. The story is out there and they have accomplished what they set out to do...damage Hillary.

    the MSM knows Hillary WILL deliver on UHC (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    Obama? not so much.
    It makes bottom dollar sense for the MSM and their Insurance and Pharma sponsors to deride Hillary and promote Obama.

    Is it true Kieth Olbermann did a story (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    on this? If so I'd hope he'd offer an apology.

    Expect a Special Comment any moment (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    Spittle included! :-) (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    But Hillary will do anything to win! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Marco21 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    Obama supporters are quick to screech that after smearing the Clinton name and lying about her record and deeds.

    Yet she is tearing the party apart?

    These people are shameless.

    you don't get it (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    It's not about Hillary - it's about the millions without health care.

    No, you don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:12:24 PM EST
    It is about issues.  It is about health care.  For some it has become about 'winning' for others it is about electing the most qualified individual that will actually make some legislative changes in this country.  It would never have been an issue for Obama.  It was just a another inning in the game of Hillary-hate.

    Insurance (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kaybeel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    They NYTs said she was insured.
    The point of the story as I understood it was that she was turned away because she was not insured.
    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.

    She was turned (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by leis on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    away because she didn't have $100. The hospital does not address that point.

    isn't (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    that the part the hospital disputes?

    O'Bleness (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    was NOT the hospital that turned her away.

    That was the other, unnamed hospital - although there really aren't many possibilities.  Check No Quarter's website for details - they did a bang up job.  Way more details than I've seen anywhere else, paper or electronic.


    I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    It's fortunate there was a video; it the humanity  of them both comes across strongly. I think it will have impact. And the fact that it's normally the right wing blogs that would try to take a part a story like this is worrying.

    I completely agree on this one. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM EST
    I commend BTD and No Quarter for defending the original story. Good work.

    Noticed the ABC 'News' logo (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:22:00 PM EST
    Did they show this footage at all when they were reporting her 'untrue' story?

    The irony in all this for me is (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    health care is not an issue I have played close attention to nor have much knowledge on.

    But there was something strange about this "gotcha" that made no sense. NOW we know why.

    I do pay close attention to healthcare (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:14:47 PM EST
    and the Obama campaign have been undermining progress and more importantly progressive thinking and proposals for improving healthcare for a while now.  It started with Harry and Louise, then Kerry says Clinton's plan is DOA in the Senate, Obama and his camp keep stressing more and more "incremental" change on this front rather than inspiring thoughts of "transformational" change.  I used to think these attacks were about Clinton.  Now I think they are trying to undermine and ultimately killl the healthcare issue itself and that really makes me resentful and angry.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    Health care is my top priority, and it has been for a long time. I work with uninsured folks every single day, and there is no issue I care more about. That is why I was always for Clinton but comfortable with Obama because I assumed he had similar priorities, though I doubted that he would have the guts to fight for it. The campaign has shown me that  he is willing to undermine health care at every turn to score cheap political points and that, quite frankly, enrages me. The Harry and Louise ads were disgraceful and that was the point that I lost all faith in Obama carrying forward any sort of progressive agenda. If you actually care about health care and if you actually care about getting everyone covered, you simply don't go there, period. Or perhaps this was another one of those instances where he did not have enough historical perspective to understand just exactly why his tactics were so wrong.

    And when John Kerry said universal health care is a non-starter...well, I almost threw something at my television. What part of 47 MILLION PEOPLE WHO CANNOT GET CARE does windsurfing John Kerry not understand???



    Calling Senator Clinton a liar over this issue ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    ...is obscene, as I have noted more than once.

    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.

    And the worst fallout is that this story now has been turned into some petty BS when the real story to be repeated by the MSM (and the blogs) every day should be that tens of millions of people in this country don't have the money to provide themselves with the health care they should, by right, have access to.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:36:00 PM EST
    Your co blogger got the story wrong and she should not have. I called her on it on Saturday. She was proven wrong today.

    Your rationalizations for what was done are utterly unconvincing. It was incredibly poor blogging, ESPECIALLY from a so called progressive blog. Making it worse is the fact that you and I BOTH know there will be no correction.

    I have had to correct myself on occasion when I made a mistake. I did so at daily kos. I have done so here. I think we know there will be no such correction on this story.


    Youtube (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    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.

    YouTube video of Clinton speech

    She says that she was told the story by a deputy in that March 8, 2008 video. I don't think that is the point of all of this, but just thought I'd post that she had sourced the story at least on that occasion.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    Meteor blades, I expect you to acknowledge that your critique is now completely frivolous and time for you to honestly admit the bad job done at daily kos on this.

    BTD, please don't hold your breath (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    waiting for a retraction, because then you might die and Clinton would be blamed.

    retraction, retraction, anybody? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dws3665 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:23:37 PM EST

    The version I had of Senator Clinton's (none / 0) (#174)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:09:45 PM EST
    ...story at the time I wrote that reply to you DID NOT include reference to the sheriff deputy's having told her. Other versions do. So, I made a mistake. And, as is always the case, as you well know, when I make a mistake, I admit it publicly.

    Very good point. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    Be kinda nice if MeteorBlades did a little fact checking himself before accusing Hillary of not mentioning that someone else told her this story.

    Great blogging there, guy. You do your site proud.


    Of course she was told by somebody. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:58:18 PM EST
    She wasn't there in person with the poor woman dying in her arms.

    Good thing! (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    She wasn't there in person with the poor woman dying in her arms

    I'm sure the blogs would now be blaming Clinton for killing her!


    Nice theory (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    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, unfortunately for your theory, Clinton did in fact note that she heard this story from the deputy and apparently there has been enough room for several blogger BS trucks to drive through. Of course, anyone who would try to make a "gotcha" out of this story must be a pretty small person, so maybe they were little tiny Tonka trucks spreading their BS.

    And to repeat, she said "I was told..."


    huh? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:46:50 PM EST
    >>>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

    Even after the video surfaced with the deputy sheriff relaying the info to Hillary, it still wasn't good enough for Obama supporters. She's still a liar.

    Hate is a powerful drug.


    Please be careful (none / 0) (#111)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    "Obama supporters" are not reflected by the few of us who post on this site. Everyone should refrain from "demonizing" the opposition--factionalism has gone rampant, and it's really a shame.

    agreed (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    drop the name-calling and personal insults all of you. I'm cleaning this thread.

    Good Point, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    another non-story I didn't jump on, even as an ardent Obama supporter. Although, I don't think the antidote to this problem is pointing fingers. The Clinton blogosphere has done the same thing as well. It's just the nature of the beast. So, it makes me wonder why someone would characterize it as a grave sin when it's been done by both candidate's supporters/spin-machines.

    Accountability is (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:33:08 PM EST
    for EVERYONE. Bloggers included, even your friends.

    Ruh Oh (none / 0) (#147)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    It's worse than just the conference call this morning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/penn-speaks-in-private-wi_n_95508.html Apparently he's been telling others that it was just a demotion in title.

    It's sad (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    really. And goodness help you if you call them on anything; like being attached by a rabid dog. I don't want to be a part of a party that includes as many rabid dogs as I see now. Unity, is it still possible at the "virtual precinct" level?

    They Changed the Subject Away from Healthcare (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    Which, I suspect, was the original goal.  It's one of Clinton's strengths and she's been using it very effectively.  Can't have that.  

    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.  

    After all, it's much more important to prove that Clinton is a lying witch than explain why our healthcare system is a disaster that must be fixed.  Gotta have your priorities.

    And conversely (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:18:07 PM EST
    Healthcare is NOT Obama's issue, which is why he doesn't mind destroying healthcare as an issue for the sake of destroying Clinton.

    either a misstatement or a misquote (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    From BTD's first post, quote from Hillary (emphasis mine):


    "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.

    There's no big Clinton lie.  I think it was an honest mistake somewhere along the line, and whoever made it -- Clinton or the reporter -- ought to apologize to the hospital and move on.  It should be no big deal in terms of her campaign, and to make it so is a fine example of Hillary-bashing.  But it's not the hospital's fault.

    the hospital (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    gave out confidential patient information in a quest to try to cover its a*s.  

    I mean, come on, folks--the very fact that the hospital scrambled to do this, violating several laws, should tell you how screwed up our heatlhcare system is.  "Hey, the baby died here, but it was another hospital's fault!!"  Oh, yeah, that's great.  A baby died because the mother could not get adequate prenatal care at a hospital.  Then, the mother died a few weeks later.  Not our fault.

    This is egregious.


    That's a very good point (none / 0) (#95)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    How is the hospital spilling this information to the press and not running afoul of HIPA? Is it because the baby is deceased? I doubt it.....something is fishy, and it doesn't look like the smell is coming from Hillary's campaign. (An Obama supporter not jumping on this bandwagon from hell).

    I strongly disagree (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:02 PM EST
    You are trying to argue that he hospital was implicated by a story told in which neither the patient NOR the hospital was named. That is simply ludicrous. NO ONE knew the name of the hospital - before the hospital decided to say it was the hospital where this woman died.

    This is the type of ridiculous parsing that is first, inaccurate, and second, the symptom of an agenda that is not related to an issue. It is how a Republican would discuss the issue.  


    read the quote (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    If you Look at what Clinton is quoted as saying, there is only one hospital that she is referring to.  You can't make it into more than one.  "THE hospital.  One.  Sorry, not two.  It is not parsing, it's reading.  Carefully.

    One hospital (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    Even if that were true, I do no think it is, no one knew the name of ANY HOSPITAL or ANY  patient. your argument is simply specious.

    haha (not in a funny way) (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    no one knew the name of ANY HOSPITAL or ANY  patient.

    You know, this made me think--maybe the hospital has the wrong woman.  Let's be honest here, this can't be the only pregnant woman whose child died (then subsequently herself died) because she could not get adequate treatment.  Have you checked out the US's infant mortality rate lately?  


    I did and I posted a link to an article (none / 0) (#132)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    discussing our embarassingly high infant mortality rate in BTD's last post on this story.

    The reality is that Clinton has something much better than exact details related to this story.  There is a huge amount of statistical data that shows that women living at or below the poverty line are far more likely to go untreated for critical conditions.  People living in rural communities also have healthcare access issues.  Women of color are at an even higher risk of going untreated.

    In any case, you can go to the Kaiser Family Foundation website and find all kinds of data to support the premise of Clinton's story which was really about the tragic consequences of the combination of poverty and junk insurance or no insurance.


    If you were the hospital admin (none / 0) (#150)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    Let's say you read about a story that uses a real woman's name.  It says her baby died in the hospital that also denied her medical care on two previous occasions.

    To make matters worse, you find out that the real woman named in the story died in YOUR hospital, and the story is being told by a major political figure...in fact, by an extraordinarily newsworthy presidential candidate.

    You check. Your hospital or medical group NEVER denied that woman care.  To be sure, the hospital's name was not mentioned in the story.

    As hospital administrator, would you sit and wait and figure, oh well, they didn't mention the name of the hospital, so that glaring error doesn't really matter....?

    I highly doubt it.  You'd figure out how many hours it would take for a reporter to discover the name of the hospital.  Rather than wait for the name to be plastered across the news and blogs with cries of "SHAME!  You denied that poor woman care, and now she and her baby are DEAD!" you will act proactively and state that the story (NOT Hillary) was in error (shich it was), and you, as the hospital referred to, NEVER denied that woman care.

    If you didn't, you'd be fired.


    correction (none / 0) (#155)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:20:30 PM EST
    The above should read, "...The real woman's baby died in YOUR hospital..."

    You can "state it" (none / 0) (#158)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:32:36 PM EST
    but you can't actually verify it or prove it without running afoul of HIPAA.

    Unless patient records are released, it's all claims and statements by ALL parties.


    If you were the hospital (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    NO ONE knew the name of the hospital

    Would you bet your reputation that no one knew, or could easily find out?  Not me.

    I like accuracy.  That does not make me a Republican.  I am farther left than you are, to be sure.  In fact, I am a tepid Hillary supporter.  When you ignore facts to make a point, who are you acting like?


    Do you criticize Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    inaccuracies?  Like saying his parents fell in love because of their interest in the Selma story, when he was born before it happened?  I haven't seen a lot of outrage in the media about that.

    If someone was making a point (none / 0) (#152)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:15:05 PM EST
    If someone was mistaken about something Obama said and was making a strong point, whichever way the point was made, if I noticed it and felt interested I would point out the mistake.

    Original story (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jnicola on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    The original story which brought this story to national attention is here. There's no earlier story than this which I can find that mentions Bechtel's name. However, this story - which is extremely favourable toward Clinton - DOES give Bechtel's name, and sources it to the sheriff's deputy who supports her. Once the name was put out there by this story, it was trivially easy for anyone familiar with the family, or who cared to look at the records, to link it to the hospital, and it was therefore legitimate for the hospital to defend itself, which it does not seem to have done for a day at least. Further, given that it doesn't seem to have been difficult for the Washington Post to find the name of the person involved, the Clinton campaign should have been able to fact check the story with reasonable ease, and avoid giving away yet another talking point.

    Yes (none / 0) (#166)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    In the video above, Holman clearly tells Hillary that the woman went to another hospital.  The story that quoted Hillary has her strongly implying that the woman went to the same hospital.  Holman's facts about the two hospiatls may have been right, but either misspoken or misquoted.

    ABC's Jake Tapper picks up the video (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Grey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:52:47 PM EST
    And then wonders whether Clinton's story might be true; he even links to NoQuarter.  His post is here.

    I appreciate hie efforts, and the post is thorough, but the hit job the media have done thus far will be difficult to overcome.

    good for Tapper (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    Matthews has not read Tapper, apparently (none / 0) (#94)
    by Grey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    Hardball is on now and Clinton Lies Again! is up next.

    Oh, Tweety.  Save some spit for the general, darling.


    He's got tingling in his legs. -nt- (none / 0) (#109)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    Not too keen on his close at all. (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    "But a closer examination of the story Clinton was originally told indicates that while Clinton erred slightly in relaying the tragic tale, that doesn't mean it's not fundamentally true. On that, the jury is still out."

    Unless he's referring to the Obama Media Jury.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    I blame the irresponsible ones - the so called progressive bloggers and their incompetence.

    They got the story horribly wrong.

    Reality based? Fact checking? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    All I saw was a mad rush to judgment and almost no interest in the facts, or fact checking or honest journalism.

    Wait a minute... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by magster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:59:19 PM EST
    ... are you saying that the $100 part of the story is true. Where's the link? I haven't seen that anywhere

    On the other hand, if you're saying Hillary's story is true only because she accurately related what she was told, without regard to whether what she was told is true, then that's lame.  If she repeated hearsay over and over again in her stump speech without ensuring it's true, especially when she put herself in the spotlight within days before with her Tuzla stuff, then Hillary is campaigning negligently.

    They took the hospital at its word (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    but now we know the hospital was not even implicated. It injected itself into a story it was not implicated in. See my original post and take of the Hillary Hating blinders.

    Once again (none / 0) (#149)
    by jnicola on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    The name of the patient was given, in a story very favourable to Hillary Clinton, by a Clinton supporter, in the story here. Shortly afterwards, the hospital was being linked to the patient on the web (I refuse to link to freerepublic, but it's there.) I don't see they had much choice but to comment.

    It may also be worth noting that the hospital is not-for-profit, and provides free care to anyone earning up to 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. While this isn't particularly relevant to the Bechtel story, given that Bechtel had health insurance and was being looked after by the hospital, it is rather relevant before we throw any more dirt at a hospital which seems to be doing at least something to ameliorate the crappy US health care system.

    According to the hospital... (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:04:28 PM EST
    So there's a really reliable source given the fact that they are obviously so concerned that they outted themselves in order to tell Clinton to stop talking about the case.

    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.

    The fact that she had insurance does not even remotely invalidate the story.  Many people in this country have junk health insurance - most people who have insurance have junk in fact.

    They could be something in the (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    middle.  I get the impression that a number of those folks don't really care about healthcare, the war or the economy much at all.  Its all about their guy and not much else.

    Personal story : 21 years ago (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    I had my son then had complications.  My doctor, who then quit because of the insurance companies, was in my room on the phone screaming at the hospital and the insurance why I had to stay.  The hospital then wanted a credit card to let my son stay an extra day in the hospital cause the insurance would not pay for his extra day.  We had to prepay with a credit card my son's extra day.  Luckily we had the resources.  How many times do you think this scenario is played out?  You think this is a lie or exaggeration?  God forbid you find yourself in these circumstances.  

    I had a lady problem- (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:34:29 PM EST
    an ovarian cyst when I was in college.  No insurance, of course.  I scraped up money to go to a doc, who diagnosed it and said that I needed surgery, but she (haha, she) had to get paid up front.

    Of course I could not pay, so I asked what my options were.  She said that it would probably rupture, and to make sure I got to the hospital quickly because I could become infertile or die.  And then she repeated, "go to the hosptial as soon as the pain starts, because you will die if you don't."

    Do I believe this woman and her baby died because she didn't have adequate insurance and could not pre-pay her deductible?  I'm sure that we could get a heckuva lot more ot than this with horror stories about negligence on the part of hosptials-and this is a board seemingly filled with well-educated and well employed people.

    And anyone who trusts this statement from this particular hospital about this particular case should have their head examined.  I hope their insurance pays for it.


    Let's agree on one thing: (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:38:44 PM EST
     the truth - or its opposite - seems to be whatever the media - and some bloggers - decide it is, and no amount of information to the contrary seems to change how a story is reported.

    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.

    Apologies for the long rant; I just hate the sheer blindness of these people.

    I'm looking for (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    further New York Times coverage of this issue.  I'm not seeing it.

    I am REALLY, SORELY disappointed in the NY Times this year.

    Digby Chimes In (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    And is well worth a read:

    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.

    Will the NYT correct their story? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:44:52 PM EST
    I wonder how we can get fact check to look into this.  Media matter should also look into this.  We need amunition.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Burned on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:22:03 PM EST
    She is NOT the only politician using heart tugging stories but she is the only one getting into trouble. That tells you something about her "experience" in management.

    THAT tells me absolutely nothing about her experience in management and everything about the tremendous bias against her in the press and on the blogs.

    I am sick of Hillary bashing........ (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Mrwirez on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:47:10 PM EST
    If Obama is the nomination.  I go McCain because of:

    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!!

    Mad as Hell and not gonna take it.

    There seems to be an important update (3.00 / 2) (#156)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    to this story -- apparently confirming the gist of the claim that the woman was turned away because she couldn't afford to pay $100 (though it was because she had accumulated a debt with the clinic earlier while uninsured).

    Although she had reportedly (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    paid off her debt.

    She did the right thing.  Heck, as far as I could tell she did a lot of things right - and what was her reward?


    Thanks (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:40:14 PM EST
    Becuase I do not agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST
    with your assessment of the comment.

    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."

    This was contemptuous of the plight of this woman. I find it incredible the things people will defend. You endorse the tone of that comment? Sad for you.

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kaybeel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    all the sympathy in the world for this woman, her baby, and her family!

    What I don't know is why she was turned away from the hospital in the first place. The NYTs tells us (although they could be wrong) that she was not turned away for lack of insurance.  
    If she was sent home because her doctors misdiagnosed her, mandating health coverage will not solve that problem.
    Saying that does not in any way diminish the tragedy of this story.  It is a tragic story.  


    Did you watch the video? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    It seems to me your choice of words revealed a different agenda.

    Arguments sound like insurance companies (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    Look, on some issues I think you are either with us or you are against us.  Your arguments sound like the insurance companies.  The truth is people are stuck in the healthcare system that does not serve the majority of Americans.  What is your argument?  If you want to sit around and argue why we don't need healthcare for Americans then that is another issue.  

    Listen to the Officer! (none / 0) (#163)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:42:56 PM EST
    He says, very clearly, that the family felt that if she had proper health insurance she would have been treated differently and this may never have happened. He is suggesting that if she had insurance, she would not have been turned away from the first hospital and that the chances of her being misdiagnosed at the second hospital would have been reduced.  

    Is there a guarantee that she would have been treated with additional care and not misdiagnosed? No. But is it plausible or likely that they would have run more tests and not misdiagnosed her? Yes! I don't know the medical details, so I won't speculate, but surely you can imagine that if a hospital is not going to get paid for the care they provide, indeed, if the hospital is going to lose money should they care for an uninsured woman, it is more likely than not that they will do the minimum number of tests possible, just as it is more likely that they will send her home instead of admit her...


    Indeed, research shows (none / 0) (#167)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    that the uninsured receive less care and suffer higher mortality rates than those with insurance, for the same illness, even after they are admitted to a hospital for treatment.

    Add Schecter (none / 0) (#41)
    by OxyCon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    Cliff Schecter's blog, which is one of the "C-List" Hillary bashing blogs, also used this "story" as a way to bash her.

    The hospital denied something it (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    was not accused of.

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

    Try and see through the Hillary Hate.

    Actually, I said (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    in your first diary on this here that I did not blame Hillary for telling the story, but she should stop telling it if it were false....hardly Hillary hate....

    You said in response that she was no longer telling the story.


    I also agreed with you (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:43:06 PM EST
    on that thread that the hospital should not have released the name....

    hmmmmmm.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by itsover on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    I'm new her, but I thought we weren't allowed to use personal attacks?

    Actually (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    Your comment tells me that perhaps you were here before. Should I check it out?

    Is it just me (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    or does someone who comes in with a name like have an agenda?

    You mean.... (none / 0) (#177)
    by itsover on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:33:28 AM EST
    ...."an opinion"?

    we are not supposed to use personal (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    attacks and I am deleting them. And the off topic comments.

    And yes, I just checked, and you are new here.


    Yes, I'm new. (none / 0) (#175)
    by itsover on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:28:11 AM EST
    So what?

    it's over, one more comment (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    with a personal character attack on a candidate and you're gone. Short tenure.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#176)
    by itsover on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:32:12 AM EST
    What in the world are you talking about?  

    I think I've made three comments here - one about BTD's bad behavior, one suggesting Hillary take harsher steps if she is sincere about China, and one pointing out she lost credibility by lying about Bosnia, and has thus invited close scrutiny and criticism on other statements.  


    Please. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    Journalists do a terrible job most of the time. I concur on the bias. But don't go and parse the Obama Afganistan story the same way people parse the Clinton healthcare story.

    Bottom line:

    Our healthcare system is messed up and there was a campaign story to illustrate it.

    Our military is sorely mishandled and there was a campaign story to illustrate it.

    The whole problem here is that progressives in the two partisan democratic camps are doing the work of the right wing. Everyone needs to stop doing this unless there is EXCELLENT evidence to support doing otherwise.

    Here Here! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    Or is it Hear Hear?

    Please don't feed (none / 0) (#133)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    The Trolls.

    warning (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    this thread generated some of the ugliest comments yet on this site. I am deleting them and those that are off topic. You will either civilly discuss the Trina Bachtel story or comments are closing here.

    How in the world is this about pro-Obama bloggers? (none / 0) (#148)
    by dc2008 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    How in the world is this about pro-Obama bloggers?  Sure, pro-Obama bloggers have continued to do what bloggers do.  But the story has been reported the way it has been reported, rightly or wrongly, by the major media.  Again, why are pro-Obama bloggers the heart of the matter here????

    Because pro-progressive bloggers used (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    to speak up when the media did this to one of us. Now they are what they hated.

    Kudos to Meteor Blades (none / 0) (#168)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM EST
    I appreciate his effort to set the record straight at DK.