On a day when Hillary Clinton proclaimed the media biased (against her), labeling the GOP as “sad, misogynistic sexists,” a survey of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) found that nearly 71% of physicians thought concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health are “serious – could be disqualifying for the position of President.”
With her lead over Trump tumbling to six-week lows following a poor performance at last night’s “commander-in-chief” forum, and a press conference focused on what she was not asked (or didn’t answer)…
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has called “sexism” on the GOP. As The Hill reports,
The Democratic nominee, along with top surrogates and allies, has seized on Trump’s recent comment that Clinton does not have a “presidential look,” using the comment to depict him as sexist.
The former secretary of State also laid into Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus for his tweet that she looked “angry” during an MSNBC presidential forum.
Clinton didn’t rule out sexism when asked if she was being treated differently in the political race because she is a woman.
“I’m going to let all of you ponder that last question,” the first female presidential nominee replied with a grin at a press conference.
“I think there will be a lot of Ph.D. theses and popular journalism writing on that subject for years to come. I don’t take my advice and I don’t take anything seriously that comes from the RNC.”
Chelsea Clinton also waded into the debate on Thursday, criticizing Trump’s remarks about a “presidential look.”
“Everyone can see that as the sad, misogynistic, sexist rhetoric that I hoped we had moved beyond in the 21st century,” the former first lady’s daughter said.
This isn’t the first time accusations of sexism have bubbled up during the campaign.
Earlier this year, Clinton fired at Trump for saying that if she were a man, “she would get 5 percent of the vote.” The billionaire criticized Clinton at the time for playing the “woman card.”
“They’re pretty quick to yell sexism in a crowded theater … but constantly playing the victim card is not something you do from a position of strength,” said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak.
Mackowiak said playing up gender is a “risk that can backfire” especially because “the first to make inroads with the other [demographic] will win.”
This ‘sexist’ call follows a lambasting of any and everyone who even mentions her health as “conspiracy theorists” with a political axe to grind. Ultimately, the media frenzy culminated in an article written by the WaPo’s Chris Cilizza who concluded that “the questions about Hillary Clinton’s health are absurd“…
… a statement which could pass for absurd judging by the Clinton campaign’s furious response to demonize any member of the mainstream who dares to even bring them up.
* * *
Which means that, according to AAPS, over 70% of US doctors and surgeons are absurd right-wing tin-foil hat-wearers…
Concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health are “serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.,” say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were “likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records.” Only 2.7% responded that they were “just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern.”
While more than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion, only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous thrombosis.
More than 78% said the health concerns had received “not enough emphasis” in the media, andonly 2.7% that there had been “too much emphasis.”
Nearly two-thirds said that a physician who had a concern about a candidate’s fitness to serve for health reasons should “make the concerns known to the public.” Only 11% said a physician should “keep silent unless he had personally examined the patient,” and 10% that the candidate’s health was “off limits for public discussion.”
Eighty-eight respondents submitted comments.
One said that “the public interest will ALWAYS override either privacy rights or rights of self-determination in the case of a presidential candidate.”
Another mentioned Clinton’s “so called loss of memory claimed during her FBI questioning about her email server.”
Beyond the specific questions, one remarked that “I think that the candidate should be honest with the public about his/her health!”
The history of the concussion was concerning: “The public must watch the movie Concussion to realize that such an injury does affect thought process.”
A poll of 833 randomly selected registered voters by Gravis Marketing showed that nearly half (49%) were not aware of the “well documented major health issues that Hillary Clinton has.” Nearly three-fourths (74%) were unaware of Bill Clinton’s statement that Hillary suffered a “terrible” concussion requiring “six months of very serious work to get over.” The majority (57%) thought that candidates should release their medical records.
“Both physicians and other voters think that health concerns are relevant when choosing a presidential candidate,” states AAPS executive director Jane M. Orient, M.D.
“However, more than 40% of physician respondents were unaware of the cerebral sinus thrombosis, and the vast majority of voters were not aware of all of Clinton’s problems or their potential serious long-term implications for cognitive function.”
Now that’s a lot of “absurd conspiracy theorists.”