This is a complete mischaracterization, and bordering on a lie at this point.
She was very specific about not taking it because President Trump said so (rightly, given Trump's history of promoting improving treatments). But you don't have to take my work for it, read her's:
"If Dr. Fauci, the doctors, tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it. But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not going to take it."
Only by omitting the first line can you argue that she was going to refuse the vaccine. And that is exactly what many Right-wing outlets have been doing, and that is a lie.
Your characterization is even more misleading than theirs. Do you seriously think Trump created the vaccine himself and it didn't go through the FDA and scientists or anything else?
The mere existence of the vaccine should be enough for her but no if Trump said something she won't take it.
This is an English subtlety. There is an implied negation of the other condition and an implied independence.
“If my wife tells me to eat cauliflower I will. If you tell me to, I won’t.”
A literal interpretation is that if you tell me to eat cauliflower I will avoid cauliflower altogether. The natural English interpretation translates to “Your endorsement of cauliflower will mean nothing to my choice of action”. Funny, eh?
Why would she say anything at all then? It would be impossible for Trump alone to authorize and recommend the vaccines. To many Democrats at the time this statement sowed doubts about the vaccines. My parents said they wouldn't get "Trump's vaccine". What you are failing to acknowledge is that how you understand the statement is not how everyone would interpret it, and many interpreted it as being against the vaccines because Trump was "rushing" them.
I don't hear this being brought up by Democrats at all. And if you look at the statistics by party on who is getting vaccinated I think it is pretty stark that this is not having much of an effect. So even if that caused some Democrats to think that at the time, they seem to have gotten over that.
Looking at the both the statistics, and what media sources are pushing anti-vax sentiments, I don't think your argument has much of a leg to stand on. It is distorting a statement to try and justify a "they are bad", or a "they are bad too" attitude.
