Virtually three out of every four respondents (74.87%) to a recent poll by Smart Brief on Politics and Business said that the health of candidates for the office of President of the United States is a valid area for concern.
That having been said, Hillary Clinton’s health should be a major focus and a topic not so easily blown off by her and her spokespeople. Prospective voters deserve to know what her health issues are and should not be shunted away from the subject by a few denials and a personal doctor’s pronouncement that may or may not have had political implications. We saw her fold up like a rag doll, after all. This would not be the first time a professional was compromised by the aura of a Clinton were that to have occurred. An examination by an independent medical/psychiatric team would go a long way toward resolving such questions. Where would that team come from? Why not from the military services where we have highly qualified medical and psychiatric minds that are under sworn oath as officers to be truthful and apolitical?
The Clinton family has a history, a very long and public history, in case you weren’t aware or had simply forgotten that. That history is one of, to be polite, obfuscation at best and outright lying at worst. In and of itself, this ought to have eliminated any possibility of Hillary Clinton gaining the Oval office, but there have been other less-than-truthful occupants of that office before.
I cannot imagine how foreign leaders will be able to trust in what they hear from a President Hillary Clinton. There is already sufficient dodging and maneuvering by the occupant of that office without adding the element of basic distrust in one’s word based on history readily available to anyone with an interest. Remember the damage caused by ‘Tricky Dickie’ Nixon in his term and one-half or thereabout? Frankly, my recollection of him is that his violations potentially pale by comparison to Hillary’s history and yet he was forced to resign from the office and rightly so.
Maybe we are at the point in our history where a qualified medical/psychiatric team ought to administer thorough physical and psychological examinations to every final candidate for this office and share the results with us voting citizens so that we can make an informed decision not only on the beliefs and history of the candidate but on the physical and psychological preparedness/soundness exhibited by each.
Hillary Clinton has not appeared to be full of energy nor in full command of self on several occasions. The pace of the race would certainly exacerbate any underlying issues no matter the politics of the person.
All this having been said, we have what we have for this election. Unless some major calamity befalls one or the other major party candidates, the winner will be either Hillary Clinton or it will be Donald Trump. Both have been pronounced, such as that is, to be physically fit for the office. Both have selected Vice Presidential candidate hopefuls as their partners in this quest. None of us give much, if any thought, to the number two person on either major ticket. We are voting for the candidate for President on the ticket and we’re obviously willing to take the person coming along for the ride as the VP if calamity befalls which none of us think will be the case given history. Many, if not most, of us vote for the party first and the candidate second.
Is it time to begin to work toward a more failsafe approach? Is it time for a complete evaluation of prospective candidates for this highest office in the land and for the second person on the ticket? Have we crossed the threshold where we simply take what we get and instead we begin to be a bit more scientific and selective about the process?
Employers have, for years, tested applicants for higher level positions both physically and mentally and made hiring decisions based, at least in part, on the results of those tests. We as employers ought to be doing the same, and this would’ve been a great year in which to invoke this new ‘tradition’.
Too little, too late for this time around, however.