There are three pieces of background info you need to know here, before we get to the really fun part:
1. Bernie Sanders used Jimmy Kimmel Live to challenge Donald Trump to a debate, which Trump sort of accepted before he sort of backed off before he maybe tentatively accepted again, with caveats.
2. Before all this, Hillary Clinton agreed to a May debate before the California primary (which will be held on June 7), and then reneged.
Blue Nation Review is a propaganda website run by political operative David Brock on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Brock, perviously a Republican henchmen who wrote a book trying to discredit Anita Hill during her sexual harassment case against Clarence Thomas, now runs the pro-Hillary super-PAC “Correct the Record” and leads an army of pro-Clinton online trolls.
Caught up? Great. Because even by Blue Nation Review standards, this post by Melissa McEwan is a doozy. After revisiting the facts of the Bernie-Trump debate, and saying that Bernie got “played” (huh?), McEwan engages in some revisionist history:
Bernie wanted a California debate with her, and she didn’t bite. She drew a boundary, and, instead of accepting that boundary, Bernie figured he’d conspire with Donald to try to coerce her into doing what he wants.
Um…no. Here’s what the campaign actually said, via Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “The candidates have also agreed to participate in three newly scheduled DNC sanctioned debates to be held in addition to the February 11th PBS News Hour, and March 9th Univision debates already planned. The first of these new debates is confirmed to take place in Flint, Michigan on March 6th, with the remaining two taking place in April and May with times and locations to be determined.”
The debate in Flint happened. The debate in Brooklyn happened in April. The debate in May? Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen, actually, because Clinton backed out. McEwan is right that she drew a “boundary,” but that boundary was for three debates. Now? New boundary! Two debates only.
But that’s just a bit of amusing preamble, because McEwan was about to reach her main point.
I have a real problem with that.
Hillary, a number of people have (erroneously) argued, has somehow transcended the strictures and indignities of systemic gender equality, by virtue of her success. But one cannot shed one’s womanhood at will (even if one wanted to)—and here is a perfect example of how no woman, not even one of the most empowered women in the world, can shed the rules imposed on women.
Oooooh, that makes no sense, but I’m super excited to see how she draws the spurious connection.
Shovels more popcorn into mouth.
Frankly, the fact that Hillary has achieved a level of visibility, power, and influence that few women ever have makes me all the more furious that two men are still trying to show, “jokingly” or seriously, they can gang up to push her around at will, that they don’t respect her agency or her right to say no.
YES. YES YES YES. WE HAVE REACHED PEAK BULLSHIT! FINISH HARD!
The message to women and girls is appalling. No matter how successful you are, men will still try to assert control over you and cajole you into doing their bidding. You are not allowed to say no.
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
I’ve written before about how Hillary’s supporters desperately want everything in this campaign season to be about sexism, but even by those standards, McEwan really blows logic and reasoning out of the water, and she uses a giant bazooka filled with gender-baiting bullshit. I mean, Bernie couldn’t get Hillary to debate, turned to Trump because he can benefit from the visibility, and McEwan’s take? Bernie is essentially a metaphorical rapist.
I could waste some words trying to refute this argument, but hopefully that’s not necessary, because expending any energy to combat this kind of sophistry would just wound my soul. And also, it’s going to take a few days to scrape my jaw off the floor.