Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

The powers that be at the New York Times have decided that Hillary is toast

Kremlinologists used to carefully look at who was in what position in the stands reviewing the annual May Day parade to understand behind the scenes power struggles and who was currently on top. Here in the States, we are more fortunate. All we need to do is read the letters to the editor on the editorial page of the New York Times.

Just like “Home on the Range”, never is heard a discouraging word (or a letter which disagrees with the editorial stances of the Times).

So today (15 May 2017) 4 letters appeared concerning a column written 7 May by Frank Bruni titled “Hillary Clinton’s Absolution” — all highly critical of Hillary and Bill.

A few quotes:

“The Clintons have been running the Democratic party like a personal fief for 25 years”.

“But to ruminate about how Hillary would have won if only the Russians, WikiLeaks and James Comey didnot do her in — well, I have had enough of this.”

“Frank Bruni” seems obsessed enough about Hillary Clinton’s feelings to write an opera.”

“But it’s also her (Hillary’s) supporters in the DemocraticParty leadership who need to seek redemption for abandoning the working class voters who once formed the core constituency of their party.”

Do you think the publication of these 4 letters was unintentional? By the purest of coincidences publication occurred the very day Hillary announced the formation of a new PAC to oppose Trump — http://fortune.com/2017/05/15/hillary-clinton-launches-political-action-committee-dedicated-to-liberal-causes/

The same day a full page article title “How Democracy Collapsed” concerning Venezuela. The word elites appears 3 times, the word socialism not at all.

Advertisements

Is this any way to write about Hillary Clinton?

Is this any way to write about Hillary Clinton?

“ xxxx has made it increasingly clear that she has no intention of being sidelined. … To the contrary . . . . she managed to elbow herself into a leading outspoken role.” From the New York Times of 9 April 2017.

What a pushy little bitch.

Of course not, they were writing about Nikki Haley.

Here’s how Hillary was treated the same day.

One paragraph should do it

“She noted the abundant social science research that when men are ambitious and sucdessful, they may be perceived as more likeable. In contrast, for women in traditionally male fields, it’s a trade-off; the more successful or ambitious a woman is, the less likable she becomes. .. . . It’s not so much that people consciously oppose powerful women; it’s an unconscious bias.”

Tne NYT should so inform the reporter who wrote the piece on Haley (both appear to be ‘women of color’) whose bias is far from unconscious.

A book recommendation

If you’re Irish and your family looks like it’s been at a wake since 8 November or if you’re Jewish and your family has been sitting shiva since Trump won, I’ve got a book for them. They’ll hate it of course and reading it will be painful for them, but if they want to defeat him in the future they’d best buckle up and read it.

The book is called “How Trump Won” by Joel B. Pollak, and Larry Schweikart. Pollak is Breitbart Senior News Editor at Large, and Schweikart is an emeritus American history prof.

Why should the mourners read it? Simply this. If  you want to defeat Trump in the future you should know just how he beat you. The celebrators of his victory will need no urging.

It’s pretty well written, and the chapters alternate between the two with Pollak describing his experiences in the last days of the campaign starting 19 October and Schweikart covering American history starting with Martin van Buren to put things in context. It is disconcerting as Schweikart also covers the Trump campaign from its inception in 2015, so there are jumps in time from chapter to chapter.

Even though a political junkie I was as bamboozled by the press coverage of the election as anyone else, going to bed at 10PM election night because I knew it would be a rout of Trump — “Hispanics surging to the polls” etc. etc.

A few points to whet your interest. Giving the lie to Breitbart’s antisemitism, Pollak is a devout Jew,leaving the campaign trail each Saturday to observe the sabbath. He’s a Harvard Graduate.

The authors knew Trump would win Florida, based on the early voting. They knew how various counties reliably voted, and the panhandle was early voting heavily. They could see that blacks weren’t voting as much — down 3 – 4 % in Florida, 8% in North Carolina (apparently absolute absentee numbers by location are available long before the election, although not WHO the voters were for). So much for the theory that North Carolina was won because it was difficult for blacks to get the polls — there certainly is no obstacle for early voting.

Here’s another — why were the polls so wrong. People were afraid to say they were for Trump (particularly in liberal enclaves). One pollster (Trafalgar) figured out a way around this — they just asked people who they thought their neighbors would vote for.

On election night the media did what they authors expected, calling states for Clinton as soon as possible, and delaying calling any states for Trump for as long as possible.

Well that’s enough. Either you will grit your teeth and read it or you won’t.

A few other points — I’ve never seen the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Nation and the National Review agree on anything. But they were uniformly against Trump slanting the news against him, declaring his campaign imploding at various times. Fascinating that it had no effect. The National Review put out an entire issue in January 2016 titled “Against Trump.”

So if you find a biased article against your favorite politician (assuming you have one) — relax — it no longer matters.

The book is not abstract, filled with interviews by Pollak of those attending Trump rallies (along with interview of those there to protest him).

It all depends on whose ox is being gored

The following article appeared in the New York Times 19 October 2016. The following paragraph begins a direct, continuous, unedited quote from the start of the article. Subsequently, the article discusses other matters brought up in the debate — here’s the link for the whole thing — https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/presidential-debate.html?_r=0. The times they are a’changin’ aren’t they?

“In a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy, Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he might not accept the results of next month’s election if he felt it was rigged against him — a stand that Hillary Clinton blasted as “horrifying” at their final and caustic debate on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump, under enormous pressure to halt Mrs. Clinton’s steady rise in opinion polls, came across as repeatedly frustrated as he tried to rally conservative voters with hard-line stands on illegal immigration and abortion rights. But he kept finding himself drawn onto perilous political territory by Mrs. Clinton and the debate’s moderator, Chris Wallace.

He sputtered when Mrs. Clinton charged that he would be “a puppet” of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia if elected. He lashed out repeatedly, saying that “she’s been proven to be a liar on so many different ways” and that “she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime” over her State Department email practices. And by the end of the debate, when Mrs. Clinton needled him over Social Security, Mr. Trump snapped and said, “Such a nasty woman.”

Mrs. Clinton was repeatedly forced to defend her long service in government, which Mr. Trump charged had yielded no real accomplishments. But she was rarely rattled, and made a determined effort to rise above Mr. Trump’s taunts while making overtures to undecided voters.

She particularly sought to appeal to Republicans and independents who have doubts about Mr. Trump, arguing that she was not an opponent of the Second Amendment as he claimed, and promising to be tougher and shrewder on national security than Mr. Trump.

But it was Mr. Trump’s remark about the election results that stood out, even in a race that has been full of astonishing moments.

Every losing presidential candidate in modern times has accepted the will of the voters, even in extraordinarily close races, such as when John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard M. Nixon in 1960 and George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida to win the presidency in 2000.

Mr. Trump insisted, without offering evidence, that the general election has been rigged against him, and he twice refused to say that he would accept its result.

“I will look at it at the time,” Mr. Trump said. “I will keep you in suspense.”

“That’s horrifying,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “Let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position.”

Mrs. Clinton then ticked off the number of times he had deemed a system rigged when he suffered a setback, noting he had even called the Emmy Awards fixed when his show, “The Apprentice,’’ was passed over.

“It’s funny, but it’s also really troubling,” she said. “That is not the way our democracy works.”

Mrs. Clinton also accused Mr. Trump of extreme coziness with Mr. Putin, criticizing him for failing to condemn Russian espionage against her campaign’s internal email.

When Mr. Trump responded that Mr. Putin had “no respect” for Mrs. Clinton, she shot back, in one of the toughest lines of the night: “That’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

“No puppet, no puppet,” Mr. Trump sputtered. “You’re the puppet.” He quickly recovered and said, “She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I’ve ever seen in any government, whatsoever.”

There’s more — but the above is a direct continuous unedited quote from the article

Why Hillary Clinton had a stroke in 2012

Hillary Clinton decimated Bernie Sanders in the New York primary and is the likely nominee. This makes the nature of her illness in December 2012 even more important. This retired board certified Neurologist and Neurology Board examiner thinks she had a stroke back then. Here’s why.

First: a timeline.

At some point in the week of 9 December 2012 Mrs. Clinton is said to have fainted suffering a concussion. The New York Times reported on this 13 December.

She remained at home until 30 December at which point she was admitted to New York-Presbyterian Hospital when a blood clot was found in a vein draining her brain.

Subsequently she had double vision due to her eye muscles not working together for a month or so and had to wear special glasses (Fresnel lenses) to correct this.

Second: The following explanation for these events was given by Lisa Bardach M. D, a board certified internist in a letter released by the Clinton campaign 31 July 2015.

You may read the entire letter at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/clintonhealth2015.pdf but the relevant paragraph is directly quoted below.

“In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated, fainted and sustained a concussion. During follow up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis and began anticoagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefited from wearing glasses with a Fresnel Prism. Her concussion including the double vision, resolved within two months and she discontinued the use of the prism. She had followup testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs. Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders. As a precaution, however, it was decided to continue her on daily anticoagulation.”

In my opinion this letter essentially proves that Mrs. Clinton had a stroke.

Third: Why should you believe what yours truly, a neurologist and not a neurosurgeon says about the minimal likelihood of this clot being due to the head trauma she sustained when she fainted? Neurologists rarely deal with acute head trauma although when the smoke clears we see plenty of its long term side effects (post-traumatic epilepsy, cognitive and coordination problems etc. etc.). I saw plenty of it in soldiers when I was in the service ’68 – ’70, but this was after they’d been stabilized and shipped stateside. However, I had an intense 42 month experience managing acute head injuries.

To get my kids through college, I took a job working for two busy neurosurgeons. When I got there, I was informed that I’d be on call every other night and weekend, taking first call with one of the neurosurgeons backing me up. Fortunately, my neurosurgical backup was excellent, and I learned and now know far more about acute head trauma than any neurologist should. We admitted some of the head trauma cases to our service, but most cases had trauma to other parts of the body, so a general surgeon would run the show with our group as consultants. I was the initial consultant in half the cases. When I saw them initially, I followed the patients until discharge. On weekends I covered all our patients and all our consults, usually well over 20 people.

We are told that Hillary had a clot in one of the large draining veins in the back of her head (the transverse dural venous sinus). I’d guess that I saw over 300 cases of head trauma,but I never saw a clot develop in a dural sinus due to the trauma. I’ve spoken to two neuroradiologists still in practice, and they can’t recall seeing such a clot without a skull fracture over the sinus. Such a fracture has never been mentioned at any time about Hillary.

Fourth: Why does the letter essentially prove Hillary had a stroke back then ?

I find it impossible to believe that the double vision occurred when she fainted. No MD in their right mind would not immediately hospitalize for observation in a case of head trauma with a neurologic deficit such as double vision. This is just as true for the most indigent patient as for the Secretary of State. I suppose it’s possible that the double vision came up right away, and Dr. Bardach was talked into following her at home. Docs can be bent to the whims of the rich and powerful. Witness Michael Jackson talking his doc to giving him Diprivan at home, something that should never be given outside the OR or the ICU due to the need for minute to minute monitoring.

My guess was that the double vision came up later — probably after Christmas. Who gets admitted to the hospital the day before New Year’s Eve? Only those with symptoms requiring immediate attention.

Dr. Bardack’s letter states, “As a precaution,however, it was decided to continue her on daily anticoagulation.” I couldn’t agree more. However, this is essentially an admission that she is at significant risk to have more blood clots. While anticoagulation is not without its own risks, it’s a lot safer now than it used to be. Chronic anticoagulation is no walk in the park for the patient (or for the doctor). The most difficult cases of head trauma we had to treat were those on anticoagulants. They always bled more.

Dr. Bardack’s letter is quite clever. She never comes out and actually says that the head trauma caused the clot, but by the juxtaposition of the first two sentences, the reader is led to that conclusion. Suppose, Dr. Bardack was convinced that the trauma did cause the clot. Then there would be no reason for her to subject Mrs. Clinton to the risks of anticoagulation, given that the causative agent was no longer present. In all the cases of head trauma we saw, we never prescribed anticoagulants on discharge (unless we had to for non-neurosurgical reasons).

This is not a criticism of Dr. Bardach’s use of anticoagulation, spontaneous clots tend to recur and anticoagulation is standard treatment. I highly doubt that the trauma had anything at all to do with the blood clot in the transverse sinus. It is even possible that the clot was there all the time and caused the faint in early December.

Fifth: Isn’t this really speculation? Yes it is and this is typical of medical practice where docs do the best they can with the information they have while always wishing for more. The Clinton campaign has chosen to release precious little.

So what information would be useful? First Dr. Bardach’s office notes. I’m sure Mrs. Clinton was seen the day she fainted, and subsequently. They would tell us when the double vision came up. Second the admission history and physical and discharge summary from NY Pres. Her radiologic studies (not just the reports) — plain skull film, CT (if done), MRI (if done) should be available.

Sixth: why is this important.Fortunately, Mrs. Clinton has recovered. However, statistically a person who has had one stroke is far more likely to have another than a person who has never had one. This is particularly true when we don’t know what caused the first (as in this case).

We’ve had two presidents neurologically impaired by stroke in the past century (Woodrow Wilson after World War I and Franklin Delano Roosevelt at Yalta). The decision they made in that state were not happy for the USA or the world.

A prospective experiment for you all to do at home

Here is a prospective journalistic experiment for you all to do in the privacy of your own home. Then it’s time for me to get back to the science.

The previous post (https://luysii.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/helping-hillary-along/) showed how the New York Times is working very hard to brand Rubio as a member of the Republican establishment and as their preferred candidate. Well, he might be just that, but if there ever was a candidate of the Democratic establishment it is Hillary Clinton.

So here’s the experiment for you to do. Pick a media outlet you follow (NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, any TV channel of your choice etc. etc.). Then count the number of times the term establishment is used in stories about Rubio and about Hillary. Since I read the NYT daily, I’ll choose them. I get the WSJ but never plow through the whole thing — just the first section.

There’s no point in being a scientific type if you don’t make predictions. Mine is that the word establishment will be used at least twice as often (if not more) in stories about Rubio than in stories about Hillary (this includes op-eds).

So pick your outlet and start tomorrow. Send your results here by writing a comment on this post.

Helping Hillary along

A friend of my son once said that all you needed was the first one or two measures of anything Bach wrote to know how the rest of the piece would go. So it is with the New York Times. The lead about the primary campaign 3 Feb ’16 contains the terms “Army, Attack, Dispatches” and the sublead contains the term “Establishment”.

Do you think this article is about Hillary?

Of course not. This is branding at its finest. Of whom? Of a viable Republican candidate (Rubio), so you’ll know just what to think about him without even reading the article.

Another article on the front page has a nice picture of Hillary. They mention that she won Iowa by the narrowest of margins, but nothing about how surprising this was given that she has the entire mainstream press and Democratic party establishment (term not used) on her side.

It’s why the mainstream press must be read the way the Russians (and the CIA) read Pravda during the cold war.

Addendum 4 Feb ’16 — When Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus in 2008, the press went bananas and noted that this was the first time a Black candidate won the Iowa caucus.

Have you read anything about the first Latino to win the Iowa caucus (Cruz) or that another came in third (Rubio) and that a Black candidate came in fourth (Carson), the three receiving an aggregate 60% of the vote in lily white Iowa?  I thought not.   That’s because the narrative that Republicans are racist must be upheld at all costs.

Second addendum 4 Feb ’16 — I should have looked at the editorial page of the Times before writing the above.  There is still nothing in the mainstream ‘news’ feeds about the Latino victory even now.  The Op-ed page contains “The Latino Political First We’re Ignoring”.  The victories of Rubio and Cruz are noted. The op-ed notes that “it is not being celebrated”.  So who is “we” and who is not celebrating?  “No less an arbiter than Jorge Ramos the Univision anchor” and La Opinion, the nation’s largest Spanish language newspaper.  One must ask who elected the arbiter and the editorial board of the La Opinion?  No one.  More media types holding forth in their echo chamber  Another example of self selected spokesmen being blindsided by events.

On the same opinion page we are told “The Republican establishment is thrilled”  about Rubio by Gail Collins.  This continues the meme on the front page yesterday of Rubio being the establishment.

I have no problem with Collins or the op-ed about Cruz and Rubio’s victory.  They are opinions and on the opinion page where they belong.  The problem was yesterday’s front page opinion piece masquerading as news.