Hillary Clinton helps give life to cancer patient

Cold. Calculating. Ambitious. Dishonest. Self-serving. Hawkish. If a situation has no way to serve her purposes, she turns her back and walks away. She doesn’t love America or its people. She doesn’t care about their struggles. She cares about Hillary Clinton. The presidential candidate is known for putting herself above everyone and everything else, and people hate her for it.

But is it actually actually true?

Her friends and family and campaign continue to show instances of Hillary caring for others on a personal level, but those can’t be trusted. She could be doing it for the positive press. After all, every caring gesture she makes is covered relentlessly, so clearly she has ulterior motives. Hillary Clinton does only exactly what she must do to look good to the public.

Or does she?

Meet Janelle Turner, a mother in Winter Park, Iowa, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in May of 2015. You probably haven’t heard of her before. She is a private person, not given to much political speak, and certainly without time or money to campaign for or support any political causes. She’s just an average citizen, facing crippling medical costs while fighting the sickness that comes with her treatment, and trying to be there for her nine-year-old daughter, Nora. Every day, she battles fear on top of the aggressive cancer.

“I’d like to tell you that dying is not something I ever think about, but when you have a daughter who needs you, you can’t help but worry about the future,” said Turner. “I was nine when my dad died, and it was hard on my family, and I don’t want my daughter to have the childhood I had.”

You may not know Janelle Turner. But Hillary Clinton does.

Back in October of last year, Turner decided to take Nora to a rally for Hillary Clinton. The girl was excited, and hand-made a sign for her mom that said, “Thirteenth chemo yesterday, three more, hear me roar!” The family had to bring lawn chairs to the event because Turner can’t stand for very long without feeling ill, and so they ended up near the area where the speakers walked to and from the stage.

Bill Clinton spoke, and on his way back, he noticed the sign, and stopped to talk with Turner and her daughter.

“He was so incredibly kind,” she said. “He thanked us for coming, and we took pictures, and it was really nice. I just thought it was the greatest thing ever. But I thought that would be it.”

She was wrong.

Soon after, a police officer found the family and invited them backstage where they met Hillary Clinton and Katy Perry. Hillary had just finished giving 11 hours of testimony about Benghazi the day before.

“I told her keep fighting, and she said, ‘me? What about you?’” Turner recalled. “We decided we’d both keep fighting, and would celebrate at her inauguration. But I was mostly kidding; I didn’t expect to keep in touch.”

The incident touched Turner so deeply that she sent an email to Matt Paul, Clinton’s former Iowa State Director, thanking the campaign for its kindness in the face of her struggles.

“I wanted to take a minute to let you know how grateful we were to have the opportunity to meet Hillary at her rally with Katy Perry and Bill,” she wrote. “We were so overwhelmed by the entire experience. The past several months have been difficult on my family. For thirty minutes on October 24th, it was amazing be to me! It was the best day ever for me and my family. I know you are busy, and it seems strange to ask, but please pass on our sincere thanks to each of them. I can't tell you what that did for our spirits.”

From that moment on, Turner became part of the Clinton family.

She was sent tickets to the debate, and then to the rallies before the Iowa caucus. At every single event, Hillary Clinton sent for her and her daughter, talked to them about their journey, and gave them encouragement. She introduced Turner to her good friend, and fellow cancer survivor, Betsy Ebeling, with whom Turner also keeps in touch. Every couple of months, Turner receives word from Clinton, checking in on her, making sure she is okay.

“The last time I saw her was just days before the caucuses,” Turner wrote in a Facebook post during the Democratic National Convention. It was the first time she’d gone public with the attention the campaign had paid her. “I had just been told that my cancer had spread, metastasized. We were in shock. I needed a diversion, so I went to her rally. I told Hillary of the news. She hugged me. She asked what she could do, how could she help? She offered to help me get a second opinion. I thanked her, telling her ‘I’m a political nobody, you have been so kind.’ She told me, ‘we all matter.’ She made sure that I had a way to contact her and follow up with her. Much to my surprise, she still checks in on me every few weeks. She made a difference. She cared.”

Soon after, Turner’s biopsies showed that the metastasized cancer prognosis was wrong. She still has cancer in her lungs, but says her pet scans are starting to clear up. The road to recovery is long and hard. She now suffers from arthritis as well, at only 47. She can’t take long trips, stand or walk for too long, or do anything that requires much physical effort. She is struggling, but she has hope. Hope that Clinton has helped foster.

“I’m not saying someone should vote for her. I’m just remembering the day after my 13^th chemo session that Hillary Clinton took the time to talk with us. And followed up, and followed up, and followed up some more. It’s not political. It’s personal.”

So, who REALLY won the #DemDebate? -- Guest Post

Who won the first #DemDebate? Well, it sort of depends on who you ask, and I think that is the most interesting thing to come out of last night. If you look at almost any mainstream media channel or webpage (CNN, MSNBC, ect.) then you’ll come away with a pretty clear indication that Clinton won and that it wasn’t particularly close. Sanders, most news outlets agree, had a nice showing but fell far short of Clinton’s “dominance”. And in any previous election that would be the end of the story. Clinton won running away, and barring some kind of major scandal this primary is over. The problem for Clinton is that this isn’t any previous election, and there is something of an unknown factor that overwhelmingly believes that Sanders won this debate. Sanders was the most Googled name during the debate, almost from start to finish. He gained 35k new Twitter followers, while the rest of the nominees combined gained just over 20k. The closest online poll has Sanders only winning with 68% of the vote, with that total reaching up to 85% in some polls. The real question is…does that actually matter?

It’s easy to dismiss “The Internet” out of hand, partially because it’s never really mattered before. There’s an argument to be made that The Internet is partially the reason that Obama got nominated over Clinton eight years ago, and I do think there is some merit to that, but for the most part Obama won through conventional, grass roots support. While The Internet was generally in favor of Obama, I don’t think it actually swung the election in any meaningful way. With Sanders, it’s different, but it’s easy to miss the distinction. Sanders has been garnering huge turnouts to his speeches, a lot like Obama did eight years ago. The difference is that when Obama was doing it his staffers were on the street, getting the word out. With Sanders, they have spent very little money on getting the word out, relying mostly on word of mouth. And by “word of mouth”, I really mean “The Internet”. And it’s clearly been working, gaining him audiences as large as 25k at a time.

Does having your name Googled and gaining Twitter followers translate to the polls? Recent events suggest that it might. After Carly Fiorina’s performance in the first Republican Kids Table Debate, she was the most Googled name of the night, and gained the most Twitter followers. Her poll numbers increased enough to get her moved to the real debate a few months later, although they had to change the rules to get her there. In this case, I think the power of The Internet had little to actually do with the change, but the correlation is interesting enough to note. If Sanders sees a five to ten percent increase in poll numbers we might have to pay closer attention to Google and Twitter trends, but I think his numbers are unlikely to change any more than three percent. And that’s because I believe traditional polls are becoming increasingly inaccurate.

In my opinion, the most important thing that any candidate said last night was when Sanders claimed that in order for any Democratic nominee to enact any of their policy changes, it would take a political revolution. Considering the number of Republicans in the House and Senate, he’s absolutely correct. That revolution needs to come from younger voters, a demographic that has, historically, very low voter turnout. But if you look at the crowds Sanders has been drawing, it’s been mostly younger voters. If you look at where he’s most popular, The Internet, you can start to understand why his polling numbers don’t match up to his seemingly fervent support. The most astounding thing I’ve learned all year is that traditional pollsters only call landline phones, never cell phones. In a day and age where more and more people, specifically younger people, are never even setting up a landline, this practice seems woefully outdated. If the people who are likely to say they’re willing to vote for Sanders are never being asked the question, it’s no surprise Sanders isn’t polling in a way that matches his apparent support.

There is one other major reason I believe the fact that Sanders name was Googled more than anyone else last night matters. If you look at the traditional polls, Sanders “Unfamiliarity” rating was around 40% prior to last night. Despite the crowds he’s been drawing, and despite The Internet being on his side, he’s almost never talked about on traditional news outlets, and he doesn’t spend much money on advertising. After last night, I fully expect that number to drop significantly. That may or may not translate to increased poll numbers for him, but it’s very unlikely to make them drop in any meaningful way. While I think that traditional polls are becoming less accurate, that doesn’t make them irrelevant or even unimportant, especially considering the impact of younger voters is a huge mystery.

Which brings me back to the question of who won the debate last night. Clinton had a good showing, and did everything her supporters wanted her to do, including the traditional media. She didn’t commit any major gaffe, and she attacked her opponents in areas where she had a clear advantage over them. She was smart, poised, and articulate in her points. It was clear that she had practiced and was ready for everything that came at her. Sanders, on the other hand, was passionate, genuine, and, in what most people are calling the moment of the night, willing to throw politics aside to defend a fellow candidate against what he perceives as an absurd assault. This defense of Clinton and her email scandal seems to generally be perceived as a sign of his integrity and interest in what’s right over what’s political. In a climate where people seem to be tired of “politics as usual” and are increasingly interested in a candidate who’s willing to speak from the heart, even if what they have to say isn’t popular, this is important.

Clinton did exactly what she walked onto that stage to do, but did she convince anyone who’s on the fence to vote for her over Sanders? I don’t believe she did. To be honest, I don’t believe there are a lot of people on the fence when it comes to Clinton, although I do believe that she may have convinced people that don’t like her that, if she does win the nomination, things won’t be as bleak as they thought it would be a week ago. In other words, I don’t think she helped herself in the primary, but I do think she helped herself in the general election, and that seems to be the reason the traditional news outlets believe she won the debate.

The problem is that Sanders also did exactly what he walked onto that stage to do. His two biggest limitations were people not knowing who he was and his problem with non-white voters, particularly black voters. Gaining almost twice as many Twitter followers as the other four candidates on stage combined as well as being the most Googled name of the night may have taken care of the first problem. And the fact that he was only one of two candidates to actually say the words #BlackLivesMatter (the other being O’Malley), and was the only candidate to not only bring up the example of Sandra Bland, but to actually #SayHerName, will likely help with the second problem. No matter what the traditional polls and media outlets say, Sanders seems to have likely helped himself both in the primary AND in the general election, and for that reason I give the edge to him over Clinton.



...

Mike Provencher is a writer and father living in Connecticut.