Having pneumonia isn't indicative of overall health. Healthy people get pneumonia.
Sure. So it's no big deal to say she's got pneumonia and will take a few days off to recover, right? Cause it's not a sign of bad health, right? Again, that logic goes both ways Joph.
No it doesn't. I asked why you deserve to know she had pneumonia. You don't deserve to know it on the basis of "it's not a big deal". That would actually be a reason why you don't
deserve to know it -- since it's not a big deal (by your own admission), the only reason to be informed is for gossip.
But if it's not a sign of bad health, then how does that gossip harm her?
I do deserve to know if the person running for president has a history of loosing consciousness and falling. I do deserve to know if she has frequent cases of getting ill, since yes, repeated illness is a sign of poor health, and perhaps some underlying condition that is aggravated by external conditions (like high stress, not enough sleep, etc). I also kinda would like to know, before making a voting decision, whether the person I'm being asked to vote for has a habit of concealing this kind of condition. How wide is the circle of people "in the know" going to be in the future. If she gets this sick while president, is she going to inform say the cabinet officials in a meeting she's in? Members of congress she's interacting with that day? The commanders in the situation room where she's making critical decisions?
Yeah Joph. We kinda do deserve to know this. It's not just about her getting sick. It's about how often she gets sick like this, and whether this will impair her significantly in the future if she gets elected as president. She didn't just have a bad cough. I've seen the video of the fall. She was completely unresponsive. That's not just feeling a bit under the weather, and it's not even feeling a bit dizzy. She was completely out of it. She didn't track the car as it approached, and seemed to be completely unaware that it had stopped in front of her and the doors had been opened. She made no motions at all. Just stood there.
If it weren't for what I'm sure is a completely honest declaration by her staff about this being pneumonia, I'd think she had a seizure. Cause I've seen people with pneumonia, and I've seen someone have a petite mal seizure (multiple times, in fact). Her actions (or lack of them) looked like the latter, not the former.
We both agree that healthy people get pneumonia and so pneumonia is not indicative of any lack of health above and beyond the illness itself. So, again, why do you deserve to know she had it?
Because by not disclosing it, and her having the incident she had happen on Sunday, it makes people suspect that it was made up after the fact (or was a convenient excuse for something that may have been unrelated). It also trails right into the narrative that Clinton hides everything until forced to reveal something. It makes people not trust her even more than they didn't trust her before. If she'd actually been able to keep it together, we wouldn't be having the conversation, but since she wasn't, we are.
Do I need to know every time a politician gets sick? No. But if that politician's sickness is so severe that they have an episode like she did? That's the point where you start wondering whether she's fit to serve in office. You can jump up and down and declare that this is unfair, but I suspect you're in the minority on that.