Migraines are not uncommon, so it is strange that there is all this supposed concern about whether a migraine-prone president could do his/her job. Other presidents have had them—-Jefferson, Grant, probably Kennedy. Robert E. Lee had them, too. I’ve had them since childhood. This is a manufactured “problem”.

Dave,

The initial story about Bachmann appeared on the conservative* web site The Daily Caller.

*”Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney . . . . “[from the site]

I just want it to be recognized. If Fox ran something like this on Obama they’d be shouting to high heaven about murdoch-led plots and hyper partisanship. But the reverse gets David asking “why does everything get viewed through the lens of partisanship?”

Dave:

The release is not intending for that. It’s just grabbing a juicy tip and running with it without any serious analysis. Could it be republicans? Maybe, but if it is they seem hellbent on destroying probably one of the few strong VP candidates out there.

I don’t think the dems want her as much as you think. They tried to puff huntsman until it became obvious that he had no base support, and next they’ll hope for a repeat of 2008 and get romney, who is less loved than McCain. We aren’t even at the primary yet, and Bachmann keeps getting slammed because she seems to be making a strong showing among the base.

It’s annoying on both sides. Hillary Clinton got the same treatment, and its not been a good precedent for women candidates at all.

Brian,

I think it is shameful. To make fun of someone who is effeminate is extremely uncharitable, and to “accuse” someone of being gay as if it were something to joke about (whether it is true or not) should be offensive to gay people and people who pretend to be “gay friendly.” If LGBT people and those who claim to be sympathetic to them mock people who are not perfect examples of what is considered masculine and feminine, they are betraying their own basic principles.

It’s not like the conservative media are any less biased, so what’s your point? In this case, the MSM is giving us information we need to know.

Thoroughly enjoyed your post. You’re getting a little too close to the bone brother. My closet is so big it could be called a garage. Allow me to live in comfy warmth of my self-delusion.

Dave,

All I am saying is that migraines are potentially very serious, and that voters deserve enough information to make an informed choice. It applies to any candidate for president or other high offices, no matter what party they are from.

Come on man, what does it take to convince you coverage like this isn’t done for partisan reasons as opposed to rationally considering how a disease affects someone?

Did someone feed information to the press for partisan reasons? I don’t know. Don’t forget that probably most Democrats would love to see Bachmann as the nominee. Why couldn’t it be one of Bachmann’s Republican rivals who gave information to the press? I think by “partisan” you mean it’s the “liberal mainstream media” trying to hurt a conservative Republican.

This made me think back to the Bush-McCain rivalry for the 2000 nomination, in which the Bush campaign was responsible for circulating rumors that McCain had fathered a black child. It’s one of the ugliest dirty tricks I have ever heard of, and it was one Republican against another.

Reporting daily news is a messy business, and I am sure lots of motives enter into it. Considering the 24-hour news cycle nowadays, I think it is done amazingly well. I really don’t see plots behind every negative news story about candidates. Politics is a rough and tumble business, and nobody knows that better than people who get involved in presidential politics. The last story that was supposed to be designed to destroy Bachmann was about the papacy being the anti-Christ. That was just a few days ago, and nobody is talking about it any more. Unless there is something uncovered to show Bachmann had really serious problems because of migraine, the story will be dead in a few days. The press needs “new news” every 24 hours or so, and anything new that is halfway interesting or controversial is going to get reported and more than likely forgotten in a few days. That’s how news works.

I mean, we are both commenting at an article about how the MSM is accusing Bachmann’s husband of being gay based on his speech. Come on man, what does it take to convince you coverage like this isn’t done for partisan reasons as opposed to rationally considering how a disease affects someone?