Hillary Clinton, recovering from treatment for a blood clot and released from the hospital Wednesday, is chomping at the bit to get back to the office as she restlessly works from her home in Chappaqua, New York ("I'm trying to be a compliant patient, which I've had to cultivate over the last three and a half weeks," she said Thursday). However, The New York Times is hella concerned for her health. Not to say the rest of us aren't concerned with her health, but an entire piece devoted to hand-wringing over Clinton's "delicate" physical condition as a result of "stress" is a bit much:
Her health scare, though, has reinforced the concerns of friends and colleagues that the years of punishing work and travel have taken a heavy toll.
Remember when Dick Cheney's five heart attacks were ascribed to how hard he works himself, the poor dear? No, you don't, because that never happened, because he had a moderate contractile dysfunction of his left ventricle. That's called a medical condition, which men in high office are allowed to have without coming under fire for being too dedicated to their job.
We also get a nice and visceral description of her injury after she slipped in a State Department garage in 2009:
Her arm in a sling, she juggled speeches and a trip to India and Thailand with physical therapy, rebuilding a joint held together with wire and pins.
So basically this.
While there is no medical evidence that Mrs. Clinton's clot was caused by her herculean work habits, her cascade of recent health problems, beginning with a stomach virus, has prompted those who know her best to say that she desperately needs a long rest.
Mrs. Clinton is not an exercise enthusiast. And her diet over the past four years has been a mix of exotic fare in distant capitals and airplane food. While the military stewards often prepared a bowl of cereal and berries, Mrs. Clinton faced her share of breakfast burritos.
The article speculates that this will affect whether Clinton runs for president in 2016, which she has previously answered to the negative despite the urging of women across the country. "Given Mrs. Clinton's enduring status as a role model, [Clinton's friend] Ms. [Ellen] Chesler said women would be watching which path she decides to take, as they plan their own transitions out of the working world."
"Do remember that women of our generation are really the first to have worked through the life cycle in large numbers," says Chesler. "Many seem to be approaching retirement with dread."
What's the verdict? Concern-trolling or just concern?