Can't let a line of B.S. thrown out by the Clintonians as blatant as this this pass unnoticed.

Hat tip to MsGrin

The Shill...ooops, I misspelled that again, printed a medical article about "sexist attacks"

Very little has been said about how her insistence on toughing it out until a sick day was unavoidable is not simply the American way, but an American woman’s way of navigating gendered health dynamics in the United States.

What is gendered "health dynamics"? This is not a medical issue but a sociological issue. There is an underlying reservoir of anti-feminist dogma, particularly coming from the Repugs: the main example being the fight to destroy Planned Parenthood, an organization that does a great deal of good and no known harm physically.

"Toughing it out on a sick day"? For the "average woman", whomever she may be the writer is absolutely correct. Many of them have no choice but to appear at work when sick, partly due to wages not equalling their male counterparts for the same work, and partly due to the additional burdens of being head of household. But we are not talking about "women" generically. The woman referred to in the post is Hillary Clinton. And she is not out on the campaign trail trying to make a living. She is trying to be president of the United States. Whatever is driving her to do so has nothing to do with money or any self-imposed imperative other than "it's my turn".

Publicly expressing weakness is not Hillary Clinton’s default mode.

On the contrary, Hillary is publicly repressing weakness. These health weaknesses as I have explained many time before do not concern merely a minor cold, arthritis, or fibromyalgia. The weaknesses--it is plural--when strictly confining ourselves to health matters, instead of political issues--if true as I think they are, would diminish or nullify any conceivable competency in running a country.

Then the author offers two deflections from the real issue--the real issue is whether Hillary is mentally competent to do the job.
The first deflection is about a Trump diatribe allegedly about all women, or perhaps just against Hillary. Totally irrelevant to the point.

The second deflection is even more off-base:

That said, this notion of women’s fragility did not cover working class women of color, who have been expected to work, particularly in caring professions, without the benefit of paid sick leave. Only recently have some domestic care workers have started to receive paid sick leave, primarily at the state level.

We are not concerned with Hillary being of the working class; she is of the millionaire class. We are not concerned with Hillary's health or lack thereof because she is a woman of color. She is not in the "caring professions" because if she were, she wouldn't have encouraged and/or started wars killing millions and displacing millions more from their own home and comfort. As president of the U.S., Hillary would not have to worry about paid sick leave--she would get paid no matter what.

The obligation to prove one is “tough enough” continues to fall disparately on women candidates from Clinton’s generation.

HRC is not just any woman candidate, she is THE woman candidate aspiring to the presidency. If Jill Stein were to have the same medical problems (which, of course, she doesn't) I doubt that the several million, male as well as female, would support her.

In what assumably is to be an article about a specific woman, Hillary Clinton, comes this next fallacy:

A second stereotype was used repeatedly by corporations called to defend their all-male patterns of hiring and promotion: that women “didn’t really want to be…[a manager, an executive, a leader], illustrating significant discomfort with ambitious women.

Hillary really wants to be President. She would not be hired by a corporation (or at least as yet, because so far the U.S. is not a corporation). "Significant discomfort with ambitious women"? Nuts! California's two Senators are women. Even Hillary herself was a Senator--if being a Senator is not politically ambitious, then what is?

After another paragraph length non-sequitur, the author writes:

Certainly letting the world know we are sick is not the best illustration of our qualifications for the job we seek.

Once again, Hillary is not EveryWoman. She is hiding the fact that she has serious neurological disorders which most likely disqualify her from any elective office.

Now another non sequitur:

And yet overall women live longer than men. To quote Harvard Medical School, “When it comes to health, men are the weaker sex throughout life.”

Statistically this is true. But we are not talking about a statistic applicable to the female gender as a whole. We are concerned, or should be concerned, with the specific person referred to in this opinion piece: Hillary Clinton.

The next excerpt is not only incorrect but makes me laugh:

Despite the display of “fragility” as she stepped into a waiting car last Sunday

Millions of people saw Hillary fall limply into her black ambulance on 911. Further the author buys into the "pneumonia story", which really is a deflection from my main point.

The last excerpt from this "talking point" OP is as illogical as the prior article:

While the taking of such sick time is routinely perceived to be “for wimps,” it appears that Clinton’s health strategy – seeking care and taking time off the trail this week -- is the more prudent one, at least when it comes to longevity.

1. The president can have 24 hour a day, 7 day per week medical care available in the White house, if she or he so chooses.

2. The second point relates simultaneously to validity and judgement. Hillary did not take time off from the campaign trail until she was publicly shamed for not doing so. By continuing her campaign she illustrated enormously bad judgement. She didn't take her doctor's advice, because she felt it was "no big deal". Then she exposes a 6 year old child to "pneumonia".

A. If she really had pneumonia and was on antibiotics for 48 hours: was the pneumonia bacterial--if so was the antibiotic the correct one based on culture and sensitivity testing to the suspected pathogen? If this was not the correct antibiotic, the HRC purposefully exposed a small child to an infectious illness.

B. If it was a viral pneumonia, the vast majority are spread by droplets, which includes droplets in exhaled air Hillary blew in in the child's face as she talked.

This entire article is a sham. Although the writer makes many valid points about gender discrimination in health and social matters, when broadly applied to ALL women, her arguments completely fail when applied specifically to ONE woman, namely Clinton.

What lesson is learned from this article's critical review besides the obvious don't believe everything you read lesson. It is an even more disappointing one. This analysis of mine spends demands more mental effort than Jane or Joe Q. Citizen is willing to spend on the issues. Our problem, here, is as our Progressive community tries to use objective standards by which to judge issues, we are in a tiny minority. Our problem, not just mine, is how make these fallacious contributions to the Hill understandably fallacious to Jane or Joe?

Unless we can solve this communication conundrum, I fear progressivism is doomed to minority status. The one person who successfully communicated truth to power has been effectively neutralized.