Completely vindicated. The story was second-hand and wrong in some details but the main point of it was true. How many posts flew up here calling Clinton a liar? I'm sure JMM fretted over how he could write that grudging headline in a smaller font and with fewer words. But then it wouldn't do to omit the word "partially."

She's still a liar. (Tuzla and more.)

She and her campaign are still at fault for ratcheting up a story with the complete details of what happened. (Fact: I was able to narrow down the list of possible facilities the woman might have gone to just be reading the account and checking the area hospitals. The Clinton campaign could have done at least that AND gotten the details of the story verified.)

The damage to Clinton however, will not be undone: she has been exposed as a serial exaggerator and that tag will stick with her for the rest of her political career.

So I assume that when that 3 a.m. phone call comes in to Hillary, that she will NOT be checking with others to verify that an emergency does, indeed, exist?

I seem to remember I was right about this one.

I think the person who kidnapped Josh Marshall should hire me.

Parse it whatever way makes you feel better for politics-sake.

A "clinic" is not the same thing as a "hospital." I still disagree with the use of this story in her speeches. Its a dishonest representation of a tragic story and the complexities of a screwed-up health care system.

There are stories aplenty she could have used (I have a few myself I could give her). She played sloppy with the facts and tried to score points on a double tragedy.

Not at all vindicated, especially since the exact same situation would have arisen under Hillary Clinton's fictional health care system. The girl had insurance (the most blatant falsehood of Hillary's tale), the same sort she would have been required to buy under Hillary Clinton's system. And Hillary has made no proposal to eliminate deductibles or co-pays. Perhaps this story would have relevance if either candidate were promoting a fully-funded single payer system, but neither is.

And yes, in non-emergency situations, I'd expect a clinic that is owed money to demand some sort of payment. I'd expect that under Hillarycare as well.

So Hillary lied when she said someone was turned away from a hospital (it wasn't a hospital) because she didn't have insurance (she had insurance) in an emergency situation (it wasn't an emergency.)

"So Hillary lied when she said someone was turned away from a hospital (it wasn't a hospital) because she didn't have insurance (she had insurance) in an emergency situation (it wasn't an emergency.)"

I don’t think you could say she lied even if what you’re saying is true (it isn't) because she is only repeating a misconstrued story told and heard in good faith. Regardless, she did not say what you say she said. She did say hospital when it turns out to have been a clinic but she only says that the woman did not have insurance and when she returned she was asked for $100, which she couldn’t afford.

I would rather see a single payer plan, too, but the point of Clinton’s plan is to cover everyone, especially those who can’t afford it (on a sliding scale). So, I don’t see how this situation (the mother did not get care because she couldn’t pay the $100 and this probably led to her and her baby’s deaths) is not a good example of what’s wrong with our health care and where it might be fixed (even though the greedy bastards still make out).

Definitely not vindicated. She had many of the facts wrong, important facts, but that isn't even the bad part. The bad part is that her campaign admitted to not being able to confirm the details of the story, yet she kept telling it, even after the NYT let her campaign know the details she was using were wrong. That is the story, not whether or not our health care system is messed up, we all know it is.

Vindicated? Give me a break. Give it up. Besides, no one cares anymore, they are busy focusing on how many people in her campaign, including Bill, have giant conflicts of interest with the Columbian free trade agreement.

This message is much like one I posted in another thread on the sins/redemption of Hillary.

I'm for Obama. That doesn't blind me to the similarities between Hillary's healthcare tale and an anecdote Obama told about US troops having to make do with substandard equipment because the Bush Pentagon is shortchanging the troops. People challenged the authenticity of both stories. Reporters looked into them.

Both stories were essentially true if inaccurate in some details. The most salient facts in Hillary's story were about a healthcare system in which people can't afford to pay for services they can't do without. The consequences of being unable to pay can be very bad indeed. People delay seeking treatment because they can't pay and they don't enjoy the humiliation of the "wallet biopsy." Health conditions can get worse, even turn out to be fatal. This aspect - essential services priced out of reach - was illustrated by the poor deceased woman's case. The relevance of her story holds even though in this instance one medical facility treated her without requiring payment in advance. It would still hold even if we later learn her death was not due to the delay in care. It still holds even though she had insurance at one point. Having health insurance doesn't mean your insurer will pay most costs, or that you can afford to pay what the insurer won't. The fact is, care is often delayed because of its high cost, and people suffer as a result. Hillary illustrated that important truth.

Through a chain of events, Hillary's hospital anecdote embarrassed specific medical facilities. People questioned the story. Reporters tracked its source. A hospital threw in its own name, denying culpability, asking Hillary to stop using the story.

Through a chain of events, Obama's military equipment story embarrassed the officer who was Obama's source. The Pentagon clearly wasn't pleased; they denied the story. Obama's use of the story can't have helped the career of the officer who was the source.

Both Hillary and Obama were trying to focus attention on important issues touching directly on this nation's welfare - our broken healthcare system in Hillary's case, and our broken military in Obama's. Neither candidate was trying to slander anybody, or sabotage an institution, or ruin reputations and careers. In both cases, it seems likely that the candidates felt sympathy for the victims and concern for the serious problems the stories illustrated. The stories resonated with voters and reporters. Reporters followed up.

What would you have Obama and Hillary do in such cases? Would you have neither candidate use essentially true anecdotes to highlight the real consequences of real problems for real people?

Would you have reporters not follow up such anecdotes when their truth is questioned for fear of embarrassing somebody?

It seems more reasonable to weigh the possible negatives for individuals or institutions who may be identified in the vetting process against the need for: 1) information to motivate people to support causes such as healthcare reform and restoring our military to a state of readiness, and 2) the public's need to assess the truthfulness of presidential candidates before voting.

We also need to try to be fair. Hillary drives me nuts sometimes because I think she often is deceptive and divisive and could cost the Dems this election. However, that doesn't mean every word she utters is a lie, or that she is incapable of good. In fact, the Clintons have done a great deal of good. It's their damn divisive campaign I hate, as well as their joyful "saddle up" "this is the fun part" attitude when called on it. Conversely, I'm very enthusiastic about Obama because I think he's what this country needs at this point - a coalition builder, not an artist of divisiveness.

But Obama does make mistakes, like any politician.
Today, for example, I think the Obama campaign should have kept its mouth shut about Mark Penn. It's clearly just a political ploy to keep bad news about Hillary in the headlines. It's not that the Obama campaign is lying or stooping to intolerably low tactics, but the campaign is coming down a level. I don't like it.