I expect the media will soon move on to another line of questioning that might be difficult for her depending on the answer: what medication is she taking? It sounds like these headaches are at least sometimes triggered by stress. Is she using benzos such as Valium or Xanax to mitigate the stress? Is she using psychiatric meds? She is of course under no obligation to share that information but voters and the media will insist on her answering (unfairly or not) and she will have to make a difficult choice if the answer is 'damaging.' I couldn't be more anti-Bachmann if I tried but if she does turn out to be taking any form of benzo or psych med, she will gain some small and completely worthless support from me here and elsewhere while her chances nationally will quickly spiral down the drain. Bias against even the most mild form of mental illness or mood disorder (and I think "debilitating" headaches triggered by stress barely counts) is one of the last 'acceptable' bigotries in our country. I actually think we'd see a gay or atheist president before we'd see one with any history of depression or stress-related mood disorder. This is all speculation, obviously. But at some point she will probably have to disclose her medication regimen if she wants to continue in the campaign. And I doubt she's just loading up on aspirin as a preventative med.
If the story is true, and she's a woman who can't work sometimes because of really bad headaches... That will not play well. Sexism still exists and the portrait of a tough conservative woman who has to take time off because stress gives her headaches will be really ugly.
I agree with you about the existence of sexism and I am sympathetic to her condition, whatever it is, but I don't want a president of either sex that becomes incapacitated for days at a time, whatever the reason. And neither will the American people. Maybe the story is false and she doesn't even get headaches, I don't know. But I do know she will have to do a better job of addressing the issue and fast. Because her staff just upped the ante in a pretty dramatic fashion. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...h-up-reporter/2011/03/03/gIQA1cFKOI_blog.html
Routinely has to stop working for "days at a time" and that didn't come out during her re-election bids when democrats made her target #1? I just can't buy it. This one sounds like a particularly bad episode and she might deal with headaches routinely that are not nearly as severe. I do not buy the idea that she would be incapacitated for days.
Bachmann's response above. I think this is going to attention it doesn't deserve largely because she's a woman.
Agreed, in part and it is probably a gross exaggeration. Remember, her previous election campaigns were essentially local affairs. Now she is playing with the big boys on a national stage. Gloves come off.
Sure, but the democratic party nationally made her a target. If she was unable to perform her duties in Congress for days at a time that would be info you couldn't hide from your co-workers. "Vote today." "Where's Michelle" "Oh, the cook from Minnesota? She's out with another "headache." giggle giggle
The stories quote two anonymous former staffers and confirmation by a third. That doesn't mean they're true. How could anyone know for sure? But one of the quotes said something like "I choose my words carefully: incapacitated." True or not, and I take no position and make no guess on that, she will have to deal with this now and it will have to involve opening her confidential medical records to the media and the nation, including which meds she takes (if any). Fair or not, that's how these things work. Americans care about the health of a potential president and they're probably right to do so. Of course, as a liberal Democrat, I don't want Bachmann pushed out of the race by this issue or any other. I want her to rise and rise and become the nominee because I think she'd be the easiest to beat. But she will have to deal with this pretty much immediately now. Roughing up an ABC News reporter for trying to ask her about it has made the whole thing too colorful to avoid.
If she's not a woman, she's just another ignorant crackpot like Rick Santorum and nobody cares who she is.
Look, the more I've learned about her the more I've come to think of her as a terrible candidate and want nothing to do with her. So keep that in mind. I do not desire to be in a position to defend her.
That may be so about Democrats making her a target but now Republicans will be doing so and they are much better at it. When her staffers roughed up a reporter this afternoon it was apparently done in order to save her from having to answer the question: "Have your migraines ever forced you to miss a vote?" I don't know where it will go next, but the train has officially left the station and her statement from earlier today (which I thought was quite good) will no longer be sufficient to put this to bed.
And I'm not interested in attacking her. In fact, I view the entire primary with a great remove and just enjoy the horse-race. When it comes to the general I'll likely be quite critical of the nominee because I disagree with everything about the GOP platform and disagree even more strongly with the radical shift the party has undergone since Obama became president. But for now I am only interested in this in the way I might be in a sporting event or chess match.
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/svwGRJA28lY&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/svwGRJA28lY&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
I and hundreds (if not thousands) of people smarter than me have done this many times over, many of them conservatives or conservative leaners. I'm not wasting my time going through it again, particularly for you who we all know will definitely ignore it as you have done again and again. Frankly I'm not interested in answering any questions from someone that refuses to answer questions asked of him, not just as a habit but pretty much as a rule.
interesting- you mentioned a "radical" shift. i assume you mean from some (undefined) "classic" republicanism, whatever that might be. i assume you're also referring to the tea party. insofar as that's the case, i view the TP as a return to first principles, fiscal responsibility, economic conservatism. nothing radical in that.
Well her staffers roughed up the reporter for some reason, maybe out of anger, but not to stop her from answering the question. She ignored it multiple times and was going to continue ignoring it. I just don't accept that migraines could incapacitate her for days at a time and her opponents wouldn't have previously picked up on it. I think this will fit well into the narrative of women though; weak, get sick, can't handle stress, etc.
I don't necessarily disagree, but this is no different a line of thinking than G. Ferarro saying Obama only got attention for being black nor is the idea that she is getting unfair treatment for being a woman any different than saying Obama gets beat up on for being black (a thing that neither I nor any Obama official has actually said but that many rank and file have). In neither case do I think it is true. Any candidate that has a real health issue (again, I don't know if that's the case here) would be scrutinized, man or woman, white or black and so on.
No, I mean since 2008. I expect you know exactly what I'm talking about, but if you don't, go do a search on my dozens of posts on the topic or google the topic and find hundreds. It's up to you. I'm not wasting any more time answering questions for a person that steadfastly refuses to return the favor.
