We live in age of medical miracles. Doctors often can ameliorate all but the most extreme diseases so people can function, at least for a while.
So why should we concern ourselves with Hillary Clinton's relatively minor (most probably) coughing fits?
For the most obvious reason: like virtually everything else, she lies about it!
As the age-old legal principle goes, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Her health is yet another example of Clinton's pathological tilt toward dishonesty. Her first response to anything almost always is to prevaricate.
On Monday at an event in Cleveland, Ohio, when confronted about her coughing fit, she blamed it on an allergy to Donald Trump. Besides being a mediocre joke at best, it was a reflex, a reach for the untrue response before any other, as if the truth would literally dissolve her in a puddle.
This fear of the truth is likely from childhood, but has morphed through years of political combat into a kind of domestic taqiyya. Hillary, though also obviously not Muslim, observes her version of that Islamic doctrine in which it is permissible, often even required, to lie to the enemy for the good of the cause--the cause, in this case and with regularity, being the maintenance of her power.
Clinton has indeed lived her life in a world of lies, where lying was for all intents and purposes the norm. Imagine the level of dishonesty in her communications with her husband over the years. Was there ever a time they were truly honest with each other? They probably even test out their lies at home, topping each other in their absurdity. Hillary's claim, during her FBI interview, that she thought the (c) for classified in her emails meant alphabetical order is as ludicrous -- John Schindler points out in his new article "EmailGate and the Mystery of the Missing GAMMA"- as Bill's legendary "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." (BTW, if you don't recognize the GAMMA in Schindler's title, you should. Click on it.)
We saw this nearly automatic dishonesty writ large on a more important playing field in those responses to the FBI in its email investigation. Though highly disturbing to those of us concerned with the rule of law, the Bureau did not require Clinton to testify under oath. This allowed her to state that she "did not recall" on crucial matters relevant to her emails, including many on national security, no less than thirty-seven times.
Incredibly, the FBI never followed up on these assertions, although those non-responsive replies would have made Clinton either slightly senile or a serial liar. The latter is, of course, more likely.
The FBI in this case clearly did no favor to its reputation by elevating a presidential candidate above the law, but, ironically, it did no favor to Clinton either, especially in the long term. By permitting her this luxury of not testifying under oath, it kept her answers under a permanent cloud of doubt. If she does become president, her ability to govern will be severely, perhaps terminally, hampered. She will be under continual investigation by Judicial Watch and a host of others, not to mention an increasingly skeptical public, for the many still unanswered questions emerging from her emails and from the Clinton Foundation.
This is also the reason she is dropping in the polls with her honesty and trust numbers, for the first time falling below Donald Trump's. I wrote back in August 2015 that this was Trump's election to lose. I still believe that. But to maintain and grow his lead, Trump must be as scrupulous as possible from his end. This may mean finally revealing his taxes that could well contain the embarrassment that he has substantially padded his net worth or that his charitable donations are slim for a man of his wealth.
Still, those issues are minor compared to the national security risks inherent in Clinton's duplicity. Trump has everything to gain by keeping the pressure on Clinton for her prevarications and world-class lack of transparency.
Personal energy, the ability actually to do a job that is highly stressful physically and mentally, is also something that should be of concern to voters, despite what some like the WaPo's Chris Cillizza, all too willing to believe one Clinton-selected doctor, might say. That energy factor is another reason that Hillary's health really is an issue. Trump's offer of mutual blind medical examinations is a smart one.
But keep your eye on the ball. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything. That legal principle has its roots, interestingly, in the StuartTreason Trials of the late seventeenth century. As they say, everything old is new again.