Trina Bachtel Family: Clinton Told The Truth

By Big Tent Democrat


Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin

By Anne E. Kornblut

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

When can we expect retractions and apologies from the Obama News Network? Oh by the way, from the Obama blogs? what a disgraceful episode.

< Countdown Update | You Wouldn't Do a Dog This Way >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Apologize? (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    They're onto the next smear.  Throw whatever they can to stick it to her and keep her on the defensive rather than on her policy-related messages.

    The best anyone can hope to get out of this is that Obama can't try and use it against her in the PA debate.

    Obama has yet to win a debate IMO (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST
    You'd never know that (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    from the MSM coverage.

    To me, he always looks like a 4th grader trying to copy the smart girl's notes.


    Eh, he's ok (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    but he doesn't set the world on fire.

    Hillary is the best Presidential debater I can remember.


    Tweety was still after Hillary about the hospital (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    story tonight--at least two segments.

    Roger Simon from Politico was absolutely beside himself that neither she nor her staff had vetted this story! He was nearly apoplectic! And so embarrassed for the poor senator.

    What was she thinking? Didn't she realize the MCMers were out to find her in even the slightest possible deviations from true facts??? And after her bad, bad, horribly bad Bosnia problem, she was not going to be able to overcome many more of these revealed lies and exaggerations.

    Oh my.

    Now, Tweety did preface the attacks-- and deeply searching questions about what was wrong with Hillary that she either lied so easily or coulnd't get staff to check tall tales told to her by regular citizens-- with a small reference to possibly a change in the story, that maybe there was some truth to what Hillary had said...but, overall, the tone was What Was Wrong with That Woman?

    Shades of Al Gore! The MCMers are aiming for trodding over that path again--serial exaggerator or liar, demented, unable to tell fact from fiction when he read it in a freakin' newspaper-- that kind of thing.

    Here's Brian Holman telling his tale to Hillary--who looks like a very good listener, based on this video.


    You are truly an honorable man. Thank you. (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:40:34 PM EST

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    Thank you for keeping 'em honest, BTD.  Your fairness is a rare quality and much appreciated.

    But I'd like an apology (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:28:34 PM EST
    from Kornblut, too, based on the report in the earlier thread of what she said about the story until SHE verified it . . . but criticized Clinton for speaking about it until she did.

    If the media reported fully on these stories of health care -- or lack of it -- in this country, candidates wouldn't have to tell us about them.


    GREAT POINT! (none / 0) (#161)
    by BernieO on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:59:50 AM EST
    The media was commenting on the story that they had not taken time to vet - which is their job. Disgusting!

    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Dave B on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:41:32 AM EST
    We are supposed to believe that the Hillary Campaign was somehow negligent for telling a true story related to them by a deputy sheriff on the campaign trail.  But on the other hand it is ok for the media to jump all over a story and call Hillary a liar without vetting the story.  It is somehow alright for the jerks at Daily Kos to do the same.



    Not a surprise for any of us who have (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:50:56 PM EST
    been paying attention to the healthcare industry.

    Very surprising that the so-called "progressives" on the issue would take the hospital's word as god.


    I made the mistake of reading some of the comments (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    CDS in full bloom.

    Slightly OT, but relevant, sort of.. (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    I was having a conversation just now with my friend Margaret, and she told me about free screenings for black patients across the country, it's a concerted effort by the black community to enhance the health care in their communities. At the screenings in Chicago, Michelle Obama wanted to come and be there, it wasn't the hospital where she works. She just wanted to get the free publicity for caring about black health care. She was told not to come by the black organizers. Hillary had already made appearances at several screening sites and will go the one in Memphis when she gets there today. Hillary has already stated what funding she will try to get for this program. This is what the black community is looking for in a candidate, not flowery oratory and opportunism.

    but what would the family know? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:51:56 PM EST
    this just proves they don't watch keith or read certain blogs.

    Remember when the wingnuts attacked (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:13 PM EST
    the 12 year old boy who testified before Congress about his health problems? I don't recall the specifics. What you like to bet that no O-list blog attacks the credibility of the Bachtel family?

    i think they'd best (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:58:50 PM EST
    start digging through the family's tax records...

    Wasn't KO all over how horribly the 12 yr-old (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:18:18 PM EST
    was treated by the rightwads?

    Wonder how KO will handle this. Probably in the same manner he's been covering the primary for the past month or so...alas.


    Hasn't the family released its returns yet? (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    Call 'em out for it.  What are they trying to hide?  

    And then I want their complete schedule for the years of 1992 to 2000.


    If you thought Olbermann was bad you should've (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by gish720 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:55:50 PM EST
    heard Chris Matthews--he demanded in the most high handed manner imaginable that Clinton cease and desist telling the story about the woman and the hopital NOW...like the whole thing offended him to his very core.  It's nauseating listening to MSNBC, any part of it. I noticed this morning listening to Joe Scarborough--who's usually more fair then some at MSNBC--that it almost seemed as if a new memo had come down from Jack Welch letting everyone know it's time to take it up a notch. They piled on Clinton about everything, Penn and just everything.  Said the fact that Clinton had said we should boycott the Olympics as very "clever"...it's beyond uncalled for and biased against her.

    I want to thank you BTD for sticking (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    with this story; applying an appropriate level of skepticism; and being persistent about presenting all sides of this issue.

    Even when I don't agree with you, I respect you immensly for your ability to transcend petty disputes and to look at the bigger picture.  I think that is an honorable approach and I very much appreciate your trying to do that.

    Thank you.

    What she said... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM EST
    it is interesting (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    that just when they should pull back and apologize, they seem to ratchet it up a notch as others have noticed. It says something about their character if you ask me. Oh, you did ask me, well, then it says they suck. :-) Can I say that.

    Apologize? Nah (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:05:25 PM EST
    It'll be replaced by another trumped up Clinton "gaff" or fall away to silence in the next cycle.
    Always remember, she's to blame for this; it's her fault she was accused of lying; her "lost" credibility allowed the attach to foster; and on and on.

    You must have scripted Olbermann (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:48:51 PM EST
    tonight, because that's what I heard before I switched to . . . anything, give me the Cartoon Channel before I catch Countdown again.

    Olbermann and the Newsweek guy (I try to forget his name, as he so grates) and others agreed that even if the story was true, so what, Clinton always lies.

    And advertisers pay millions to be associated with this MSNBC crap?  Stockholders ought to call on the carpet the ad semi-pros and media buyers in this economy, when there has to be a better place to put the increasingly dear ad dollars.


    The media is frustrating (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    but I'm also frustrated with my frustration with the media.  There is no formula for figuring out when the media is wrong and where.  Every instance is singularly obnoxious.  They say something, and then we wait for the campaigns to do damage control (or we wait for Media Matters to cover it).  And as the damage control on the part of the campaigns goes on, the campaigns seem weaker (for even acknowledging the media might affect their unvarnished truth) and their eroding credibility and obvious quest for power undermines the ability of people to trust in them.  

    There's no formula for figuring out what the media best lies about (not even CDS does this); but it is clear to me their role in this process is completely destructive.  They are simply horrible.  People would be better off watching their color bars every second they spend watching the news.  Or limiting campaign coverage to CSPAN.  

    Perhaps if campaigns were publicly financed the media would be a little less lascivious?  I don't know.  

    I suppose you could counter argue that Obama has done well in deflecting criticism (his talent, or their patronization?) and of course McCain calls the shots too (which is apparently a result of his personal relationships - like one builds connections through networking).  But they may just be good at the damage control - the media still sets them up to focus on damage control, though.

    Actually, I'm waiting (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST
    for the smears to begin that Hillary took the Bechtel family behind their house and beat them with lead pipes.

    "Look, see the bruises? And the angry look in their eyes when reporters ask them if Hillary lied? They OBVIOUSLY have been coerced. I'M going to take it upon myself to travel to the Bechtel family and make sure they tell the TRUTH."

    the media is not killing the progressive agenda (5.00 / 11) (#74)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    PROGRESSIVES are killing the progressive agenda.

    "Universal healthcare is a moral imperative." -- Clinton

    "I'll have to look into that, but elect me first."  -- Obama

    If these are progressives (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:41:02 PM EST
    color me something else entirely.  This has the stench of College Republicans turning progressive because it's the kool side now.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    you are correct. The media just unfairly eggs on the candidate who promises to kill the progressive agenda.

    What a shame.


    Amazing (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:16:35 PM EST
    The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately

    How is this not enough for you?  When did Clinton say that the hospital was "evil"?  Why are you blaming her for things she hasn't said?

    Good God.

    The woman is making a point about how our system --the whole thing, not one "evil" hospital--has failed us.  And yet you're so determined to find a flaw in the presentation that you slide right past the fact that the dead woman's aunt has publicly verified the story.  

    I will never, ever understand this mentality.  Never.

    Hospitals can be evil (none / 0) (#97)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:52:28 PM EST
    If you think I am trying to defend this hospital then you are wrong but the way this story has been told doesnt give the whole story. Funny how now everyone is jumping on this hospital when its clear we dont know the whole story. This is tragic and unnecessary period. Clintons story is clearly meant to demonize the hospital a much as possible. They treated the woman without payment and insurance until finally sending her a letter asking for a hundred dollar deposit. Not right but more than alot of hospitals would have done. They didnt deny her treatment in an emergency which is what Clinton is implying. No she didnt say that they are evil but if she would of I have no problem with that, just tell the whole story so the right-wingers cant use this against us. Hows that for a talking point. I feel horribly for this family and I agree with the Aunt that Clinton is telling the truth to a degree. The context that the aunt added is important to me and is not included in her stump speech

    The problem now is not that (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:09:10 PM EST
    right wingers are using the story, you and the other left wing Obama supporters are using it.  What does that make you?

    Like You (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM EST
    What does that make you?

    Log in the eye?


    Oh, for the love of God (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:16:26 PM EST
    the story was not told as an indictment of the hospital, in and of itself, it was told as an indictment of a system that is so dysfunctional that a woman and her unborn baby lost their lives because she was so intimidated and fearful of being caught in a financial trap that she took the hospital at its word and did not seek treatment there.

    The system failed on a number of levels, and this woman was caught in it in a way that cost her her life.  We have some of the best-trained medical professionals, best medical facilities, best technology - and it can all be ours if we have the right kind of insurance or we have the means to pay for it.  If we're poor, or already sick, or uninsured, we are locked out of the system, we're on the outside looking in.

    Ever been pregnant?  Have any idea how a pregnant woman not feeling right can be anything from simple indigestion to dangerously high blood pressure that is a risk to her life and the life of her baby?  And yet, the financial gatekeeper of this hospital told this particular woman not to darken their doors unless she had $100 she could pay them.  Did they tell her this on the assumption that she was still uninsured?  Did anyone ever explain to her that if she had insurance, she could be seen?  I have no idea - I didn't see the letter.  And I don't know how educated or knowledgable she was about the system.

    So, there are a lot of questions, not the least of which is why we are wasting valuable time putting Clinton under a high-power microscope, instead of a system that is in dire need of overhaul.


    I agree Anne (none / 0) (#120)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:34:15 PM EST
    This is why primaries sometimes suck. We totally agree but we disagree in the same breath. I really am not trying to attack Clinton and nowhere will you find me calling her a liar for this. I only post here anyway. Clinton is on the right side of this issue and I believe Obama is too. You may disagree but thats what I believe. There is def. a difference in approach and maybe this highlights it. When the whole context of something is not known then I believe it weakens an argument. This is a tragic story but should be explained from both sides. I know I will come to the same conclusion that this system is broken. Those on the other side though will say that these are stories not based in reality and be able to brush aside health care reform for another 15 years. Lets make sure that we shoot straight with the American people and I think we might get some real reforms together. You are completley right though, the important thing is this family and getting it right so this never happens to anyone again.    

    Obama's position on health care (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    reminds me of Bill Clinton's interpretation of "compassionate conservative"-- "Gee, I wish I could help you, but I just can't."

    I don't speak for any obama network or any obama (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:19:56 PM EST
    blog but I will say the whole episode is deeply regrettable. I'm sorry it happened. I don't know what the answer is. Most people seem too willing to accept any negative report about the candidate they don't support. It's very hard to withhold judgment of condemnation arising from a story on the traditional media when you so want to condemn somebody.

    Woah (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    Didn't see that one coming.

    And here I thought I had almost forgotten how much admiration I had for Obama before the primary started.  And it's true.  I did.

    Things were better once, I believe.

    Anyway.   That's a wonderful statement to make.  Now the trick is to get KO to say it.

    I won't hold my breath.  


    The only difference between most of us (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:18:46 PM EST
    and a typical low information voter is the amount of information. Most of us seem to be highly emotionally driven. Both campaigns, and their strategists, recognize that and use it.

    Comdemnation? (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM EST
    That's prolly one of the biggest problems with this entire primary.

    Instead of having healthy policy disagreements over one item or another, which is hard given how close these two candidates are with each other, many members of the camps feel that condemnation is acceptable.

    I'd argue that it's the most problematic...in part because it's too damn easy to condemn through vitriolic responses that cause hurt feelings and damage to the very fabric that binds us together. It's easy to condemn someone.

    I have quibbles when it comes to both candidates. There are things that kinda weird me out. Some of their antics have annoyed the hell out of me.

    But I'm not prepared to condemn either one at this point.

    What I am is disappointed. We had a historic moment with our candidates...and it's been turned into one of the nastier food fights I've ever seen with people taking sides as though it's some blood sport version of Penn State v. Pitt.

    You withhold condemnation by doing the research that the media seems to be incapable of doing and getting the story straight rather than going into the gutter because the story whacks at the candidate you aren't supporting at this point in time.

    As easy as it is to condemn...it's equally easy to withhold that condemnation.


    My opinion of Senator Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#144)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM EST
    has improved considerably over the last few days. I would vote for her, happily, if she were the nominee. A lot of her supporters are grossly unfair to Obama, and a lot of OBama's supporters are grossly unfair to Clinton If this race turns out how I expect it will, with Obama the naominee, I will not embrace the Kos characterization of Senator Clinton, just in this race for herself. I know now that she is much more than that. If superdelegates decide to make her the nominee, I will be okay with that too.

    You're missing the point (5.00 / 12) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    Yes, she had been treated at a hospital where she had an outstanding balance, and had been advised by letter that she would not be seen at that hospital unless she could pay $100 up front.  That's why she didn't go to that hospital - do you not get that?  She was a pregnant woman who had a medical problem and she apparently delayed being seen because she knew - or at least believed - she would be turned away on account of an outstanding bill, even though she apparently did have insurance at that time.  

    By the time she got to a different hospital, it was too late to save her baby, and in the days that followed, her condition must have deteriorated such that she later died.

    The tragedy is that people are so intimidated by the medical system that this woman made a decision that proved fatal.  

    These kinds of things happen all the time.  All the time.

    When Clinton related the story she had been told, she mentioned neither the woman's name, nor the names of amy of the medical insitutions that were involved.  She protected the privacy of the woman's family.  

    Maybe it was never Clinton's intention to bring this family into the glare of the media spotlight, as much as she wanted to talk about health care and how it affects real people. You know, like us, like people who can't afford health insurance, or those who can't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

    Instead of focusing on the issues that face us, we have the media to contend with, aided by bloggers so blinded by their partisanship that they would accept the death of health care reform as damage collateral to the nomination of a particular candidate.  A candidate who does not seem all the interested in universal health care, who is still deceiving the voters about his health care plan, who shows signs of it just not being that high a priority.  If one of Obama's biggest cheerleaders is calling Hillary's plan DOA in the Congress, it does not bode well for any kind of reform.

    What's next?  A KO special comment when Hillary says she had cereal for breakfast and it turns out she had an English muffin?  A Hardball clusterf**k when they find out that Hillary wore brown shoes with a black pantsuit?  And then denied it?  Oh, the horror!

    The sad truth is that if Obama is the nominee, he will arrive on the threshold of the general election season with a media hungry to finally start to pick at his platform and policies - and even hungrier to rip him apart over the composite characters in his books, his relationship with Tony Rezko, his penchant for writing his own history to cast himself in the best possible light.

    There are going to be a lot of people with regrets, but it will be too late by then.

    Well said Anne! (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    Some people (as evidenced by the above post)
    a. lack compassion
    b. lack the ability to see the big picture
    c. are blinded by their hatred toward HRC
    d. are anal retentive

    See Digby's story on this issue that is interesting (she points out how the media hordes who fed on Gore turned on Kerry and are now gorging on Clinton). The implication is that Obama might well be the next.


    The health care system still will kill (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:53:52 PM EST
    women, children, everyone -- if Clinton does not get elected to overhaul it.

    That's the bottom line.  Anne calls it correctly.  Therefore, those blogs and bloggers that continue to beat up Clinton about this are in cahoots, even if unwittingly (as there is so little wit to be found in the blogs these days), with the health care system that is killing Americans rather than saving them.

    That is not saying anything against the incredibly great physicians, nurses, hospital workers, and others -- I'm related to many, I rely on others.  But they know this is so, as note that nursing unions have backed Clinton as the one who can fix this.  Listen to them, not the idiot bloggers who think that it's all about winning an election, not winning real change.  


    Clinton Rules (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    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.


    No, He absolutely would not (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:53:53 PM EST
    have. The fact that Hillary is female and strong as hell is the only reason they keep calling for her to drop out.  So please. And I will not get into the negativity of this campaign since Obama misspeaks and Hillary lies.  It's remarkable that he has even gotten negative considering that the media and the blogs do all the negative digging for him.

    The point of the story is this: This is NOT a story.  It became one when the left blogosphere and the media turned it into one completely based on the fact that they hate Clinton to the point of literal insanity.

    And for the record, Hillary ain't no martyr. And I like her that way.  The idea that you're trying to act as though we're angry while you passive-aggressively attack her will not work on me. I'm one of those smart women that reads books and doesn't stay in the kitchen where I belong.

    the sad fact... (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    is that this was a story about how badly the health care system in this country fails its citizens...nothing more.

    That the media and Obama surrogates, in their eagerness to finish Hillary's candidacy off wants to find anything that provides leverage to that end, the completely failed to recognize the story for what it was.

    This is what an Obama nomination will do for Democrats...a candidate and main stream media continually failing to recognize the fact that this country is in deep trouble.

    It should not come as a shock to everyone that if Obama were to prevail, that his inability to get traction on these issues with the American public and with Hillary supporters occurred during the primary season. Now that the media drowned out the horrors of the what is going on to favor the campaign politics of personality...he loses all of his advantage because he won't be running against a Clinton.

    The sad fact is that many Americans have (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:20:29 PM EST
    very sad medical stories...I had insurance and thought I was fine and dandy...Then I contracted cancer...I have now gone past my cap on expenses so now the insurance company drops me and I am uninsurable to get anything more...My cancer is in remission...I need Hillary to be elected to push this through, as I don't trust Obama to do so ...I need this to LIVE.....so if you have insurance, just pray that you dont get a very bad diagnosis like Cancer as it is a very expensive thing to have....Apparently there is a huge industry just dedicated to us patients...making money hand over fist...How do they live with themselves...

    They're Lucky (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    They themselves have insurance, so they don't worry and won't until it happens to them.

    The idea that we as a party would no longer pursue Univeral Healthcare scares me.  Who are we without this platform. We're no longer about truth-telling (on any side--come on!), about counting votes, about UHC. We're no longer about protecting everyday joe & jane from the big guys who don't care about them. We're about lattes, mansions, and beating the Republicans at their own game. That bothers me.

    What is this country is we don't fix the disaster that is our system? This woman and her child should not have died. The Media and Friends should not be making political hay out of her tragic death and using it as the Magic bullett for HRC. She is the only one willing to fix this and she's the one they wanna knock out.

    Athyrio, I wish you all the best in your battles. You and those like you are in my prayers.


    It's gone (none / 0) (#179)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    UHC is gone if Obama is elected.  pffft...No longer an issue.  I read comments posted on this issue, and so-called progressives have decided that since Obama has said it can't be done, it can't be done.

    Good luck to you (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    I'd pray for you if I was the praying kind.  As is, I'll just hope you stay healthy.

    Very true (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    I'm sorry to hear about your situation.  I hope we do end up with someone who will fight to change the system so that you and others will be able to have health coverage and care.  The stress of living without the benefit of insurance coverage is a great burden and not something a person trying to keep cancer in remission needs either.  

    It is so inhumane. Ins co's are in it for the profit. They have most of their staff focused on denying care: "preventing losses". Or coming up with even longer forms so providers will be too discouraged to spend all the time it takes to prove medical justification to them.  I spend nearly as much time on paperwork as I do with patients.  Athyrio, I hope you will stay strong and stay in remission.

    Fascinating trend (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:42:41 PM EST
    The Obama blogs have become impossible for discussion.  Therefore recently I notice a higher ratio of Obama bloggers coming here, maybe like us, they are seeking some sane discussion and not the void.  

    Some seem to be more like viruses (none / 0) (#211)
    by MMW on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    They're branching out hoping to spread the infection. Must be why universal healthcare is not high on his agenda. He can't use the disease and try to fight it at the same time.

    I think you need to think about (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    what this is about:  a woman and a child died.

    The rest is just about distracting us from this truth: a woman and a child died.

    This is not about Obama, not about Clinton, because: a woman and a child died.

    For lack of $100.  For fear of a creditor's letter.  That is what matters.  Will your candidate speak to it?  He should.  He could pick up this story, say it is true, and show real leadership.  

    Then we could get past the candidates and get to the issue:  a woman and a child died, for lack of $100, and from fear, in this country.  Nothing else matters about this story but that.

    Is there any implication that she died (none / 0) (#167)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:26:32 AM EST
    or that her child died due to a lack of medical treatment or delay in said treatment?

    With the best medical care in the world miscarriages still happen,  as does women dying in childbirth or due to complications.  It's not clear from any of the accounts that there was any causal link here.  She had medical insurance, and received treatment at a hospital.  


    Yes, there are such "implications" (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:31:43 AM EST
    See the coverage, see the stats on prenatal care as preventative.  Conclusive evidence still is forthcoming, but "implications" are clear.

    Apology (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by magster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:02:55 PM EST
    I apologize for believing MSNBC's statements (made every twenty minutes) that the story Clinton told was not true and using that as my basis earlier that Clinton was campaigning negligently.  I appreciate the family of the victim speaking out to set the record straight.

    I still believe, even now, that Clinton should have used a story that had been verified in an abundant of caution (and I never called Clinton a liar, just careless), but its now clear that, on balance, this has been a horribly unfair story against Clinton.

    magster and digdugboy (none / 0) (#185)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    As a Clinton supporter, I appreciate your honesty.

    Let me know here where you're posting on pro-Obama sites. I'll stand by you against the piranha attacks if I agree with what you're saying.

    Regards to you both.


    The above comments... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST
    ...just highlight the problem, here: the blogs and media are becoming more polarized than the general public.

     Clinton relates an anecdote and the media and Obama blogs rush all over it.  Senator Obama says something less than forthright and the media and Clinton blogs rush all over it. Partisans on both sides line up and mete out punishments.  Memes are born, die, and are resurrected.  And out of the headlines, John "Nixon Part II" McCain and his political allies plan their strategy.  

     The public is not nearly as polarized.  I live in the Sacramento area, which is evenly split between the two, and even among discussions with friends nothing approaches the vitrol you find in the media and on the internet.  People here constantly bash Kos, but do you honestly believe this site is remotely objective?  And frankly, while I get MB's comments, the only appropriate response to this story is pretty much BTD's.  This is a nonissue, the details are not remotely important, she was discussing a tragic event that many people can identify with.  She did the same thing on Ellen today, discussing a health problem faced by a gay couple.  That's clearly her talking point.  At the same time, to listen to people on this site you would think that I and other Obama backers support Chris Matthews.  Jesus, the man voted for W in 2000.  Anyone with that lack of foresight can't criticize Senator Clinton on the war.

     When the dust settles (and it will), this will largely be forgotten, except among people who bothered to go online and visit the sites in question, no one here will vote for McCain and and we can move on and repair the damage of this administration.  Oh, and talkleft can resume crime coverage as its primary focus.    

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    Your "opinion" is wrong. There are deep and wide cracks in the Democratic Party. Pretending they aren't there won't make them go away.

    FL and MI remain a festering sore and Democratic Leadership remains in it's usual position with head tucked firmly in the sand.

    Demcoratic promises also don't mean a whole lot to a large number of voters who saw how little those promises meant after the elections of 2006.

    And it should always be taken into consideration that while left Blogostan Hates John McCain, the media and much of the public does not.


    Not into unity myself (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Regency on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:54:02 AM EST
    I'm sorry but the people that your candidate wants to "unite" with don't interest me. Those people don't interest me because a whole lot of them are either Republicans or not dedicated to the ideals of the Democratic party.  I don't know what kind of shindig that is, but I'm not feeling it.

    I will not endorse the tactics of the Obama campaign or the "hands-off" "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" tactics of the DNC with my vote. It will not happen.

    I am not convinced that this country will be better off with BO as president than with John McCain. I'm fairly convinced that we're screwed with either of them. Therefore, I will stay with Hillary until such a time that she actually loses. Then, I will step out of this game and remember what real life feels like.

    Well, that low regard for the truth (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    seems to be a hallmark for Barack Obama and his campaign, to a much greater extent, but the advantage he and it have is that those deviations from the truth are regarded as immaterial, accepted no matter how lame, and given an abundance of benefit of the doubt.

    The difference between these two candidates, as I see it, is that while Clinton may mis-remember something or be trusting enough of an Ohio deputy sheriff that she took him at his word, she at least is not gaslighting us on matters of policy.  She's not mischaracterizing her health care plan, she's not sending out surrogates to proclaim that his health care plan will be DOA in the Congress.  She's not speaking in right-wing talking points on Social Security.  She's not wiffling and waffling on the issues from day to day.  

    And that for me is the real crux of all of this.  I can forgive her an anecdote that isn't microscopically precise in its details, because I know health care is a priority for her - she knows in her core that this is a priority for the millions of Americans who have no insurance, and the millions of others who still have sub-standard health care.  Obama has shown me nothing that suggests he has any interest or fight in him for this cause, and I find that disturbing.

    It just strikes me that I don't think Obama supporters have any idea whether he believes in his message and is prepared to work his butt off for us, as much as he just wants to win, and so many of you have been taken over more by that need to win than you have by what it is you will get from him when and if he wins.  Bob Casey the other day could only lamely keep repeating the hope-and-change mantra.  Now, Bob Casey may be a Democrat of a sort, but I am not comforted that people whose views are decidedly not progressive or liberal believe they have found a kindred spirit in Barack Obama, because I see the liberal ideals that matter to me being sold out for the sake of some magical unity message.

    The numbers show that Hillary has a significant lead on Obama among Democratic voters - think that means something?  I do, but you just keep inspecting the bark on the tree your nose is smack up against - the rest of us are more interested in what is happening in the forest.

    I can tell you how one (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    Clinton supporter feels about this story. I feel she repeated a story told to by someone else that was indicative of the kind of treatment some people in this country receive every single day. And because of it; a woman and her baby died. That's the story. That is the shame. That is what this whole repulsive nitpicking Hillary bash-fest on blog and in the media is about.

    Why worry that people die in our country every day for lack of adequate medical treatment so long as we can find some stupid, little nitpicking bit of incorrect or anecdotal information to hit Hillary Clinton over the head with? What is wrong with you people?

    A woman is dead. That' s the story. A woman and her child are dead because in this, the richest country in the world she did not receive adequate medical treatment with or without some stupid insurance.

    I cannot imagine Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    cannot admit they were wrong in the face of video and confirmation that Clinton's story, as told to her, is true.

    But why should that surprise me? You've made a campaign on smears and distortions in the guise of hope and change.

    "Is this the kind of management you want in the White House?"

    As opposed to Obama's blatant lies about Rezko, taking lobbyist and oil money, his "deep" ties to the Kennedy legacy, his funding a war he says he he was always against despite his words to the contrary.

    yeah, I'll stick with Clinton with all of her thorns. You keep supporting Obama and remain blind to his many faults as most cultists would.

    Publicus stop commenting (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    For the fifth day in a row you have ignored your suspensions. Do not comment again until you get an e-mail from Jeralyn or I saying it is ok.

    Just posted (4.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Grey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:36:59 PM EST
    about this in the other thread, and am very glad it merits a post of its own.

    Anne tried hard, didn't she?  Even thought she sort of tried to dismiss the aunt at the end with that "she's a Clinton supporter" bit.  And you know what that means...

    Clarifying (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Grey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:22:13 PM EST
    Just in case it's not clear.  I'm poking fun at Kornblut here; I imagine she wept over her keyboard because she had to write a story that backs up Clinton.

    As I have said in several venues ... (3.40 / 5) (#22)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    ...including here, and on the Front Page of Daily Kos, those who have accused Clinton with lying about the Bachtel case are wrong. And wrongheaded.

    But when you say here, BTD (as you have now done three times), that Clinton got it all right, you're mistaken, as your link to the WaPo story and the AP story both show. For one thing, she didn't lose her baby at the hospital that had turned her away. And that fact is where the original story emerged from when The New York Times wrote it up Saturday.

    Now it can be argued - should be, in my view - that it's understandable how the details got a bit muddied in the retelling, but it cannot be argued that Clinton got everything right when she didn't. Her version distinctly implied that it was the same hospital which turned Bachtel away twice that, on the third visit, couldn't save her stillborn baby. Not so. And the insurance issue is more complicated than Clinton presented it.

    Do these mistakes add up to a false story? In my view, no. But it doesn't help to clear things up by merely saying Clinton told the truth without also noting she failed on some of the particulars.

    When (5.00 / 13) (#29)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    you take Obama to task for all of his mistakes and misstatements, starting with the Kennedy tale about bringing his father here, to the story about the weapons for the soldiers in Afghanistan (true in essence, not totally correct in fact), to his commercials about how he takes no money from lobbyists, and the list goes on and on, then I will consider holding Clinton accountable for what was clearly a true story in essence. The double standard is maddening.

    Im sorry but so what? (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    ...she wasn't right in every particular. That's the standard for Clinton, but not for Obama? She related the story that she was told, which was essentially correct although not completely accurate. With this standard then Hillary just needs to shut up. But I suppose that's what her detractors want her to do.

    I'd appreciate it if you'd not attribute to me ... (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:21:26 PM EST
    ...the views and behavior of others.

    I have made myself perfectly clear that I think it was wrong of people to call Clinton a liar over this and to make such a big deal of over a minor matter (the small errors made in the retelling, not the death of Bachtel, which is no small matter). I hold every candidate to the same standards, I don't engage in smears and I challenge people who make what I think are tendentious assumptions, whoever's ox is gored by such challenges.


    Unless you take "told the truth" (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:24:41 PM EST
    to mean "was right in all particulars," this

    when you say here, BTD (as you have now done three times), that Clinton got it all right, you're mistaken

    is simply a false premise.


    Getting it ALL right ... (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    ...requires getting the particulars right, so when I say that BTD was wrong to imply in his posts that she did get it all right, how is that a false premise?

    BTD was clearly using (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    "truth" as an antonym for "lie."

    Strawman (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:01:55 PM EST
    I don't think BTD inplied that.

    The story was anecdotal and lacked detail.

    Now.  Was it truthful?


    Heal thyself MB (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    You are wrong on the details. You still do not understand the story. You are simply wrong.

    I understand the story ... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    ...perfectly well. Clinton told a story that is in essence true, not just for Bachtel and her stillborn child, but for millions of Americans. She should never have been accused of lying, and those who continue to call her a liar in this regard have my contempt.

    Nonetheless, she condensed the story in such a fashion as to give an inaccurate impression that the same hospital which turned her away was the hospital that eventually admitted her, too late to save her baby. As the AP and Washington Post stories amply show, this is simply wrong, that is, she got some details wrong, and it is why the story made its way to The New York Times in the first place.  

    I have admitted my original mistake in saying that Clinton didn't source her story to anyone when, as it turns out, she usually sourced it to deputy Holman. Mea culpa. But you continue to argue that Clinton made no errors in her telling of the story. It would be one thing if you conceded that she did err but these are hardly worth considering. But you stubbornly and inaccurately claim that everything she said was accurate.


    And I hope you say the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:32:21 PM EST
    when people say Mark Penn is a reflection on Hillary.

    You are not a reflection of the company you keep, right?


    MB, I do appreciate that (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    you front-paged this on DKos and that it was the closest thing to balanced reporting about Clinton there in a long time.  

    The comments, though, sent me back here but fast.


    It's nice that you can be so high and (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:26 PM EST
    mighty-above it all- now that the damage is done. The Clinton bashers do not care if they are correct in bashing her, they will do ANYTHING to get Barack nominated, including destroying an honorable woman and disenfranchising millions of voters.

    And (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:03:47 PM EST
    And setting back the cause for meaningful health care reform for a few more years.

    Actually, I was about to rate your post a 5... (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:43:57 PM EST
    ....until you got to the part where you seemed to, in my opinion, make a big deal out of the part that she wasn't right in every particular. That seemed to me like you were still damning her with faint praise. I will take you at your word that you didn't mean it that way but that's how it struck me.

    You are much more wrong (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    than Clinton on the details. Frankly you need to get a better understanding of the story. You still do not get it.

    What you can't argue is that any of the (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    details which happened to be wrong in Hillary's story made any ultimate difference to the clear moral and implications of her anecdote.

    So what do you really care about here? Just some arbitrary and rigid insistence that every last detail in a story be accurate?

    I mean, or you a progressive, or a schoolmarm?


    Frankly, and with all due respect to MB, (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    he's trying to defend people who don't deserve to be defended.

    "Schoolmarm"? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:36:42 PM EST
    If the accusation is that MB is wimpy, or not concerned with progressive causes, not so.

    Huehuetenango in 1982 ain't wimpy.....

    There is a long track record here.


    Nor have I argued that the details ... (3.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:29:06 PM EST
    ...made such a difference in the essence of the story. I have argued just the opposite. But, as a progressive, facts do matter to me, yes, even the details. My "arbitrary and rigid insistence" comes from 30+ years as a journalist, including three years teaching journalism. As progressives, we have a right to insist that the details be accurate from journalists, and in the past five years of an expanding blogworld, that's been one of the major complaints, that the megamedia has failed on both the details and the essential story. I have no problem holding the candidates, not just one candidate, but all of them, to the same standard.

    In my view, however, as I have made clear repeatedly, is that Senator Clinton's mistakes in the details were minor, made no difference to the overall story, and certainly did not amount to lying.  


    So she was being truthful then (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:39:30 PM EST
    Very good then.

    Look, the issue here is not (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:30:27 PM EST
    whether "journalists" got every last detail here right, but whether Hillary, when she relayed her anecdote, was substantially correct. I don't think most people expect that when a politician relates a story, mostly from memory, or from a second hand account, it must be in every detail correct -- and you are for some reason you can't seem to explain acting as though that level of accuracy is nonetheless required, and if BTD doesn't note those inaccuracies, he's missing something quite important in what was revealed in the latest version of the story.

    Basically, what she said was substantially true. You say that the things she got wrong weren't important, then you take BTD to task for not noting them. What you can't explain is why you are making a big fuss over them.


    Mistakes in details (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:55:36 PM EST
    Do you hold Obama to that standard?  Show me where you and your ilk have held Obama to that standard.  

    Thanks MB (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    I couldn't agree with you more on the importance of accuracy in journalism.  I have been disheartened to see to many progressives forget that we need to be vigilant in monitoring the media during this primary.  

    I am also concerned that we are failing in what has been a primary achievement of the progressive blogosphere over the last 5-6 years, to educate more people on how to think critically about what the press reports.  The new people that have been drawn in because of the elections are missing those great posts that taught me so much when the focus was on holding the media accountable.  


    But the mistakes ARE YOURS (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM EST
    You still do not have a good understanding of the story.

    You still refuse to concede ... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    ...that the story Clinton told has errors. It is YOU who does not have a good understanding of the story even though you link to the very source that points out those errors.

    Of course the point of the story is the same (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    whether with all the details exactly right or as Hillary told it. The sheriff (or was he a deputy? Oh, my--exact details are so important to the point of this!) kind of wandered back and forth in the timeline of events, as often happens when people tell a story.

    Now, exactly, precisely, spot on accurate would have been best--but the point of the tale is still the same.

    Insurance problems (outstanding co-pay instead of having no insurance) lead to a terrible outcome. Two terrible outcomes.

    And we must have universal healthcare--I'll take my program with mandates, please, sir.


    She told the truth (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    That clears it up.

    You know.  Forget it.  You say you've gone out of your way to say Clinton didn't lie.

    And then BTD says she told the truth and you take him to task for it.

    You're trying to make excuses for people.  I understand that.


    Where's your FP update then? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by rilkefan on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
    Me thinks MB, whose writing I greatly admire, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:22:33 PM EST
    doth protest too much.

    The woman had preeclampsia. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:45:55 PM EST
    The fact that she wasn't able to go to a hosptial for care because she did not have the money is the issue, not which hospital it was.  When she was desparate she went somewhere else.  The dead woman and fetus were turned away in a matter of speaking from a legitimate health care facility that to me is the issue.

    Nice try, Meteor Blades... (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:05:38 PM EST
    But it doesn't help to clear things up by merely saying Clinton told the truth without also noting she failed on some of the particulars.

    I realize it's hard to back down after coming on so strongly, and I realize that you, like Kornblut, will never believe that Senator Clinton is anything but a truth-trimmer (if not a compulsive liar), and I realize that you, like most of the MSM and certainly most of Senator Obama's supporters, passionately want her to drop out of the race ("for the good of the party and the country") but in the words of my sainted Viennese mother, "Enough already."

    For those of us trying hard to find a way to support Obama if he is the nominee, it really doesn't help when somebody as smart and committed as you continues to intepret Clinton's remarks and behavior in ways designed solely to make her look demonic while you intepret Obama's remarks and behavior in ways designed solely to make him look angelic.

    Such tactics makes us believe that--despite your pro-forma genuflection in the direction of party unity-- what you really care about is not the election of a Democrat but the election of Obama--with the satisfying collateral damage of the destruction of Clinton.  

    Once upon a time, a progressive blogger would have rejoiced if somebody like Kornblut (or MSNBC, or The Times) was forced to swallow her original distorted story about a Democratic candidate.  No longer.

    You are still arguing that the though the original (and hateful) coverage was wrong, it wasn't wrong enough to absolve Senator Clinton, a Democratic  contender for the Presidency.

    As the old 'Thirties union song has it, "Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?"


    You are wrong MB (none / 0) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    The woman's difficulties AROSE because she was without insurance. that is what caused her to fall into debt with the clinic. That is where the insistence on a $100 payment requirement came from. You do not understand the story. Sorry.

    if they know she needed the $100 (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    why not ask the family which hospital it was that turned her away?

    I mean everyone seems to care about how this effects hillary, but no one is asking what hospital did this?

    I mean if someone in your family got turned away for want of $100 wouldn't you at least ask what hospital did this?

    I dunno am I the only one who would ask a family member this if it was my family? SOMEONE in her family has to know the hospital, and they should speak up, that Hospital needs to be taken to task on this, they need to be forced to defend this so everyone can see just how bad healthcare in this country is.

    everyone seems to care more about how this hurt Hillary then making sure that hospital isn't turning anyone else away for $100.

    That is totally false.... (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    ...and apparently you aren't reading all the posts on this and the other threads about this story in which many posters lamented the fact that in the zeal of Clinton haters to bash Hillary yet again, the sad reality that a woman and child died was being completely overlooked.

    I'll tell you what's (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    really important, "TruthMatters" -- getting someone in the WH who really cares about access to health care - which is of far larger ultimate consequence than this particular hospital.

    Anybody who's been following this knows that's not Obama.

    And if we ever wondered whether most Obama supporters on the blogs cared about the larger issue of access to health care instead of Hillary bashing -- let the narrative supporting health care reform be damned -- I think we can see how shallow their interest in policy really is. I'm sure they've got theirs. Let the working class get their own.


    If you'd read the link (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    "But court records show that Bechtel had a civil judgment against her by the Holzer Hospital Foundation for the amount of $4,426, entered in 2002, which was repaid in 2005. A call to an official at Holzer Medical Center, which is run by the foundation, in Ohio was not immediately returned."

    If Truth really Matters (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:50:24 PM EST
    you would keep in touch a little bit better.

    It's been quite widely reported prior to the Kornbluth story that the family was refusing to speak to reporters or anyone else.



    I will say this, though (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:23 PM EST
    this DOES strengthen BTD's case for Obama.

    if you mean (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:00:01 PM EST
    that the media and the blogs will make it harder for clinton to get elected, that's a pretty depressing metric.

    Agree. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:01:29 PM EST
    That's exactly what I mean (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:01:37 PM EST
    There are many depressing metrics--several of them relevant.

    How's this metric (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    How's the media been doing picking our presidents?

    Do they pick good ones or bad ones?


    They've done terrible (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:37:20 PM EST
    but BTD correctly observes that we can't ignore the media.

    I'm not ignoring them (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:42:07 PM EST
    I'm the opposite of what they tell me to do because I care about my country.

    BTD errs on Obama & media (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    BTD is a genius, but nevertheless falters when making the incorrect assumption that because the media has pretty much been a sweetheart to Obama so far that they will continue to do so in the general election - a tragically flawed belief - nothing could be further from what will happen if Obama is the dem nominee.  

    Problem is, we already know (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:02:37 PM EST
    what they'll do to Hillary. And there's not question that their attacks have been effective against her.

    You and BTD are giving up (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:55 AM EST
    Blogs used to be about saying the media was wrong when they are wrong.

    Not cowering before them and letting them affect our choices.

    In the end, voting for Obama in the General Election will be sending a message that what the media did in this primary is OK.

    Now that's a decision where one may say "Yes, you're right, but we have to think of what's important for the country."

    But yeah.  I'm right.


    Given up? I just voted for her! (none / 0) (#165)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:31:06 AM EST
    But I'm also trying to be realistic.

    You are assuming that the media (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    will not eviscerate Obama.  I think that is the assumption that people go on in this debate and frankly I don't think for the media it is an "either or" question.  Obama will be beaten up just as vigorously - maybe even moreso.

    Obama's earlier advantage on came from the people.  People didn't want to hear bad things about him and so it was harder for the media to go after him the way they have gone after Clinton.  Obama has a chink in his armor now - and once you take Clinton out of the equation he essentially loses cover she has given him by being there to be abused.  When Clinton is gone all that energy will be re-channeled towards Obama.

    I could see how people thought Obama would be the easier sell in the media early on, but things have changed and there are obvious signs that the media is no longer going to allow Obama to live above it all in his ivory tower.  Given McCain's impressive skills in dealing with the media, this will be a key issue.  One advantage Clinton has is that she has already fallen and people expect the media to bludgeon her at every turn so in a way the beatings don't have as much of an impact.  Obama on the other hand, may fall hard for the first time right at the moment we can least afford it and his fall will make a difference because it will be shiny and new.


    As Digby Says (none / 0) (#138)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST
    If ANY part of a story bad for Democrats is true, then the whole story is true.  And if ANY part of a story bad for Republicans is false, then the whole story is false.

    They will crucify Hillary if she's the nominee.

    They will crucify Obama too. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:38:36 AM EST
    Just you wait.

    While the blogs may continue to obsess on Clinton after she is gone, the media will not.  Obama wihtout Clinton's cover will be a coveted target.  You know, that was one reason why I didn't want Clinton to run this year - because I knew she would draw all the fire away from the other candidates.  That means that in a sense we don't really have a good reading of what they will do to Obama when she is gone.

    The media is already reporting Rove's comments about Clinton and Obama - she calculating (thanks dkos for making sure Rove's characterization will be well received) and he "arrogant and aloof" - ergo Democrats are "calculating, arrogant and aloof".  Here we go boys and girls.  Its 2004 redux and the "progressives" helped!  Man people are stupid.


    So the media (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:31:55 AM EST
    chooses our candidate then.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#170)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    But it's more like the media chooses who our candidates CAN'T be.  They did it to Howard Dean in 2003/04; they're doing it now to Senator Clinton.  Just imagine the things they'll dig up and repackage (in conjunction with Republican swift boaters) for the general election if HRC is the nominee.  

    The media will never allow HRC to win the general election if she becomes the Democratic nominee.


    kaleidescope (none / 0) (#188)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    I respectfully disagree. It ain't up to the MSM.

    There are ways to fight the MSM, which is, IMO, exactly what will have to happen. One way is just talking to each other. It works surprisingly well---"grassroots" doesn't just apply to college students.

    If the story becomes Democrats making their own DVDs on policy issues, debates, positions, and events available on Netflicks or YouTube or cable access; if the story becomes neighbors talking with neighbors over healthcare and jobs; if the story becomes those crazy anti-war ladies are back out on the sidewalk with their signs...the MSM will follow.

    But we can agree to disagree.


    the power of censorship (none / 0) (#148)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    I was first slammed by BTD (a previous thread) and then censored (this thread), apparently for my interpretation of this quote of Clinton's (in BTD's first post on the subject)

    "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."

    I believe that Clinton meant that the same hospital that the baby died was the one that turned the mother away twice.  (If you don't think she meant one hospital, get people unfamiliar with this issue to read the quote and ask them if they think Clinton meant one or two hospitals.  I bet a milkshake they say one.)

    This was not the case, as stated by the sherriff in the video and by the hospital in question, and now I believe it is generally accepted that there were two hospitals.

    I further suggested that, uncorrected, that error could have caused harm to the hospital, since its name was published and would likely be accused of turning a patient away when it had not done so.  Here BTD and I also disagreed, in that he believes that the hospital was in no danger of being outed so therefore could not have been implicated in any way by Clinton.

    I also suggested that this matter is not insignificant, at least not to the particular hospital.

    What is deletion-worthy about this?

    Oh, I also said I was vindicated and I hoped that BTD would listen to Meteor Blades (who likes to get the facts straight and feels that Clinton didn't have them all correct).  However that seems excessively mild when compared to BTD's slam of me in a previous thread.  Why, he likened my thinking to that of a gasp Republican! and made several disparaging comments about my post.  I, on the other hand, have been quite polite, if a bit insistent as to my point.

    I do not think I have broken any rule here and I do not think I should have been censored this way.

    No not censored (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35:23 AM EST
    But you should be criticized for elevating minutia over a legitimate issue.

    Thanks to people like you, campaigns will no longer be about issue advocacy but a competition to see who can nitpick the most about details that no one really cares about.



    Thanks to people like me (none / 0) (#160)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:49:11 AM EST
    Facts will actually mean something.

    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:03:10 AM EST
    you hold Obama and McCain to the same critical standards you apply to Clinton.

    For some reason, I doubt it.


    Why would you doubt it? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    McCain -- Gimme a break.  He is a sell-out.  Dismissed.

    Obama -- If I noticed factual error in a post about him, and it interested me enough, I would challenge it.

    Frankly, at the moment I'm not that interested in Obama.  As I've said before, I'm a tepid Hillary supporter, so I follow posts about her a good deal more closely than posts about Obama.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    If it interested you enough.

    What a joke.


    Look (none / 0) (#173)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    Everybody in politics -- Clinton, McCain, Obama, whoever -- deserves a little slack about what they say in public.  These people are in front of microphones and cameras  for long hours every day.  What Senator Clinton said about the woman dying was basically true.  She was reporting what a cop had told her.  So no sane or realistic person should harp on her getting some minor, non-material fact wrong.

    Who hasn't done that?

    The fact is, however, that the media is very selective in who it cuts slack to.  Just watch how the media whores cover for McCain, but pounce on every verbal slip up by Clinton.  

    For whatever reasons they have, I don't think the media is as harsh on Barack Obama when he verbally slips up as they are on HRC.  That's not fair, and after the revolution, perhaps, the Candy Crowleys and Andrea Mitchells of the world should be put up against a wall and shot.  I would certainly vote for that at some future constitutional convention.

    But until then, these media primadonas are powerful parts of the political landscape and wringing your hands and stamping your feet about them doesn't really do much good.

    The rational (short term) political response is to figure out how to manipulate the high school clique that is our national media and get it working for your candidate if at all possible.

    Given her personality and her history, I suspect that there is no way Hillary Clinton would ever be able to win the media Heathers around.  After almost sixteen years, there's just too much history.  Every gaffe she makes, every verbal stumble, no matter how trivial or understandable, will be magnified and trumpeted as evidence of Clinton's dishonesty, mendacity and boundless ambition.

    The media will certainly never hold itself to the standards to which they hold Senator Clinton.

    The media hate her.  They really, really hate her.  And that's a serious problem for her candidacy.  It's kind of like latent racism among white working class Reagan Democrats -- an unfair and loathsome political fact of life. But anyone who wants to elect a Democrat come November has to consider these unfortunate facts of life when deciding whom the Democrats should nominate in Denver.


    I agree, mainly (none / 0) (#174)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    She was reporting what a cop had told her.  So no sane or realistic person should harp on her getting some minor, non-material fact wrong.

    I was originally replying to BTD's comment that the hospital insinuated itself, out of the blue, into the story.  My point was that the hospital was not engaging in Hillary-bashing, but attempting to protect itself against likely future accusations of turning away a patient in need when that was untrue.  That's the only validity I saw in correcting that minor error - that it could have caused harm to that hospital.  I figured it wouldn't take any work at all to uncover the name of the hospital once Bachtel's name was out there, and then the accusations would begin.  I thought the hospital was acting appropriately.

    That aside, I agree with you.  It was a minor error that had no effect on the main story - that our health care system is abysmal.  I agree that the media is looking for any excuse to "get" Hillary, and so are many of the so-called progressive blogs.  I also agree that this is uncalled for, wrong, and damaging to her campaign and our election process.


    Enough (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    you have made this comment, as wrong as I believe it to be, at least 10 times already. Move on.

    Knowing The "Facts" (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    In this case is like knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

    I have delted NONE of your comments (none / 0) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    But it is time for you to stop spamming the same comment.

    Well, someone did (none / 0) (#229)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    I had three or four comments under Meteor Blades' posts.  They are not there now.

    I accept that those poeple who have replied to me seem to disagree.  I'm not going to beat a dead horse.


    Actually (none / 0) (#230)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    There WAS a commenter that agreed with me about the hospital, up in the Meteor Blades section.  That comment was also deleted.

    Arianna (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ambiorix on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:30:36 AM EST
    had this story on the Hufftington Post homepage for days, where the Obama Republicans could smear Sen. Clinton by the thousands. I was so disgusting that thought I would never take a look at that site again. Until just a moment ago (definitively the last time) I went to see of there where any apologies. Nope. Not on the front page anyway. On the "Politics" page there is: "Clinton Hospital Story May Actually Be True". Not an apology really.
    And for the Obama Republicans, it doesn't matter if what she told was truthful, they smear her anyway.

    Hillary Clinton - Bachtel Story (none / 0) (#163)
    by dsmynat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:06:28 AM EST
      Did any of you actually READ the Washington Post story?  I recognize that reading an ENTIRE article is a lot harder than reading a quote taken out of context used to ignite controversy, but the bottom line of the story:  Ms. Bachtel DID have insurance and DID NOT die because she was not admitted to a hospital that wanted $100.00 before they would admit her.
      And this vindicates Senator Clinton HOW?

    Pathetic. nt (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:22:44 AM EST
    You are suspended (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    Comment no further.

    Lovely first comment (none / 0) (#180)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    Are you sure you're new?  You decide to join up just to comment on this item?  Yes, Clinton is a liar and some hate, hate, hate her blah, blah, blah  Is this all you are going to do when you visit?

    You're not representing you're candidate well when you refuse to focus on the issue of health care.  YOU need to do some reading.  Clinton is relaying a story told to her.  One writer said that if she just credited the sheriff, it would have been ok.  Well, guess what?  She did credit the sheriff. Did that person back off?  No.  Go scream at the sheriff if that is how petty some people want to be instead of focusing on the issue of health care.


    Half truths/ Mark Penn (none / 0) (#171)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    I think personally that Clinton should get a pass on this for the most part. Her campaign did basically apologize for not vetting the story so I am not sure if they knew it was true or not. I just wish ALL the facts checked out. The hospitals come off looking way more sympathetic because Bachtel was not refused treatment. Just sent a bill that she couldnt pay. This is awful and def. follows the meme that health care reform is desperatley needed, but isnt charecterized correctly by Clinton or the sheriff that told her the story. The idea of her SHOWING up and being denied is central to the point of the Clinton story and this is clearly false. Most sites besides this one are saying basically what I said earlier. Most of the story is true, some of the story is false. You claim that the world should apologize and maybe your right but Clinton should as well for misrepresenting the facts. I know the Obamamedia is all to blame for Clintons struggles, it couldnt be that her message has been muddled and her campaign was unprepared for a real fight. I blame Mark Penn for a lot of this and I guess thats why they "fired" him right, BTD. You have called me stupid several times in the past but you fell for the oldest rope-a-dope in the book. Penn isnt going nowhere and will be continuing to advise the Clintons in his own words. He also says that the Columbia flap is no big deal after he said it was an error in judgement publicly. One thing is happening in public and another is happening behind the scenes. Seems like this is what all us deluded Obamaniacs were saying in your thread but you implied something else, including getting a little nasty. Mark Penn has gone nowhere, Im kinda "stupid" though so maybe its Sean Penn thats advising them now.

    Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you (none / 0) (#206)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:34:36 PM EST
    I think personally that Clinton should get a pass on this for the most part.

    I will forward this to Senator Clinton; she'll be terrible grateful to learn that somebody who seems to spend most of his waking hours telling us how monstrous she is, is willing to give her a pass on something she got mostly right.  (Though not of course right enough for him.)  

    I will also forward the news that there is no news.  Obama and his admirers still believe that the best way to to deal with Clinton and her admirers is drown them in condescension.  A strategy that has proved effective throughout the ages in winning over your competitors.


    You have no idea (none / 0) (#209)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    how I feel about Clinton. If I thought she was monstrous then why would I wait for six hours to hear her and her husband speak and then eventually shake her hand. She dissapointed me with her votes on the war, on cluster bombs, Kyl-Lieberman and so much more. I know you think its all because of Obama and I am so clueless in my obsession for him but you are wrong. She has been a dissapointment to me ever since running for Senate and this nonsense from her campaign has not helped. I respected her so much for sticking up to the onslaught of smears she has endured from Republicans, then she turns around and buddies up to Mellon-Scaife, Fox and Ron Burkle. The same people I fought for years against in her favor. This is a huge betrayal and its funny how those who call her such a fighter forget that the people who attacked her for years are now being appeased by her. I guess that this is not a place to voice your opinions because you either get ridiculed or deleted if you dont agree.

    I thik we all have an idea (none / 0) (#220)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    how you feel about her. you must be joking if you think we do not.

    You sound jilted... (none / 0) (#222)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    You have no idea how I feel about Clinton.

    On the contrary, I have a good idea, after reading many, many of your posts (including this one).

    As you put it:

    She has been a dissapointment to me ever since running for Senate and this nonsense from her campaign has not helped...

    So, in other words, she was okay with you until she decided to run for office eight years ago, at which moment she betrayed you and has continued to betray you ever since.

    I aplogize for using the word monstrous.  You're merely disappointed and feeling betrayed, and you  express that disappointment and sense of betrayal by savaging her at every opportunity.


    When have I "savaged her" (none / 0) (#223)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    Sorry if I wasnt clear enough but I should have said SINCE she has been in the senate, not because she decided to run. I thought that might be obvious. I pointed to specific reasons why I have been dissapointed by her but I see you dont want to address those. It has to be because I am a cultist, Obamaphile, it cant be because I have disagreed with her on many things since she became a Senator and in this campaign. Including her claims of being against the war before Obama. Your right BTD, you can read my mind, not my posts and know for sure that I have, what is this ficticous ailment called, oh Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Bill Clinton was the first president I voted for. Yeah i am thirty, I get attacked for that here to. I was so proud to be a supporter of theirs and when my friends were out partying or playing games, I was showing up at Clinton rallies and heckling at Bob Dole rallies and working to get more young people involved. Your right though CDS all the way!

    We care about health care (none / 0) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    not the candidate.  We support the candidate that is committed to health care.  There is only one candidate committed to policies of any kind and that is the one that is supported.  We aren't taking this personally.  There are real issues to be solved in this country and policies are getting stomped on and shoved to the side.  I see no sense in supporting a candidate who copies policies and has to committment to anything.

    BTW, your sarcastic, snotty comments are getting annoying.  Grow up.

    I have to agree with you (none / 0) (#189)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:42:47 AM EST
    Not that I don't like to. :-)

    If Obama had a Healthcare plan like Hillary's, I'd be happier to vote for him in November.

    If Obama had an economic plan like Hillary's, I'd be happier to vote for him in November. (Oh wait, he does. Exactly like Hillary's, but it came out after hers... never mind)

    It isn't Hillary, but she's an added bonus. It's the ISSUES, stupid.


    oneman rules (none / 0) (#191)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    All canidates have their little white lies, but that Bosnia thing, WOW.

    She was in Bosnia. This has been covered quite well by standingup here.

    Sen. Obama's healthcare plan and Sen. Clinton's are not the same. There are substantive differences, including mandates. Regardless, when Obama supporter Sen. John Kerry goes on TV and describes Sen. Clinton's healthcare plan as a "non-starter," I wonder why he is still a senator.

    Yes, her campaign sucked. No question. Yet she's still there, kissing hands and shaking babies. But I would also argue that Sen. Obama's divide-and-conquer strategy has given him a short-term advantage that has already resulted in long-term damage.

    The point is to win the general election, get a greater majorities in the House and Senate, and take Democrats into every elected office possible. That will be difficult without the support of core Democrats who find the Obama campaign's nasty habit of smearing of them, their candidate, and other Democrats as racist unacceptable.

    In addition to being poor politics, it's just wrong.

    Good points (none / 0) (#231)
    by RTwilight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:43:21 AM EST
    I'm actually thinking that part of McCain's vs. Obama strategy is going to be calling him on how his campaign against HRC was totally 180 degrees from his potrayal of himself as 'above the fray'

    Sara F (none / 0) (#196)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    Your do realize that Sen. Obama has misspoken, and distorted, right? And sometimes, he's just flat-out lied.

    Like with nuclear regulation.

    Obama has exaggerated his legislative accomplishments on the campaign trail. He misspoke last December when he told Iowa voters that he had "passed" a nuclear notification bill. There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked about his dealings with senior Exelon executives, who have poured large sums of money into his campaign.

    From the same article:

    The revised bill never made it to the Senate floor in 2006, and was effectively shelved in last-minute partisan maneuvering. Obama re-introduced similarly worded legislation in October 2007, but it has not gone anywhere.

    But it's great that you're calling all three presidential contenders out on this stuff. Holding them all equally to the same high standard is an important effort that we as voters require of our media, ourselves, and our fellow citizens.

    You are calling all of them out, right?

    Or is this just for Sen. Clinton?

    Read earlier posts for once (none / 0) (#210)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST
    I def. agree that Obama has been loose with the facts at times as well. I did make this caveat in an earlier post. I also disagree with him on alot of things, one you just happened to bring up. I am not so sure that nuclear power is the way we want to go, I am 100% against the death penalty, to me religion has no place in politics but he thinks it does, and some of his trade issues I dont agree with. So I get real sick and tired of hearing this "Obamamessiah" crap. I have not been fooled or tricked by anyone. I have objectivly looked at the candidates and my choice is Obama. MSNBC didnt convince me or KO or Tweety or even Obamas speechs. I think he is a true break from the politics that have dominated the last few years and that is what i want more than anything.

    indy33, we agree on many of the issues... (none / 0) (#213)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    except which candidate and why. And that thing about a break with the politics of the past (Sen. Obama's weakest argument, IMO, but whatever). But we can still have a respectful disagreement, yes?

    And I have to ask---have you called out Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain when they play fast and loose with the facts?

    Show me. I'm not the only one who will stand with you if you're attacked for this.

    An honest reckoning has to apply across the board.


    Earlier post comment (none / 0) (#215)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    In an earlier post on this thread I said that Obama has not been entirely innocent when it comes to exaggeration at all. BTD contends that all those who think that this is kind of an exaggeration by Clinton should bow down and apologize and blame the media again. I dont agree in this particular case and I agree with Meteor Blades that by not confirming the fact that some of the details are wrong, BTD is just as wrong as the media. The true story in my opinion does not have the shock value that the condensed story does and when a broader context is looked at it changes the narrative. Def. not saying she is lying but the whole truth was not there until the Aunt came out. Yes Obama has misspoke and misrepresented himself many times including your assertion and his fathers background. He deserves scrutiny for this and I have even if the media hasnt. These statements undermine both our candidates and is unnecessary in my view. They would both be great Presidents and their records and policy stances should be enough. This stretching of the truth gives the Repubs. fodder and causes doubt in the electorate. I agree lookoverthere, we are on the same side on most things and I think a majority of people are on this site. This primary shows how engaged and important this election is and its causing a lot of animosity on both sides. I cant even discuss politics right now with my Mom and her and I have agreed our whole lives on most issues. She was who I waited six hours with to hear Bill and Hillary speak in my hometown. After all this, there is no doubt who are target will ultimatley be and McCain has made a complete mockery of himself and what he used to be. His conversion from sorta common sense moderate, to right wing idealouge is striking and sad and I cant wait to punish him for it in the general.

    the problem is MB got the details wrong (none / 0) (#216)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    The focus on the details, irrelevant to the story is what is wrong. you and MB are wrong.

    and it is indicative opf a truth - the two of you are more focused on what Clinton "did wrong" than the issue or what the emdia did wrong.

    This is CDS. It is that simple,.MB denies suffering from it. I think he has been infected in this sense. He must write at a site where it is deemed healthy behavior.  


    Indy33, again, we are in agreement on many issues (none / 0) (#226)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    though I'm with BTD on his point.

    These statements undermine both our candidates and is unnecessary in my view.

    Sen. McCain and his surrogates use the anecdote as illustration as well.

    Time immemorial, my friend. The device is a part of rhetoric, always has been, always will be. But the big change is that the illustration has trumped the underlying point and that drives the media merry-go-round.

    So we have a choice. We steer away from the Gore-ing, point it out (even when schadenfreude whistles), hop on the merry-go-round (I get carsick thinking of it), or maybe admit that our politicians are human beings. Not one is perfect. Not one is always right or always wrong. Not one can ever come up to the impossible standards set by gotcha politics.

    That's the point of it. Don't use anyone else's measuring stick but your own.

    So take the fight to your friend's doorstep. Hate to get all Dumbledoor on ya, but standing up to your friends takes more guts than standing up to your enemies---in our case, the friendly opposition.

    Call your friends on their crap.

    And talk to your mom, fercryinoutloud. Your guy preaches unity---go walk the walk. Learn how hard it is to disagree passionately but listen with an open mind. At least come to some fair ground rules for engaging in the discourse. Don't let the reactionaries define your terms.

    It's not up to them.

    And use paragraph breaks. You're killing me with the big blocks of text, indy.

    Thanks for the exchange.


    Gladly, Thank you too! (none / 0) (#228)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:51:54 PM EST
    I have no problem calling out people around me for being idiotic. Thats what I live for! Just kidding! I have a grat relationship with Mom she just has ODS, Obama Derangement Syndrome! Also just kidding. Thank you for engaging me in a logical and respectful debate and you more than anyone have helped me understand this issue more broadly. You are right, these kind of situations hurt both our candidates and I am going to try to stop engaging in these petty arguments that really mean nothing. I just get a  little uncomfortable when someone mistates something we immediatly blame it on the media. Obama, Clinton and McCain are still responsible for their own words and all should be held t a high standard after almost eight years of half truths and outright lies! Clintons embrace of Mellon-Scaife,Burkle, and Fox are a little bothersome for me because these are people I was told were the enemies for so many years. Now I am told here that NBC, and MSNBC are the enemies because of their supposed support of Obama. I guess I am just confused because things have always been so black and white. Go DEMS! Boo Reps! When its two of our own, things become a little greyer and makes these situations tough. Sorry about the paragraphs, its just my style! Translation: too lazy!

    Way to miss the point! (none / 0) (#205)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    But you've made mine, and the points of many others.

    "You" are not on the ballot, and yet you use the term "we" when claiming a majority.  That majority, by the way, is not among Democratic voters - Hillary has the majority there - and there are some of us who aren't interested in "adapting" to the views of Republicans and right-leaning independents who think Obama is of like mind with them.

    And by the way - telling fellow Democrats to "watch out" is not a particularly great way to bring people over to Obama's side; it carries a tone that is one of the reasons many of us are not Obama supporters.

    Sara F... (none / 0) (#212)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    Not a typo. "kissing hands and shaking babies" is a common reversal of "shaking hands and kissing babies." I've heard it applied to politicians doing so much retail politics.

    I do not call Sen. Obama's supporters cultists or anything like it. Do not ascribe the words of others to me.

    But now you say I should watch out? For what? The Rapture?

    Sen. Obama is a politician. You can agree to that at least. Politicians lie. And distort. And fabricate. Even Sen. Obama. I offered evidence to that fact.

    Your argument is that Sen. Clinton's Bosnia story meant she was not fit to be president. Did you read standingup's excellent post? Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton was in Bosnia, in a war zone, and there was a threat of sniper fire. These are facts.

    Did she embellish her story on the campaign trail? Yep.

    You believe this makes her unfit to be commander-in-chief. So if embellishment is your standard, then Sen. Obama is even more unfit for the office of the presidency.

    You then imply that Sen. Clinton lied about Trina Bachtel. No, she didn't. Have you been reading any of BTD's excellent blogs on this?

    You've also failed to cite any place where you have called out Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain on their lies, puffery, and other distortions. Please show me where you have applied your embellishment standard to any candidate.

    I bet that the Rapture will come before you list any.

    This double-standard applied to Sen. Clinton is part and parcel of this entire story. It appears you fail to understand that.

    The contest isn't over... (none / 0) (#214)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    I'm not even going to wade into the swamp referred to as the Math. But there are blogs on TL (you can search for them) challenging your assertion that Sen. Obama is leading the popular vote.

    I have no opinion on this, other than that the contest isn't over yet---millions of people have yet to vote. Now, what is that saying about counting your chickens before they come home to roost?

    Sara F, I have not called anyone such names. I have challenged your assertions. Your response is not to answer my questions or refute my argument, but to get upset at being called names.

    Clinton supporters are called names all the time. No, that doesn't make it right. But are you calling people out to stop the schoolyard behavior on other websites?

    All sort of people call Hillary Clinton all sorts of names. I'm sure you protested that. Just as you protested Randi Rhodes's performance.

    You are applying a fair standard to all, aren't you?

    No I do not (none / 0) (#217)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    I used to call them that myself. I stopped.

    This is a bizarre comment (none / 0) (#218)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    Let me warn you to watch your tone.

    You are a fine example of what I have ben describing.

    I come here (none / 0) (#221)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    because I want to hear other perspectives. Sitting on an Pro-Obma website(I think there are far fewer than is implied here though) would not educate me anymore and would be intellectually lazy. Yes, I have been called stupid(by one of the administrators several times), a cultist, and have been deleted unfairly because my view did not jel with others on the site. I have not called anyone names nor been mean in anyway. I have criticized the site before, for in my mind being a little hypocritical but all blogs are going to do that one time or another. I have been banned for a day several times but still come back for more. A good example of why is Jeralyns excellent thread on the death penalty(which is a must read) and for the MOSTLY respectful political banter that is absent in some places. I really love this site even though its tough love sometimes in both directions. It is hard for me to prove that I have stuck up for Clinton for years, and even now when idiots around me say "I hope that (insert female dog reference) loses" I am quick to say that she would be a great President and a huge improvement from what we have had recently. I admired her before and I admire her still, I just think their is a better option remaining and my loyalties to Clinton are overided by that. Man, that Iraq war vote really bothered me too because I believe the way Bill handled Iraq was effective yet she disagreed and voted for the war.(Bill supported it too though) yikes! I will never be able to clear that from my memory but if its Clinton and McCain, you bet I will be working hard for a Clinton victory. We cant afford to be bitter when there is so much on the line!

    Confusing facts with fantasy? (none / 0) (#225)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    Did you read standingup's Lexus Nexis search post?

    1 : to talk informally : chat
    2 : to hold a discussion : confer
    3 : to fill in gaps in memory by fabrication

    So, which definition are you going with? The third one? That's a far distance from confusing facts and fantasy. That is, according to Elizabth Loftus how memory works (as I recall---heh).

    But if we're talking about confusing facts and fantasy, then wouldn't this apply to Sen. Obama's comments about Selma? Or the Kennedy connection to his father? Or dozens of other things he's said?

    (And BTW, Sen. Clinton did get the facts in order in her book. But don't let that stand in your way.)

    So by your silence on the other points, you seem to be saying that it's okay if Sen. Obama lies and Sen. McCain lies. And you haven't defended anyone else from the charges you throw around so carelessly.

    So there is a double standard.

    Good to know.