It seems that the Clinton campaign is, or should be, in the market for a fact checker. Unfortunately for whoever gets this job, it’s not likely to be a permanent gig. I’d say the job will be about an 8 week max assignment. The campaign has a desperate need to fill this opening, especially given Hillary’s latest frolic and detour from the truth.
Hillary’s latest “misstatement” concerns the Ohio woman who, although pregnant, was turned away from a hospital twice because she was uninsured and could not pay the hospital $100. Later, the woman was rushed to the hospital, delivered a still born baby, and had to be airlifted to another hospital where she died. Pretty moving stuff. The problem is: all of the salient points for which Hillary told this story were false. As matters of fact, the woman, Trina Bachtel, was not turned away because she could not pay a $100; she had insurance; and far from being turned away, she had been under the care of an obstectrics practice affiliated with the facility. Otherwise, everything else checks out just fine.
You can cut some slack to Hillary on this one. Unlike the Bosnia whopper, she evidently chose to believe a story told to her by a supporter without any fact checking whatsoever. (Her inept campaign staff gets no quarter for allowing their candidate to peddle this A Million Little Pieces tale of health care woe without verification. Maybe one of the HRC campaign’s unpaid bills is for the internets. Without The Google, fact checking is hard work after all)). What’s most entertaining about this is HRC’s supporters’ reactions.
For example, over at MyDD, The Shorn Wonder, girded (girdled?) for battle rushes to Hillary’s defense:
Suddenly we are supposed to think this proves Hillary lied or didn’t properly check this??
First, I’m more likely to trust Hillary than a hospital only releasing the records and information convenient for it to cover its ass. I’m also more likely to trust Hillary than the NY Times, they of “WMD” and plaigarised stories, and holding the NSA spying scandal until after the 2004 election. Hell, I’m more likely to trust the deputy sherriff in Ohio than either of those two entities.
Second, Hillary told this as a story told to her, therefore, it was and remains true. (as true as the fact that 10,000 people died in an Arkansas tornado).
Third, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it is not true. Except for a hospital nobody knew was responsible for the woman’s care when she died, claiming they’ve done nothing wrong.
Fourth, claiming Hillary should’ve somehow proved this was true first is stupid. The hospital, even NOW, won’t release any records that could show whether they actually provided the care they claim.
The Shorn Wonder has a fifth point: the fictional $100 charge in Ohio matches the charge her mother is allegedly required to pay at the Elko, Nevada emergency room before she is seen. Maybe conspiracy theories are the hobgloblin of little minds.
Anyway, The Shorn Wonder might have done a little fact checking herself before deciding on a strategy of defending the story as spun by Hillary.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee acknowledged that the campaign had tried but hadn’t been able to “fully vet” the story before she began repeating it on the campaign trail.
“She tells the story as it was told to her by the deputy sheriff. She had no reason to doubt his word,” Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it didn’t happen that way, we certainly respect that and she won’t repeat the story. She never mentions the hospital by name and isn’t trying to cast blame.”
The title of the post really takes the cake: “Hillary’s ‘Hospital Lie’: the Further Disintegration of Obama Fans.” It makes me wonder whether The Shorn Wonder went through the Kool Aid line twice.
Over at TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat, calls this post at Daily Kos, evidence of Clinton derangement syndrome. Big Tent’s conspiracy involves the hospital. Saint Hillary never mentioned the woman’s name, so why would the hospital say anything at all? It seems to have slipped by Big Tent, much like the whoppers slipping by the Clinton goalies, that the press was looking into this story. Clinton identified the woman’s occupation, where she lived, and where she heard the story. It wouldn’t take a reporter, even one with the minimum diligence required for keeping his job, too long to find the woman’s name. In fact, Big Tent even cites the same type technical, trade secret sleuthing that I bet was used to discover Trina Bachtel’s name.
Senator Clinton heard this story, from Ohio Deputy Sheriff Brian Holman:
The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.
Getting from HRC’s story to the full set of details as currently known doesn’t seem to require much more than a phone, a pen or pencil, and maybe an old receipt on which to take notes. Big Tent even finds it odd that the hospital even cares about being part of this story:
But if you care about the health care issue, if you care about people like Trina Bachtel, you might want to ask why this Ohio hospital made such a big deal about this.
Yes, in Hillaryland, you should be suspicious of a hospital that objects to being portrayed as turning having denied care to a pregnant woman who, along with her baby later died. The inference being, of course, that the hospital somehow caused in some way their deaths. Why on earth would a hospital object to being falsely associated with that story?
When, when will Hillary Clinton withdraw from this race? I think both Hillary and her troupe need a long vacation .
