Oh, these conflations!
Yes, Trump is a bigot. Of course he is sexist. Of course women and men are not treated the same in this country. Of course the remark is spurious and fairly stupid. What would any of us expect from a career oaf?
Still, are we really going to call Hillary Rodham Clinton a victim of oppression? Does anybody really wish to assert that one is not in favor of rights for women if one does not regard Mrs Clinton as among the downtrodden?
Kolhatkar has done a lot of awfully fine work on a range of issues, including feminism, but here the piano is seriously out of tune. Certainly there are other things that Clinton has going for her in the campaign, but these are a whole lot more damning than anything the Donald and his "Watch me be a bigot" schtick has to lay at her door.
She has the support of Goldman Sachs and, in general, the Wall Street, Fed, and IMF ponzi trading community. Consider what that means and what it costs. Think about who gets shot, who gets robbed, and who gets bombed.
She has the support of the financiers and architects of coup d'etat in Honduras and Ukraine, at the very least, and we ought to be considering Haiti, Libya, and Syria as well. There are plenty of other conspirators, but that's no reason to leave her off the hook.
She has the support of a growing part of the neocon base of the Republican Party. Think about what that means for a second. Sure, part of it comes because Trump is so preposterous. But all those stodgy Pugs kept their mouths shut for McCain and Palin, didn't they? Do we really imagine that no one had the sense to be embarrassed? Do we imagine that none of the Republicans knew that W was something of a cipher all those 8 years? Who do you suppose assigned him My Little Goat? No, let's not play with this: Mrs. Clinton satisfies their policy desires almost right across the board. She has to play nice a bit because she's talking with Democrats, but she's in favor of pretty much everything that we would associate with the likes of a Bush or Cheney.
It is very likely that when Trumplestiltskin says she has only "the woman card" going for her, he means in the eyes of a fairly liberal person of the Democratic persuasion--for ease of comparison, say an Elizabeth Warren in questions of domestic policy, but also someone against war, with no need to pledge obscene loyalties to AIPAC and Israel and whoever is selling them weapons. If that's what he means, bigot and jerk and misogynist or no, that becomes a little hard to answer. Maybe he means something else, but we might want to ask, what else does she have going for such a person? She's smart and articulate, but that's not an advantage if she is an adversary, as she is for most of us here in terms of policy.
It is not that the women's issue is not valid, or even that Clinton will not have confronted it in her personal and professional life. It just is not the only issue. Hillary Clinton's extreme privilege and links to privilege do not expire or become null ad void just because she has some status issue in some contexts because of her gender. I have been poor most of my adult life, and I will almost certainly die in debt, but that does not mean that I have never had advantages that accrue from being white and male and having had some access to an education of sorts. Sure there is a lot to be done for women's rights. But that's probably a good reason to vote for Bernie Sanders.