In December 2012, Hillary Clinton was scheduled to testify about Benghazi. It was postponed because, we were told, she hit her head and was hospitalized. At the time, I opined:
If she has a concussion, let’s see the medical report. Let’s see some proof that she’s not just stonewalling. If it’s true, then we can all wish her a speedy recovery. But it’s ridiculous to expect us to take her word for it.
What’s that you say? You don’t think that’s fair? All the paranoid wingnuts should shut up? Oh, I’m sure you’d say the same thing if this had happened between 2001-2009, and Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice kept putting off testifying about it. You wouldn’t demand a doctor’s note then, right?
Because I dared to say this, people at BuzzFeed, The Atlantic, and others of their ilk accused me of accusing Clinton of faking her injury. I did no such thing, of course. I asked to see the medical report. If you can’t tell the difference, then maybe you’re just not very smart.
Or maybe there’s something physically wrong with your brain. Emily Smith, Page Six:
Karl Rove stunned a conference when he suggested Hillary Clinton may have brain damage…
He said if Clinton runs for president, voters must be told what happened when she suffered a fall in December 2012.
The official diagnosis was a blood clot. Rove told the conference near LA Thursday, “Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that.”
She was only in the hospital for three days, Karl. But she did have those weird glasses. And we’ve never been given any details about how and why she fell. Just a vague story about a stomach virus.
That’s why I asked for the medical report in the first place. That’s why I was excoriated and lied about by worker bees protecting their queen. But if Hillary had just released the medical report in the first place, now her political enemies wouldn’t be using it against her.
Ann Althouse notes how disproportionate the Clinton camp’s response has been:
I notice how overstated the reaction is — “no words for this level of lying”? What part is the lie? Was Rove wrong about the number of days in the hospital? (I think he was.) Clearly, she came out wearing some special glasses. Was Rove wrong in his characterization of the glasses? (Maybe not.) Certainly, it’s fair to state that the public (and the prospective donors) need accurate facts about a presidential candidate’s health…
The overreaction makes me suspicious that there really is a problem. I don’t like this how-dare-you-even-ask attitude. It makes me skeptical. But I do understand the alternative explanation: Stir up the base with stimulating outrage and a reminder that one ought to hate Karl Rove.
Well, hating Rove is a fun hobby on both sides of the aisle these days. Doesn’t mean the question should be off the table, but hate him all you want. Hate me all you want. Hate anybody and anything you choose.
I now welcome the requisite venomous outrage from lefties who can’t believe I’m daring to question the physical and mental health of a woman who will be 69 years old on January 20, 2017. You can all pretend you never questioned John McCain’s health back in 2008, when he was 72.
That was different, though, because shut up.
Whatever the case may be, here’s wishing Hillary Clinton the best of health. And if she decides to start being transparent about it, even better.
Just remember: Asking questions of American royalty is racist. I mean sexist. I mean ageist. Whichever “-ist” applies under the circumstances.