Skip to main content

The Health of Hillary Clinton

    Okay, folks.  It's getting pretty hard to ignore the apparent health issues that former first lady and current Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is experiencing.  Let me be clear about one thing.  I do not wish these health problems upon her.  I don't believe that it is my calling as a Christian to rejoice in her suffering.  However, that doesn't mean that we can ignore what is happening.  Several reports of Clinton having health issues have come out and they have been unequivocally shot down as the ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists.  That dialogue can no longer be maintained.  When major news outlets run stories about it, you know it's bad.  After all, we all know they'll cover up things as long as possible.  It's to the point that it cannot be ignored.  The latest reports are that Clinton has pneumonia, which must have produced a collective sigh of relief from the media.  Pneumonia is bad enough to produce something as disturbing as the videos storming the internet, but not so bad as to cause concern for her ability to continue with her campaign. Should we believe her doctor?  I guess we'll just have to take his word for it, but it seems an awful lot like damage control to me.  It sounds like a plausible distraction from her real issues.  

    The question that must be asked is whether or not it is fair to the constituency to advance a candidate whose health is questionable?  Is it fair to win the White House based on Hillary Clinton when what the people are really getting is Tim Kaine (who would actually be better, but that's not the point)?  The obvious answer is no.  It's the old bait and switch.  The Democratic party long ago identified Hillary as their most viable candidate and they will do whatever it takes to get her across the finish line.  The media will also do their part to ensure that that happens.  She could drop dead the second after her inaugural address and the liberals wouldn't care less.  They want to make sure that they have their guy/gal in office.  

    It's worth noting, however, that the internet is changing the game.  The traditional media is definitely losing its clout as millennials go online for any news they care to ingest.  Years ago it would have been easy (easier, anyway) to conceal this sort of thing, but the viral nature of online videos has rendered a response necessary.  For all the evils of the internet, and there are many, this is one of the many positives.  The internet spreads misinformation and feeds paranoia, but it also keeps politicians somewhat accountable.  The political landscape is quickly evolving, so we'll so how things proceed.  The people are being more and more set over against the establishment by the realization of the double standards that exist in this country.  Will the bourgeoisie ever be able to break free of the elite class?  Probably not, but the internet somewhat helps to even out the classes.

    But back to Hillary's health.  Maybe she's fine.  Maybe she is just a little fatigued by an unusually hot summer on the campaign trail (I can see the headline now: "Global Warming Causes Hillary Clinton's Fainting Spell").  You watch the footage and tell me.  Does she really look like she has the durability to travel all the miles, to deliver all the speeches, and to deal with all the stress that comes with being the President of the United States of America?  Even if it is "only" pneumonia, that's still pretty serious.  Maybe she doesn't have a specific health issue that is hampering her.  Maybe she isn't dying per se.  Is that good enough?  What sort of decision-making capabilities will she have if she is constantly tired and strained?  She'll be 69 by the time the election rolls around.  Maybe she missed her chance at the Oval Office by losing out to Obama 8 years ago?  Is she too old and frail to serve her country in such a demanding capacity?  This really should be a bipartisan issue.  I really don't want Hillary Clinton in the White House again, but I really don't want as President a Hillary Clinton whose health and endurance are impairing her ability to lead (her ideology is impairment enough!). I would think that most people would share that opinion, regardless of which side of the aisle they occupy.  It's time for the Democrats and the media to confront this honestly.  American voters deserve to get all the information before November 8th rolls around. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary