No, it’s not sexist to cover Hillary Clinton’s health issues

It’s astonishing what ideologues do to cover up the failings of their chosen candidates.

In an effort to protect their favored candidate, ideologues are claiming near any coverage of Hillary Clinton’s health scare is gendered and sexist. Not only are they wrong, but they’re hypocritical and often times inconsistent.

As you surely know by now, Clinton kept a diagnosis of pneumonia from the public. We only know she was sick because video emerged showing Clinton appearing to lose consciousness as she left a 9/11 ceremony this past weekend. She was propped up by a structure and staff, couldn’t walk on her own, and then her legs buckle.

The press withheld her illness until they couldn’t get away from the lies anymore. Now, to help defend another huge strategic blunder by the Clinton campaign, her media surrogates are out in full force.

Locally, in The Seattle Times, columnist Nicole Brodeur penned a remarkably inconsistent editorial. She opens the column asking, “What, now Hillary Clinton can’t even get sick?” yet admits that the decision to withhold Clinton’s diagnosis was “a bad, bad call…” since voters “…already don’t trust Clinton, most recently because of her use of private email while secretary of state.” (This is what most reporting has been about.)

But then she goes into the defense against the coverage. She uses the hackneyed attack that Republicans don’t care about women’s health, and then, astonishingly, implies that “we were seemingly fine” with coverage of Trump’s clean bill of health. The implication is that sexism plays a role in the health coverage of the candidates.

Perhaps it’s Brodeur, not Republicans, who need to wonder if she really cares about the health of Clinton. Back in 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion after fainting in her home and it took her six months to recover. If she wasn’t surrounded by aides and security, this could have happened again, but Brodeur would rather use Clinton as a prop to promote a feminist complaint of a double standard.

But more worrisome in this editorial is she pretends the media took Trump’s health at his doctor’s word. We were “seemingly fine” with Trump’s doctor’s note? That’s her major example to imply sexism. She’s so wrong with this claim it’s hard to believe it her deceit wasn’t purposeful.

Trump’s doctor, Dr. Harold Bornstein, has been mocked rather incessantly (rightfully so, by the way). Here are some links for Brodeur to peruse, since she apparently missed them. Seriously, I have links for days.

Usually, progressives like Brodeur will speak out against microaggressions, particularly against vulnerable populations like the mentally ill. It doesn’t appear so in the case of Trump, where the media has speculated and mocked Trump for purported mental illness.

Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-CA) pushed a #DiagnoseTrump petition to label him mentally unfit. She claimed there is a “patriotic duty to raise the question of [Trump’s] mental stability to be the commander in chief and leader of the free world.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says he’s convinced that Trump is “crazy”, while Amy Ellis Nutt asks if Trump is “a textbook narcissist.” Richard North Patterson in the Huffington Post insists Trump is “too sick to lead.”

It’s gotten so bad that the American Psychiatric Association had to tell its members to stop associating Trump with mental illness.

But Brodeur and many others imply there’s some sexist double standard in covering Clinton’s health issues. Not much of a peep on how Trump is portrayed. Why? Because they don’t like Trump. Neither do I, but at least I’m consistent here. Both of their health issues should be exposed fully. We’re electing someone to the most powerful position in the world. We have a right to know when they’re sick and how bad it is.

You can make the claim that all coverage of health issues is overblown or perhaps not that important. I’d obviously argue with that, but at least it’s not meant to stifle conversation, which is exactly what happens when you wantonly label someone a sexist. It’s what Brodeur and others are doing to shield their candidate from rightful criticism.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz