It’s laughable to blame scrutiny of Clinton’s health on gender

 

Just. Make It. Stop.

“It,” of course, being every issue in this country that involves Team Blue, in the form of Democrats and Team Red, representing Republicans to automatically be all about gender, race, ethnicity, or all of the above. It’s too simple, too lazy, too myopic, too stupid to continue to do when conducting lucid debates on big issues.

{mosads}Today’s prime example is what some in media — who are anything but lucid — are trying to do with what is arguably the biggest story (in the absence of our media being allergic to talking about actually policy issues) of the 2016 campaign right now: Hillary Clinton’s health.

Fair question: Given the stress of the being leader of the free world, the traveling, the pressure, the fundraising, the important briefings, the tightrope constantly being straddled, shouldn’t there be complete and total disclosure of a candidate medical records, including a press conference with the doctors treating them?

Anyone seeking the office — particularly one with a series of health problems — there needs to be scrutiny.

What that last part has to do with gender is a mystery.

Numbers on the other hand, aren’t subjective. They behave. And in the case of Hillary Clinton when it comes to voter concern over her health issues, the numbers ain’t good.

A new Morning Consult poll shows 29 percent of voters believe Clinton has provided accurate information on her health, while 50 percent believe she has provided false information.

And in the same poll, 44 percent believe Clinton’s health will impact her ability to serve, while 43 percent say no. Those are devastating numbers and have absolutely nothing to do with gender, but trustworthiness and eyesight.

“Can’t a girl have a sick day or two?” cried Christiane Amanpour, who used to play a serious reporter on TV, asked on CNN. “When it comes to over qualified women having to try 100 times harder than under qualified men to get a break or even a level playing field, well, we know that story.”

It gets even more comical when Amanpour applauds the American press for once “actively shielding” the public from the health problems of FDR and JFK:

Amanpour on CNN Monday:

“Considering the media outrage over Hillary failing to tell them she had pneumonia on Friday, consider the media activity shielding some great American presidents, agreeing for instance not to show these photographs of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose polio kept him confined to a wheelchair. But did that stop his New Deal for America or winning World War II?

And then there is everyone’s favorite president, John F Kennedy. Now, he saved the world from possible nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis, called for a new frontier in space, and generally inspired whole generations around the globe, while the press kept secret his painful struggle with Addison’s disease. Leading the world in sickness and in health—if the boys can do it, why not the women?”

So in other words, if Hillary Clinton does have considerable health issues, and the video of her having some kind of odd head episode before collapsing into a van on Sunday warrants the question, the media, according to Amanpour, would be wise to willfully ignore it. You know, just like the good old days when Roosevelt and Kennedy had their ailments concealed from the public.

This can’t be a serious argument from a serious journalist. But it appears to be a rhetorical virus now airborne, if the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank is any indication;

“Clinton’s ‘likability’ problem also has something to do with her lack of a ‘Y’ chromosome,” wrote Milbank. “It’s a direct consequence of the imperative that she demonstrate her toughness.”

Or … it’s a direct result of a campaign who willingly put their candidate at risk by sending her to an event she had no business attending given her diagnosis two days earlier. Why? To avoid the optics of missing a 9/11 event in a state she once represented as Senator. And to avoid more speculation about her health?

Demonstrate her toughness?

More like rolling the dice to avoid a narrative the campaign couldn’t control. Good grief.

“If gender were flipped,” Ellis Henican said on CNN, “it would be very different.”

Hmmm … curious how it would be different.

So for a moment, close your eyes and imagine a world where Donald Trump has a medical chart that includes a blood clot on the brain, having to take blood thinner medication and a history of fainting either frequently or rarely, according to his spouse.

Now imagine Trump leaving a 9/11 memorial early and the press — for 90 minutes — never being told where he is.

And then jump to a visual of Trump collapsing getting into a van, only avoiding a potential serious head injury or worse (given the blood thinners), if three people aren’t there to catch him.

Would him having an ‘X’ chromosome mean the coverage wouldn’t be twice as much, twice as brutal, as we’re seeing now?

Would Christiane Amanpour be asking if a guy can just have a day off?

Oh yes, it would be different if it was Trump, and not Clinton, collapsing and being thrown into the van “like a side of beef,” according to one law enforcement official.

It would be considered a downright conspiracy if he was taken to Ivanka Trump’s apartment to be treated.

And if a diagnosis of pneumonia was purposely withheld from the public until it had to revealed after Trump suffered such as episode, many of the same people screaming about bias against Hillary Clinton would be calling on Trump to drop out of the race.

In the end, both candidates should be examined by independent doctors and have those results released shortly thereafter. Period.

But cable news won’t allow for that kind of lucidity.

It’s all about gender, color, ethnicity. Checking off boxes.

You can check off one more box:

Insanity.

Because that’s where every argument seems to end up in an election season that features anything but sane commentary by those paid to provide it.

Just. Make. It. Stop.

Concha is a media reporter for The Hill.

---

 

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill