Clinton Wrong on Cancer Stat

[ethics]

Summary
Sen. Hillary Clinton used the wrong statistic in talking about cervical cancer today. She said that 500,000 women die from the disease worldwide each year. Only 250,000 do.


Not really sure where she pulled that 500K (http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_wrong_on_cancer_stat.html) figure from or for what political purpose.

[joseftu]

Seems like a pretty innocent and unconscious slip. 250K is still 250k too many. I would tend to give anyone, of any party, a pass on slips like that--unless they repeat it.

From the link:
In past debates and forums, we have found Clinton to be a human encyclopedia in her recitation of facts and figures. While other candidates from both parties occasionally have stumbled on statistics, using inflated or flat-out wrong numbers, Clinton has proven to be accurate even on some we initially thought were questionable. This time, however, she slipped up.
Eveyone misses one sometimes.

As to where she pulled it from, it's pretty obvious, and pretty obviously for no particular political purpose.
The 500,000 number is the institute's estimate of how many new cases are diagnosed each year around the world. For the U.S. alone, the cancer institute estimates that 15,000 cases are diagnosed each year and that 4,100 women die of the disease.

The National Cervical Cancer Coalition, a nonprofit organization, cites similar numbers. The group says (http://www.nccc-online.org/) 493,000 cases are diagnosed and 273,500 women die worldwide each year.

The United Nations World Health Organization says (http://www.who.int/phi/B120_35_Add1-en.pdf) cervical cancer was responsible in 2005 for "up to 500,000 new cases and up to 257,000 deaths." It also says the numbers are rising, projecting that there will be 320,000 cervical cancer deaths in 2015 and 435,000 in 2030, worldwide.

[Arc]

Summary
Sen. Hillary Clinton used the wrong statistic in talking about cervical cancer today. She said that 500,000 women die from the disease worldwide each year. Only 250,000 do.


Not really sure where she pulled that 500K (http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_wrong_on_cancer_stat.html) figure from or for what political purpose.


She was probably thinking of the number that die each day from second hand smoke.

[ethics]

She was probably thinking of the number that day each day from second hand smoke.

I sense a bit of sarcasm. :)

[Techie2000]

Summary
Sen. Hillary Clinton used the wrong statistic in talking about cervical cancer today. She said that 500,000 women die from the disease worldwide each year. Only 250,000 do.


Not really sure where she pulled that 500K (http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_wrong_on_cancer_stat.html) figure from or for what political purpose.
Occam's Razor: She forgot the correct figure.

[tke711]

I think Clinton just got caught up in trying to make a dramatic point where one wasn't needed. The question posed was about testing in US schools, so world-wide numbers (right or wrong) are irrelevant.

As much as I can't stand the woman, I'll give her a pass on this one and chalk it up as simple, ordinary, overly dramatic politics as usual.

[joseftu]

The explanation is right in the link that ethics posted (and I quoted). She got it wrong, but it wasn't even overly dramatic. She just confused new cases (500k) with deaths (250k).

A pass is definitely called for, no matter how much you may hate her! :)

I would even give Bush, or even Tancredo, a pass for a mistake like this.

[Coot]

It seems innocuous enough. Still, it would be nice to take her water skiing and give her a lake enema. :P

[tke711]

The explanation is right in the link that ethics posted (and I quoted). She got it wrong, but it wasn't even overly dramatic. She just confused new cases (500k) with deaths (250k).

I think it was purposefully dramatic because she attempted to quote world wide stats instead of U.S. stats when asked about testing in U.S. schools. The 15,000 diagnosis in the U.S. every year isn't nearly as dramatic as the 500,000 world wide number.

Either way though, that's typical across all party lines.

[ShinyTop]

I guess part of the determining factor you give Clinton on this issue is how you perceive her character. Those that think she would say or do anything to achieve power are less inclined to give her a pass on what might well have been an honest mistake.

But that would mean some consider her a conniving power hungry damn the truth anything to get elected put up with philandering husband move anywhere to get a power base bitch.

But I would not say anything like that about her, no, not me.

[cdw]

But that would mean some consider her a conniving power hungry damn the truth anything to get elected put up with philandering husband move anywhere to get a power base bitch.

But I would not say anything like that about her, no, not me.


Me either. To much wasted breath. I just call her a slug. :)

[joseftu]

Me either. To much wasted breath. I just call her a slug. :)

Make that "Madame President Slug" and get ready to make a habit of it! :)

[Kangaroo]

Like President Kerry?

[ravital]

Make that "Madame President Slug" and get ready to make a habit of it! :)

Only the first word of that title would be appropriate for her. And the last word is too kind.

Can't be her record of helping polluters in return for their donations, no, must be that I hate her. Yeah... That must be it.

[ethics]

Like President Kerry?

Yah, Joe is awesome with his predictions, ain't he? ;)

[joseftu]

All will be revealed, oh faithless minions!
:)

[jfcjrus]

{snip}I'll give her a pass on this one and chalk it up as simple, ordinary, overly dramatic politics as usual.
Pretty forgiving of you, especially towards one that is vying to become the LEADER of the USofA!

No, to me, if she wants that job, she better have her shit together better than this!

Another -1, on the scoreboard, to me.

Regards,

[joseftu]

Jesus, you're strict, Joe!

A LEADER of the USofA can never get a single fact or statistic wrong?

Never mis-speak? Never err? Might be a pretty long wait to find that candidate!

:)

[ShinyTop]

Joe, H. Clinton did not arrive on the public scene the day she announced for the Democratic nomination. She has been on the national stage and watched for about 17-20 years. She has spun, side stepped, forgot, and, some would say, lied for those 17-20 years. They cannot be forgotten or ignored.

[joseftu]

Oh, sure, if your mind is made up, that's one thing. But this was neither a lie nor a spin. An honest mistake. I think that an open mind would excuse that, no matter the prior judgment or overall distaste. Like I said, I would excuse even Tancredo (who I see as about a million times worse than Clinton or Bush) for a similar mistake.

Don't vote for her, if you please, that's fine. But to say that this insignificant error should have any effect at all on anyone's judgment of her or whether to vote for her is just ridiculous.

It doesn't even be deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as any of her (many) real errors or sins.

I heard she has warts on her toes, too. Let's hold that against her. It's just as relevant. And since we already know all about how terrible she is, anything we can possibly think of should be considered as a significant error.

I'll tell you, guys, predictions or no (and I really do have big problems with her triangulating, centrist, opportunist candidacy), I am going to be around, and I am going to be rubbing it in mercilessly, when she gets elected.

[cdw]

Agreed, but this isn't the first 'mistake' first 'mis-speak', etc. If it were, I'd be laughing. Unfortunately for me, I've seen her on the scene for waaaaaaaaaay too long. Would I not vote for her because of this? Hell no. I won't vote for her because she's a slug. :)

[Copzilla]

Yeah, I'll give a pass on something like this. It's not like a Michael Moore documentary where things are deliberately misleading. This is simply improper information, and it happens all the time. Yes, politicians have a higher standard, but in this case I cannot see any harm from the misinformation.

This is a real problem, regardless of what the correct number is.

[ethics]

I'll tell you, guys, predictions or no, I am going to be around, and I am going to be rubbing it in mercilessly, when she gets elected.


Since we are so fond of rubbing things in mercilessly...

1 (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=307402&postcount=23). Hilary will not run for president in 2008. (Neither will Kerry, but that's a lot more obvious).

2. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=267619&postcount=14) I've said before and I've said again--I don't think Hillary will be running in 2008. I've never heard her say so, and I see it as very unlikely. I'd vote for her in a minute, of course, but I think the level to which the Republicans hate her is far beyond anything we've seen before. She's hated more than Clinton and Kerry combined. The party is just not going to put her up there as the nominee.

[Arc]

You know I am waiting for when her opponents, be it for the nomination, or if nominated for the presidency, break out the ammunition against her. So far the Dems have officially and formally gone out their way to avoid all of it. Stuff directly or indirectly related to:

Travel Gate

Vince Foster

Whitwater and related financial dealings in Arkansas

Her outstanding record in commodity trading

The missing now they are lost but now they appear Rose Law Firm case files. (This one, the whole story behind or related to it is actually the best of all of them.)

Her experience

Lots more. :)

[joseftu]

Since we are so fond of rubbing things in mercilessly...

1 (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=307402&postcount=23). Hilary will not run for president in 2008. (Neither will Kerry, but that's a lot more obvious).

2. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=267619&postcount=14) I've said before and I've said again--I don't think Hillary will be running in 2008. I've never heard her say so, and I see it as very unlikely. I'd vote for her in a minute, of course, but I think the level to which the Republicans hate her is far beyond anything we've seen before. She's hated more than Clinton and Kerry combined. The party is just not going to put her up there as the nominee.

Caught me, didn't you? :) You forgot the links, but I know who said those things--it was Stiofan, logged in with my account!

No, seriously, do I need to admit that my predictions are worthless? I admit it! :)

(And I'll still vote for her in a minute--that much I will predict!)

You know I am waiting for when her opponents, be it for the nomination, or if nominated for the presidency, break out the ammunition against her. So far the Dems have officially and formally gone out their way to avoid all of it. Stuff directly or indirectly related to:

Travel Gate

Vince Foster

Whitwater and related financial dealings in Arkansas

Her outstanding record in commodity trading

The missing now they are lost but now they appear Rose Law Firm case files. (This one, the whole story behind or related to it is actually the best of all of them.)

Her experience

Lots more. :)
Wow, Archangel. I hope for the sake of the Republicans that there really is lots more. Nothing on that list is going to lose her a single vote. Non-issues, every one. Asked and answered, and the answer is...nobody cares about those. Nothing older than old non-scandals.

Oh, I'm sure there will be some attempts to Swift-Boat her. That kind of lying attack is much more likely to work, though--and will be much less predictable.

[Arc]

Caught me, didn't you? :) You forgot the links, but I know who said those things--it was Stiofan, logged in with my account!

No, seriously, do I need to admit that my predictions are worthless? I admit it! :)

(And I'll still vote for her in a minute--that much I will predict!)


Wow, Archangel. I hope for the sake of the Republicans that there really is lots more. Nothing on that list is going to lose her a single vote. Non-issues, every one. Asked and answered, and the answer is...nobody cares about those. Nothing older than old non-scandals.

Oh, I'm sure there will be some attempts to Swift-Boat her. That kind of lying attack is much more likely to work, though--and will be much less predictable.

Well joseftu, if everyone or even the huge majority of folks felt the way you do about that list you are right about there being nothing damning or negative--all false--from your perspective. But I assure you there are MANY who view it differently. And its not just a one trick pony like the Swift-Boat issue that really hurt Kerry where you call those allegations lies but I and obviously substantially others believed them to be true--regardless of what was the "real" truth. Perception is reality. Doesn't matter what the actual facts are. Just the perception of what the facts are.

Gosh, I wish there was something on that list that I could share with you but I can't now. Let me just say as a personal public communication from me to you and not as a formal allegation I know some of those things to be true about her. Yes know. (Officially) I realize that statement for you is from a relevant standpoint not relevant or believable and I respect your opinion and don't think anything bad about you for not believing me. But I assure you there are a lot of folks who will believe most or all of that list if it gets aired and they will believe a lot of stuff not even on the list that she didn't do or was involved in.

[joseftu]

Mysterious indeed, Archangel!

Actually, I don't doubt your word. I think you're sometimes wrong (from my perspective! ;)), but not dishonest. I just don't think that anything on that list, or even the aggregate, true or not, is important enough to make a bit of difference. Those are boring stories, nothing "juicy" in terms of perception, and if the Republicans (or other Democrats) try to trot them out again, the result is going to be a bunch of yawns. Perception, as you say, is most important, and when the ante has been upped as far as it has been (blow-jobs in the Oval Office, "Mission Accomplished," Katrina, etc.) the perception of those convoluted and basically uninteresting scandals is a big "who cares."

There will have to be something a lot juicier (not necessarily with even a grain of truth in it--but a small grain would help), to really make a difference this time around.

I think people dislike Clinton, some for good reasons, some for not-so-good (again, from my perspective), and that dislike determines how they feel about the list you named. The list doesn't affect the dislike one way or the other--even if everything on it is absolutely 100% true.

It's way early, of course, and as I've been so forcefully reminded, my predictions have not had a great record of success.

But honestly, I think that the perception (that word again), even the polls (which were completely and utterly wrong in the last election), that Hillary is disliked by so many people, is really not very accurate. I think that those who do dislike her, dislike her intensely. There are many of those people--but not really as many as the polls and the press (and the mood here!) would seem to indicate.

(And I think a Clinton/Obama ticket--which I don't see as likely--wins in a huge landslide. That's an unbeatable ticket, and oh, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth we'll hear in this forum on that Wednesday morning. It will make my tears last time seem like a mere sniffle! :))

[ethics]

(And I'll still vote for her in a minute--that much I will predict!)

I don't hate her as the rest of the forum does. She is a politician, just like 99.9% of all of the ones that will be running for Prez.

[ethics]

Loved this Mason clip (rant) on Hillary:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tTHK1Uxz_fE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tTHK1Uxz_fE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Arc]

Go Jackie, go. LOL. I'm always really liked the guy. I didn't know he was so political minded though.

Man he was really right on when he was talking Sandy Berger and Scooter Libby!

I checked out his official blog. Again very political and entertaining:

http://www.jackiemason.com/blog/

By the way do you happen to know if he is Jewish? ;)

[ethics]

By the way do you happen to know if he is Jewish? ;)

LOL! OY!

[jfcjrus]

Jesus, you're strict, Joe!

A LEADER of the USofA can never get a single fact or statistic wrong?

Never mis-speak? Never err? Might be a pretty long wait to find that candidate!

:)
YES, I suppose I am a bit strict! ;)
But, come on pal, we're talking about electing a LEADER of our country, the USA.
A pretty important position, no?

I'd really like, just one time, to have an opportunity to vote for someone that knows what the hell they're doing, rather than who's got the money and staff expertise to be the most 'electable'.

I'd really like, just one time, to have an opportunity to vote for someone with a HISTORY of being able to get all the different factions together enough to get some semblance of the job done.
The job of running the country.
Because without that ability, they're not a LEADER!
So, in that light, what makes her a leader?

I'm just so weary of all the partisian political party horseshit, that contributes NOTHING to resolving the problems facing this country.

Joe, if you think Hillary is the person you've been waiting for to really LEAD this country, then I can respect that, even though I heartily disagree.
But, if you simply think she's the most 'electable', then I don't think your values are 'strict' enough. ;)

Regards,