Posted on 09/11/2016 9:00:39 AM PDT by drewh
Hillary Clinton falling ill at a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks Sunday morning will catapult questions about her health from the ranks of conservative conspiracy theory to perhaps the central debate in the presidential race over the coming days.
"Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen," spokesman Nick Merrill said. "During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter's apartment and is feeling much better."
What that statement leaves out is that a) it came 90 minutes after Clinton left the ceremony b) reporters -- or even a reporter -- were not allowed to follow her and c) the temperature in New York City at the time of Clinton's overheating was in the low 80s. (A heat wave over the eastern United States broke last night/this morning.)
Whether Clinton likes it or not, her "overheating" comes at a very bad time for her campaign. Thanks to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and a small but vocal element of the Republican base, talk of Clinton's health had been bubbling over the past week -- triggered by a coughing episode she experienced during a Labor Day rally.
That talk was largely confined to Republicans convinced that Clinton has long been hiding some sort of serious illness. I wrote dismissively of that conspiracy theory in this space last week, noting that Clinton had been given an entirely clean bill of health by her doctors after an episode in which she fainted, suffered a concussion and then a blood clot in late 2012 and early 2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Thanks for making me look that up.
LOL.
I was young and didn’t take it well. Hillary is almost twenty years my senior and she just passed out.
High humidity heat is more dangerous to older persons who can’t sweat that well to keep cool.
And that’s just the surface of a vast iceberg.
We have no knowledge of the true extent of Hillary’s health problems.
XLNT
I think that’s the only reason that Kaine accepted the offer. He’s betting that she won’t last a month and he’ll be able to step right on is, when he have no other path to that position otherwise.
good upward mobility
AMEN!!! Trump BETTER not put her down for this or make fun of it....he needs to offer her good wishes!!
Excellent point.
And in those states that enable "early voting," what happens if HIllary is forced to drop out of the race?
Would early voters then be given a 2nd chance at voting for Hillary's replacement? I doubt it ... although you never know. If the Dems took the matter to court, I think we know how an Obama-appointed judge would decide such a case.
In NJ we had a Dem-sympathizing judge allow retired Senator Frank Lautenberg to replace corrupt Senator Robert Torricelli on the general election ballot. This was after Torricelli was forced to withdraw from the race. (Iirc Torricelli had just been indicted on corruption charges.)
The judge allowed the replacement name on the ballot, even though it was already too late, according to NJ State law.
I like the way the judge assumed the democrats owed it to the public to run someone.
I don’t think Shriver had any problem with ballot access when he replaced Eggleston.(I could be wrong, it was 44 years !) However this is the top of ticket could be interesting, but as long she is breathing and conscious she will be on the ticket.
It doesn't matter what it says on a ballot line because you are still voting for electors pledged to a party's candidates for president and vice president. Therefore, if Hillary were to leave the race and be replaced by the DNC, the following would happen. First, electors in the 50 states and DC would get their registered notification letters. Second, in those states where the ballot deadlines were still open, the DNC would file to change the ballot lines. Third, in those states where the ballot deadlines had closed, the DNC's radio and TV ads would say, "Vote for the Clinton/Kaine ballot line so that your vote can really be for the Biden/Kaine ticket."
Note that we have some precedent. In 1872, the Democratic presidential nominee died right after the election. The DNC notified its electors by mail that there had been a change of ticket, and Democratic electors voted for the new ticket in December. It was just a formality because Grant and the Republicans had won in a landslide.
In that case I think it was not long after the Dem convention that the uproar over Eagleton's mental health status erupted. It turned out he had had shock treatments, back in the day.
Iirc, at first McGovern said he backed Eagleton "110%." Then shortly after that McGovern abruptly did a 180,º and Sargent Shriver was brought on to replaced Eagleton. This seemed to be ok with most Dems ... because for them, Sargent Shriver, being married to Eunice Kennedy, had that special Kennedy magic that used to allow Kennedys to get away with anything ... kind of like Clintons get away with everything today.
Anyway correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all this happened long before it was too late to legally change names on the November ballot.
You're absolutely right about the electors being the real deciders of the election. I would only argue that most voters depend on having their presidential and vice-presidential candidates' names on the ballot. If those names aren't at the top of the ticket, many voters won't figure it out, and the vote count for that party will be depressed.
Beats me, but I am sure state ballot access laws allow for replacement if candidate is dead or incapacitated. It would shocking and irresponsible if they didn’t, but it could be in some states. It wouldn’t surprise me.
They’ll figure it out because the DNC will exhaust their treasury running ads in those states where the ballot line could not be changed in time, especially if those states are important.
Which would be funny!
Well I’d laugh!
Rats would be deeply disproportionaly impacted.
Yes, but only up to a certain date. In my state I think ballots can't be changed in the 60-day window before an election.
So if the election were Nov 8, then the deadline for changing the name on the ballot would be something like Sept 9th.
Then after Sept 9th, if a candidate became disqualified (by incapacitating illness, death, or being forced out by the party), legally it would be too late to put a replacement name on the ballot. However in NJ the Dems have gotten around this law at least once.
You think you vote for president? You don’t - you vote for a slate of Electors who are committed to vote for your candidate for POTUS. Therefore, the only issue is that the Dems might have to get their voters to vote for “Hillary” as a figurehead. But they still face the issue of campaigning for those electors - and thus they have to convince their voters that the electors will vote for someone the voters like.
We know that many voters base their votes on the candidate's perceived personality; and if that personality is gone from the race, for whatever reason, there's a good chance his or her voters will stay home.
* * *
What’s with the LOL? Didn’t you see what I described?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.