- The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 7, 2016

In 2013, Washington Post “The Fix” columnist Chris Cillizza wrote an article titled: “What Hillary Clinton’s health means for 2016.”

In the column he wrote: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be on the road to recovery from a blood clot near her brain caused by a concussion she suffered several weeks ago in a fall at her house … even if Clinton has no long-term effects from this health scare, it will, without question, influence how she is covered if she decides to run for president in 2016.

Here’s why.

1. Clinton would be 69 years old if she runs in 2016. (Her birthday is Oct. 26, 1947.) That’s the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was elected president in 1980. Reagan remains the oldest person ever elected president. (John McCain was 72 when he ran — and lost — in 2008.)

2. This is the second time in the past 15 years that Clinton has had a blood clot issue. The first episode, which was significantly less serious, was in 1998 when she was treated for a blood clot in her leg.



Add those two factors up and it’s clear that Clinton will have to answer lots — and lots — of questions about her health if she decides to get into the next race for president.”

Interesting.

On Tuesday, Mr. Cillizza wrote why Mrs. Clinton’s health should be off-limits for reporters.

In an article titled “Can we just stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s health now?” Mr. Cillizza argued Mrs. Clinton’s health “is a totally ridiculous issue.”

“Beyond the Clinton conspiracy theorists who believe she had something to do with Vince Foster’s death and that she was secretly responsible for everything from Y2K to the SpaceX explosion last week, it’s hard to plausibly insist, based on the available data, that Clinton is ill,” Mr. Cillizza wrote. “There’s the doctor’s note, plus she keeps a very rigorous schedule for a 68-year-old — traveling all over the country to raise money and campaign.”

Wow. Three years has really changed things for Mr. Cillizza. On Wednesday, he doubled down on his position (on why Mrs. Clinton’s health is a non-issue), when confronted by readers with a past article he wrote saying voters were right in questioning Arizona Sen. John McCain’s health.

“The point is that I wrote about McCain’s health as a real issue in 2008 and insisted Clinton’s health isn’t an issue this time around. Hypocrite! Hack! Biased! Liberal!,” Mr. Cillizza wrote of readers’ reactions. “Here’s the thing: We are talking about — and I am/was writing about — apples and oranges. …

“They are simply two separate people — and cases. McCain had a series of demonstrated health challenges — documented by his doctors — that voters were concerned about and that his campaign took effective action to counter. Clinton does not.”

Guess he didn’t feel that way in 2013, when he actually argued Mrs. Clinton’s health would be a valid concern heading into 2016. Apples and oranges, huh? Perhaps it’s just his partisan values shinning through.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide