What Ailments is Barack Obama Hiding?

By Erick Posted in | Comments (65) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

When John McCain released his medical records, he put a bunch of reporters in a room with thousands of pages of documents for hours on end, let them pore over the records, but did not actually give them copies.

The left went nuts.

The Huffington Post has previously speculated that something must be hidden because of McCain's delay in release.

Yet, Barack Obama has not released his records.

In a one-page letter released by the campaign, Obama's longtime physician, Chicago internist Dr. David L. Scheiner, said he was summarizing 21 years of medical records, during which the Democrat suffered only minor problems such as upper respiratory infections.

I thought Obama was open to transparency. I thought he was an open government guy.

What's in the records that he thinks must be hidden?

It's probably nothing, but why not reveal them. The Obama camp is pushing the story on Cindy McCain's tax records. She's not even a candidate. But the Democratic candidate for President of the United States won't release his medical records.

I know he takes the whole JFK comparison seriously, but come on -- we know now JFK actually had a serious medical condition he wanted to hide.

What, if anything, is Obama hiding, other than his real contempt for open, honest, and full disclosures?

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | The Tunes, They Are A'Changin'Comments (2) »
What Ailments is Barack Obama Hiding? 65 Comments (0 topical, 65 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

to Wright and than a white priest who thinks he black for over 20 years I think the man has lost his mind.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

so he can't use John Kerry's excuse for hiding them.

....the tatooed number'666' anywhere on his body?
People fainted during Hitler's speeches too.

in a way that whole dying on the cross thing doesn't really do it for them.

Considering Erick's not off the ball when he says stuff like this I'm curious to know, since I have no idea what he's referring to... what condition did JFK have?

This site (found by googling; I make no guarantees) purports to list some of his medical conditions. Short version: he had some serious ones, which were carefully kept quiet (I'm not criticizing or praising that decision, merely noting it).

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...and it's time people on the right acted out of principle on things like this, rather than being reactionary and partisan.

Candidates have a right to some privacy about their financial and health records, and one of these days I'd like to see a candidate from either party finally say, "you know what? my taxes are my business, period." Same with health records.

If there's a question of a president getting special treatment from the IRS, then have someone independent review them for legal compliance, but not release the data.

Of course, McCain and his supporters will be irked because Obama, by virtue of his age and appearance, seems eminently healthy, whereas McCain has more to prove; and maybe that seems unfair. Oh well.

Fr Martin Fox

We're talking about the most powerful man on earth. We have a pretty reasonable right to know if he has some health problem that'll cause him to croak within a year or two of taking office.

Fight On!

Oh, donkey dust!
You have a perfect right to know whether he has a health problem and a doctor from a major medical isntution says he doesn't. You want to choose the doctor you believe? You want to have a government mandated health exam for all candidates for political office?
All you are entitled to AT BEST is a note from a reputable doctor. As to detailed recirds, in a free society a candidate ought to be able to say - nope, not going there and people can vote against me if they choose. The notion that YOU have some RIGHT to see either candidate's records is mere totalitarianism dressed up as democracy.

for all candidates for political office....if they are going to be mandating a bunch of crap for me well lets get it on....and donkey dust to you because Obama's camp called for McCain's medical records and they were delivered and no I don't take one PAID doctor's note....I can go to my doctor and get a note too. TRUST but VERIFY...I am entitled to whatever I ask for as a citizen of the US who will be voting for the most powerful position in the world...the notion that YOU have a RIGHT to deny me my request is mere totalitarianism dressed up as democracy...fool!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

"I am entitled to whatever I ask for as a citizen of the US who will be voting for the most powerful position in the world"

Great. Then I proclaim my right to examine the metal health records of everyone who votes for President- the most powerful position in the world..
Not that I'm implying anything......

Now there's an unmet need we've had for a long time. Millions of Americans need more metal in their lives.


They could use a bit more in their spines.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Quiet Riot:

Shows my age that I remember that an album was made by that title...

The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

they rocked!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I was appalled when it came out that White House doctors had apparently overlooked 90% blockage in Bill Clinton's heart.


...if there was any reasonable chance at all that you had had the moral courage to go onto Lefty sites and offer the same criticisms of them about their call to see McCain's medical records.

:holding up hand: Either show me a link, or take the blow.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"Family physicians, surgeons, diagnosticians, nose and throat specialists, doctors in every branch of medicine... a total of 113,597 doctors... were asked the question: 'What cigarette do you smoke?' And more of them named Camel as their smoke than any other cigarette! Three independent research groups found this to be a fact. You see, doctors too smoke for pleasure. That full Camel flavor is just as appealing to a doctor's taste as to yours... that marvelous Camel mildness means just as much to his throat as to yours."


Lung cancer is not something I would wish on anyone. My mother died within 6 months after being diagnosed in 2000. Lung cancer is also not something I want to gamble on in a president. Even ex-smokers can get it years after quitting. The tragic spectacle of our president wasting away in radiation treatment and chemotherapy would give pause to many voters, especially those who have already witnessed it personally. Obama needs to put his cards on the table. Doctor-shopping for a "reputable doctor" is not an option.

We gambled on Bill Clinton's sexual addictions and everybody lost. George W. Bush's failure to fully disclose his problems with alcohol almost cost him the election. However, neither one of those weaknesses were fatal. Can't say the same for lung cancer, no matter how young and vibrant the person is.

FTR,I am not an anti-smoking Nazi. Smoke up, it's legal, and I have an ashtray outside for you. It's just that certain hypothetical situations--like finding a pack hidden in my kid's room or electing a smoking president--require a harder line.

...because for one thing, that's what a vice president is for.

Second, regardless of how healthy the president may be, he can still die in office, whether by criminal act, by an accident, or by a health issue that isn't disclosed, or isn't even discovered by the physician. Doctors are all-knowing, lots of people come down with life-changing, and even fatal, conditions, without warning.

Insofar as you make it a matter of your "right" to full disclosure, the end logic of your position does, indeed, demand that the candidates submit to doctors other than their own for examination; since the medical records can certainly be incomplete, on purpose. Someone knowing this data would be public would certainly have motive to conceal something.

This is just a symptom of a more fundamental problem that conservatives used to care about: the imperial presidency. We used to be a republic, in which the president was important, but not so all-important as he's become. Unfortunately, too many folks who think they are conservatives (there no point in even talking about "republicans"; that word has no fixed ideological meaning) have been seduced by power. They operate from a lot of the same presuppositions as statists, all the arguments are really about is who holds the levers.

Apparently, only those on the left have any right to privacy. The left screamed about Cindy McCain's tax returns, screamed bloody murder because they didn't get copies of McCain's medical records.

But the right is just supposed to accept Obama's press releases as fact.

Sounds fair to you.

but, okay, life is unfair. There it is.

The point for people who care about enduring principles is to do the right thing, even if the other side doesn't; and if we weren't doing the right thing, then you just start doing it.

The right thing, in my view, is that candidates shouldn't have to disclose private financial or medical (or other) information.

Fr Martin Fox

a candidate's right to lie by omission????

Would it have affected the election if John Kennedy's addiction to pain killers been made public? Should it affect an election?

What information is okay to make public?

Maybe we should just hand out a 500 question form to each candidate and leave it at that?

After all how much truth is there and how much can we handle?

veritas vos liberabit

No, I said no such thing, your headline is inflammatory and derogatory to me.

I think what I said was plain enough, but I will restate it.

I believe candidates have the right to say some things are their own, private business, such as their personal finances, their taxes and their health matters.

If people ask them about their health, they can disclose--candidates can make public what they choose about their personal business, I have no say over that. On the other hand, I think they are also entitled to say, "that's none of your business." To say the latter is certainly not a lie.

Of course, the voters will draw what conclusions they please from either response.

Fr Martin Fox

"The right thing, in my view, is that candidates shouldn't have to disclose private financial or medical (or other) information." - Fr. Martin Fox (What Ailments is Barack Obama Hiding? | Redstate#comment-764178)(my bold)

Inflammatory? derogatory? Fr. Fox I'm using your words and extending them to a logical conclusion.
Using those words you're saying that unless someone accidentally uncovers 'unusual' private, financial and/or real estate dealings and questions the candidates, the candidates are perfectly justified in hiding those facts? If you have a severe medical condition that may intefere with the performance of your duties as POTUS, it's OK to not say anything. So if you're really careful, bribed the right people, hidden everything (Rose Law Firm records anyone?) and gotten rid of all the evidence (you hope) you can than lie to get elected. Using your statement, unless the candidate is directly questioned, he doesn't have to say anything other than 'Vote for me!'

Any employer will immediately run a credit check on a prospective employee. We are, in essence, doing a hiring interview for the Presidency of the United States, someone who will be held up to intense scrutiny. Why can't we have a copy of the 'resume'? Why can't we do a background check? I had to get one for one of my jobs. Why shouldn't we check references? Why shouldn't we ask the same of the candidates????

By not saying anything, the candidate is preventing the voter from judging that candidates worthiness. If you have something to hide you shouldn't be running for office! The voters also have the right to know who or what is influencing your decisions! Fr. Fox hiding a fact is worse than lying about it. Deception by omission. If you don't have a problem with that I can't help you.

If the Democrats had thoroughly vetted Sen. Obama they wouldn't have half the problems they have now and it's only just begun! Technically Sen. Obama wouldn't qualify for a security clearance given his known associations(Ayers, Alinsky) and some are willing to hand him the reins of government?

"and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (Joh 8:32 NASB)

Who knows, the Democrats may soon have the only presidential candidate to be indicted on federal charges! Depends on Mr. Rezko's trial!

Fr. Fox, If ANYONE wants my vote they had better put everything out in the open. No one has no 'enemies' and someone will bring your misdeeds to light eventually. When they do, the repercussions are going to be worse!

veritas vos liberabit

To decline to give information is not a lie.

By your logic, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution violates the Eighth Commandment ("thou shalt not bear false witness").

Fr Martin Fox

The legal right to not self incriminate is vastly different than the moral responsibility to tell the truth. In our system of adversarial jurisprudence it is incumbent on the state to prove its allegations. You know, that darn 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. If the state doesn't prove its case and you're found 'innocent' are you 'innocent' even though you really did it? Morally, if you did it, you should confess.

If you go by a strict reading of the Eight Commandment (which I'm pretty sure that God meant what he said!) yes, you are guilty in the eyes of God. In the eyes of man, however, you are 'exercising your rights'! So, who is judging your guilt? What is the difference between telling a lie and not telling the truth by not responding? Deliberately concealing the truth by not responding is morally equivalent to lying.

Answer truthfully now:
If God asked you if you did something would you decline to answer? Now stand in front of a judge.

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."(Rom 13:1 NASB)

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."(1Pe 2:13-14 NASB)
Keep in mind where Peter was when he wrote that!

In submitting to the judge's authority you can legally stay silent but can you morally stay silent if you truly are guilty?
What would God have to say? How would you answer Him??

In hiring, hiding negative information about yourself constitutes fraud! If discovered it is usually grounds for dismissal. Failure to provide that information when applying for a Government job constitutes fraud and is usually prosecuted as a federal crime. Now, why can't I apply that same requirement of honesty to a candidate?

Say you wanted a job and give me your resume. That resume had all the information you want to give me but, what your resume fails to mention is your felony conviction for ____ (pick a crime)under a different name! Based on your resume and a quick background check I find nothing wrong and hire you. Sometime afterward your conviction comes to light. You being an employee causes negative consequences for my company and I lose my job because I hired you (you lose yours too). What responsibility do you bear? You didn't lie right? You also didn't tell the truth because you didn't put in all the information. Explain that one God!

I'm assuming by your use of 'Fr.' that you have some religious training. How does your religion handle negligence? That's what failing to respond is...negligence!

Fr. Fox if you can't see the problem of misinformation by reason of no information as not being a problem our discussion here is ended. My take on it.. I'd rather be lied to than be led down a false path by silence!

BTW FWIW I understand plain English and plain French! I also understand right from wrong!

veritas vos liberabit

that the existence of a generic God is assumed in our legal tradition as an illustration of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of mortal men with all their fickle relativism.


We're not talking about Obama or McCain declining to disclose a "felony conviction" -- which are, after all, a matter of public record, and an employer can get that information easily enough by asking an prospective employee to authorize a criminal background check; and if the prospective employee declines to authorize it, then the employer can decline to hire the person; so your own example doesn't help your cause.

But, to return to reality, we're talking about whether candidates for public office are obliged to disclose their personal financial data, or their personal health information. And I believe they have no obligation to disclose that, because they do enjoy a right to keep their private lives private. No one is talking about their concealing criminal actions (which they wouldn't be able to conceal anyway, ever hear of Senator Larry Craig?).

I believe a person seeking public office does not, by doing so, forego his or her basic rights to privacy; you disagree.

Fr Martin Fox

to conceal negative information about himself that would affect my decision to vote for him or his opponent.

veritas vos liberabit

You state: "(McCain) put a bunch of reporters in a room with thousands of pages of documents for hours on end."
In fcat, as you know but chose not to report, it was 9 reporters for 3 hours (expanded from 90 minutes after the usually docile press refused to participate if only 90 minutes were alloted). The press were not allowed to have cell phones or recorders or to make copies or to leave the room except to be escorted to the bathroom.
McCain release 1700 pages of documents. At one point in my life I reviewed medical records for a living. After months of doing it, I was lucky to make sense of 100 pages an hour.
Clearly Obama has not been transparent here (though he is not 71 or had cancer 3 times either), but you tried to leave the sense that McCain had been. Why? What, after all, is wrong with the simple truth?
Neither man wants the public at large poking around in their medical records. Good for them. McCain may be forced to make some disclosure because as a cancer survivor he may need to put the issue to rest, but that is his choice and he chose to be as narrow as he could get away with. So did Obama. Again, good for them.
And next time, try to report the relevant facts, not just the version that spins the story your way. There's a lot at stake in the world today.

that is if you want to stay around here..

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

What was wrong with the poster's tone? The original post did gloss over the specifics of McCain's medical access.

Apparently he's just a little bit reluctant to do it to his own side.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

being helpful...Friday and all..

I thought his tone was pretty " in your face"...especially to an Editor of the site ...maybe I am wrong...as I said, just trying be helpful

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

You claim the statement "(McCain) put a bunch of reporters in a room with thousands of pages of documents for hours on end." needed correcting, but then gave details that confirmed the statement as written. That you for confirming that the statement was correct as written.

Now, maybe the Obama can match McCain's openness and put 9 reporters in a room for 3 hours to poor over HIS medical records? No? Well, that's just typical of liberals, you expect mountains of evidence from conservative and still doubt when you get it. Yet you'll give any old Progressive a pass on anything and everything....

I just request a bit of equal treatment!

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I think you missed the point. The author left the details out because he wished to fudge them. the real details paint a picture in which the opportunity was very limited (more than I would have given had I been McCain, but still very limited). the author chose to leave the impression of an expanded opportunity. That's childish. The facts are there. State them as they are rather than characterize them in ambiguous ways. Why not?

Because if you weren't you'd know that ignoring a site moderator's not-very-subtle hint that we're disinclined to tolerate your complaints until you've provided proof of your moral courage is contraindicated.

Now. Either show us where you've criticized the other side for their antics, or apologize to Erick for calling him names and get off this thread. Next post.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I hope "contraindicated" takes hold in American lexicon.


The reporters were granted access to McCain's complete medical records. There were 9 of them (a bunch) that poored over 1700 pages (thousands, though in the small thousands) for 3 hours (hours on end, I'm sure they were ready to leave after 3 hours of reading medical records). Your response is childish. There is nothing wrong with smoothing details for readability so long as the smoothing doesn't create inaccuracies, and this one didn't.

The only REAL limitation in the access the reporters were granted was that they couldn't make copies of the records. I don't blame him for that one. I've seen how your side will twist a plain statement into something it's not.

Now, can you get the Obama to grant the same access to HIS records? 3 hours with 9 reporters, no copies? All I'm asking for is equal treatment.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

reporters would be schooled in reading comprehension and knowledge retention. They would also learn to cooperate, divide up the workload, and share whatever "gotcha" bits were found. If all of those reporters who walked away in "protest" had stuck around, they could have sucked the marrow out of those records. What a bunch of lazy crybabies.

"ma deuce says no discipline"

I have actually wondered for a while about Obama's health - - since he became a candidate to be honest. He doesn't look like a healthy robust young man.

Just something I've been thinking for a while, and this post made me think maybe I'm correct.

Ok, first, it's 1173 pages, not 1700, which is a lot less. Second, according to Jonathan Martin, those pages were divided into two categories, one of which was insurance paperwork and billing and inter-office junk and so forth; documents which didn't contain much medical information, and which were sorted out ahead of time and put in separate piles so the journalists didn't waste their time. They were actually looking through rather less than 1173 pages. Plus, they were able to interview his doctors after they looked at the records, and ask them anything they liked.

(Here's Martin's pool report, which describes the logistics of the whole deal: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/The_McCain_doc_dump_po...)

Anyway, the McCain medical dump of 2000 was a lot more tightly controlled than this, and at the time the NYT praised it as a model of openness. Wonder what's changed?

I wish we'd stop playing by the Left's rules.

Even if it was a simple statment like "We are unwilling to do anything that our Democrat Opponents request unless they do it first. For too long we have held out the olive branch only to have our hand bitten by the rabid wing of the Democrat Party."

Of course, I'm an evil conservative.... I think about things like personal responsibility and consistancy.

Dependence is Slavery.

He has to make sure that the fact he was born of a virgin is not released, else we'll try to make him king.

THAT'S why Wright went on those rants about the "Garlic Nosed" Italians.....

He's afraid of what the ROMANS would do to his new-chosen Messiah!

Dependence is Slavery.

Ouch, did Wright actually use the phrase "Garlic Nosed." I'm of Irish, not Italian, ancestry, but I think if I was an Italian I would count that about the dumbest insult ever. I would object to the phrase solely on grounds of stupidity.

Yup, in a sermon about the Romans.

He has no shortage of racist insults for everyone but... you know.... his.

Of course, for pointing that out, I would be called a Racist by those like Wright.

Their idea is that white people are, by nature of being white, racist. Some even go so far as to hold the stupid idea that if you hate white people because they're white, it isn't racism.

Dependence is Slavery.

so he tried to do an endrun around him. History is not a forte of Trinity United, so the fact that the Roman emperors have been gone for some time did not register.

The garlic reference was just a spontaneous expression of cultural fear breaking out among the blood-sucking, liberal tax vampires.

for the note instead of the records is that he has been lying about quitting smoking. He said he quit months ago but apparently there are quite a lot of current stories about how he reeks of cigarette smoke.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

He just needs to be up-front about his habit and any resultant health problems, so voters can factor it into their personal decisions, whether it be for the chldren or the country.

Imagine walking into the Oval office..and having it smell of Ciggies...And all the curtains would be yellowish...and a huge overflowing ashtray sitting on the desk..ewwww

"The well dressed man and height man gets the GIRL, the JOB and the RESPECT of his contemporaries."....elevatingshoes

air-scrubber fans with the Presidntial Seal on it.

Assassins could easily target the limo with window open 2 inches and smoke billowing out.

as being necessary for sultry baritone maintenance.

5 by blooch

Bingo! If he thinks campaigning is stressful, wait until he's President. Not a good sign.

The media has been talking about how he needs to make sure he has his Nicorette gum with him at all times.

"I whine and I vote / And the people I volunteer for in Congressional elections get elected."..... by hscohen

If I was running for president, that's about the only thing I'd want completely secret---that is, if I had such a prescription. ;)

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service