Hillary Clinton apologizes for praising Nancy Reagan’s response to HIV/AIDS

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Hillary Clinton traveled to Simi Valley, Calif., to pay her respects to the late Nancy Reagan, and, in an interview with MSNBC, she praised her fellow former first lady for her advocacy on issues such as Alzheimer's research and gun control.

Clinton also praised Nancy Reagan -- unprompted -- for her advocacy on HIV/AIDS.

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS in the 1980s," Clinton said. "And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan -- in particular Mrs. Reagan --we started a national conversation."

But that's not how LGBT and AIDS advocates remember it. Both Reagans have been criticized for being slow to acknowledge the AIDS crisis. President Reagan addressed it in a speech in 1987, six years after it had been recognized as a serious public health problem.

The comments caused an uproar online, including among prominent LGBT and AIDS activists. Hours later, in a statement, Clinton apologized for making the comments on MSNBC.

"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-praising-nancy-reagans-response-to-hivaids/

lots of sharp corners on triangles.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I was literally shaking with anger when I read that.

It’s not difficult for me to remember at all. I came out at the tail-end of the HIV/AIDS crisis. I remember that it took the immeasurable courage of people like Ryan White, a teenage hemophiliac, to waste his last few years sitting in interminable house and senate meetings to show that not only gay people suffered from it.

I’m still not convinced that if it had been limited to gay folks that anything would have been done. But the Reagans certainly had nothing to do with it. They sat like statues, in stony silence, while tens of thousands of us died.

No, the apology isn’t enough. It’s a politician’s apology for “misspeaking”.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
It was a bafflingly stupid comment and hard to imagine where on earth she got that idea.

I think this about sums it up:
The Reagans started a conversation about AIDS in the same way that George W. Bush started a conversation about unnecessary wars.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research

I'm hardly outraged or anything, but this seems a bit misleading as well. President Reagan stopped making public statements toward the end of his life (completely understandable), so I suppose it's possible he was privately supportive of stem cell research. But given his pro-life sentiments, it seems just as possible he was against it. I don't think we really know enough either way to say he was a strong advocate on the issue. However, I do think Nancy deserves some credit for her advocacy, especially given how unpopular that position was among so many people who idolized her husband.
 

Rhoda Nightingale

Vampire Junkie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
4,470
Reaction score
658
I just screeched "WHAT?!" at my computer. Yeah...no. Not cool, Clinton. NOT cool.
 

vsrenard

Watching the Whales
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
1,288
Reaction score
118
Location
SF Bay Area
Website
www.vanithasankaran.com
I don't even know where to start with how angry Clinton's comments made me. The sheer hatred and dismissiveness the Reagans showed towards HIV/AIDS sufferers aren't so easily forgotten. What the hell was Clinton thinking?
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
This is an example of just how tone-deaf Hillary Clinton can be, and it doesn't bode well for her campaign, going forward. It's especially troubling, in that none of these comments were in any way really necessary. She could have just made the expected polite statements, in much the manner Obama did, and let it go. But somehow, she couldn't see the practical wisdom of that, it seems.

caw
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Dan Savage on this

Hillary Clinton needs to walk this back immediately or she risks losing the votes of millions of queer Americans who survived the plague years. We watched our friends and lovers die by the tens of thousands while Nancy and Ronnie sat silently in the White House. More than 20,000 Americans died before Ronald Reagan could bring himself to say the word "AIDS" in public—because it was a "gay plague" and Nancy and Ronald Reagan didn't give a flying fuck about sick and dying faggots. I'm literally shaking as I try to write this. There are no words for the pain Clinton's remarks have dredged up. I'm supposed to be writing a column—it's way overdue—but all I can think about are all of my dead friends and lovers, lovely guys who might still be with us if Nancy and Ronald Reagan had started a national conversation about HIV/AIDS. Or done something about it. Millions of men and women all around the world were condemned to death as a direct result of the hateful silence of the Reagan White House. Millions more will die.
 

Cereus

Few Nish; Learning About Thick Skin
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
165
Reaction score
27
And... this is a great example of why HRC lost to Obama and why she continues to struggle to be liked despite having the most experience, being the most qualified, etc.

I recently watched a video containing a recording of the Reagan administration's "response" to the AIDS crisis in the early year.

I...never wanted to punch so many people in the dick before.

I'm speechless. I knew nothing was really done to stop AIDS in the '80s but to be so above it, you can't even offer to make a measly statement? And the cruel gay jokes when people are dying.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
What the actual fuck? That was chilling. I'm a little bit too young to have known people who died from it in the 80s, but I've known people who've had it more recently.

This crap is still among us, Liosse. The evangelical crowd still believe that people afflicted with AIDS have it coming because of their sinful behavior, and their Televangelical leaders blame things like hurricanes and earthquakes on it, due to God's vengeance. I didn't make this up.

caw
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
Comments like this are a big reason why it's hard to believe the repeated phrase of her being the most electable person among the Dems. If she is, then the party is in a pretty sad state.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Open mouth insert shoe, foot, ankle.

Hillary Clinton is the queen of unforced errors. In a Democratic debate last month, she proudly cited the praise of ghoulish war criminal Henry Kissinger, underlining every doubt that progressives harbor about her foreign policy. Today, she once again showed how politically tone-deaf she can be. On MSBNC, she offered the following baffling encomium for the late Nancy Reagan: “It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan—in particular Mrs. Reagan—we started a national conversation.” Clinton credited Nancy with “very effective low-key advocacy” that “penetrated the public conscience.”

It’s hard to imagine where Clinton got this ludicrous idea. One of the most shameful things about Reagan’s presidency was his determined refusal to acknowledge an epidemic that was killing Americans by the tens of thousands. The first reports of AIDS surfaced in 1981, but Reagan didn’t speak about it until 1987, at which point more than 20,000 people were dead. When his press secretary Larry Speakes was asked about it, he made sniggering jokes. In 1987, when Reagan finally gave a speech about AIDS, he called for mandatory testing of immigrants. “Mr. Reagan issued no call for legislation or state action to protect AIDS victims against discrimination,” the New York Times reported.

Nancy did little to urge her husband towards greater decency. Her record was terrible enough that the AP wrote a story about it upon her death: “Nancy Reagan, who died on Sunday at the age of 94, had substantial influence on her husband in several areas, and she also had gay friends. But she neither spoke out publicly about AIDS nor left a documented record of pressing her husband on the issue early on in the crisis.” This is one of the things that she will forever be remembered for.

In February 2015, Buzzfeed reported on documents, discovered in the archives of the Reagan Presidential Library, that show Nancy Reagan ignoring a plea for help from her friend Rock Hudson, who was dying of AIDS. In 1985, Hudson had gone to France to seek treatment from an army doctor named Dominique Dormant, but Dormant could not get Hudson transferred to a French military hospital. Dormant believed a request from the White House could help, so Hudson’s publicist cabled the White House begging for assistance. The message got to Nancy, who refused. “I spoke with Mrs. Reagan about the attached telegram,” wrote Reagan staffer Mark Weinberg. “She did not feel this was something the White House should get into and agreed to my suggestion that we refer the writer to the U.S. Embassy, Paris.”

It is hard to imagine that Clinton wouldn't know how profoundly the Reagans failed their country on AIDS, and how much anger this failure has left behind. The Reagans started a conversation about AIDS in the same way that George W. Bush started a conversation about unnecessary wars. In policy terms, Clinton’s misguided praise for Nancy Reagan doesn't mean much; there’s certainly no reason to think she’d follow Reagan’s disgraceful example as president. But her words suggest that, on some deep level, she really is out of touch with progressive concerns. She’s also a terribly maladroit politician. It’s already hard for her left-wing supporters to defend her record in comparison with Bernie Sanders. She just made it harder.



Update: Shortly after this post was published, Clinton apologized via Twitter for her comments about the Reagans and AIDS.

This isn't going to go away with a weak-as-water "apology" on Twitter, Hills. Yeah, you were trying to say something nice about somebody you probably didn't like that much, but you done screwed up, girl, BIG TIME. Sen. Sanders will make a point of reminding voters in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere just how much
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,128
Reaction score
10,900
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Yep, that's a major facepalm, and I can see why a number of people are hurt by this. Not sure what she was thinking. Maybe she was confusing Nancy Reagan with Princess Diana? :e2hammer:

A more heartfelt, "I know this was hurtful" type of apology seems very much in order, even if it was a genuine brain fart or nervous gaffe because she was struggling to come up with something nice to say about the legacy of someone with whom she shared almost no values.
 
Last edited:

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
A more heartfelt, "I know this was hurtful" type of apology seems very much in order, even if it was a genuine brain fart or nervous gaffe because she was struggling to come up with something nice to say about the legacy of someone with whom she shared almost no values.

It shouldn't have been that hard to come up with something. There were definitely some shared values. Stem cell research, for one. Chuck Schumer noted that both Reagans supported the Brady Bill. There was also her philanthropic work. Hardly a huge shortage of material, imo.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Next up: Hillary praises Nancy Reagan for her stance on the War on Drugs.

Oh, wait...
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
Next up: Hillary praises the Reagans on arms trafficking.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
I found this take on Clinton's comments somewhat interesting - not because it excuses her (it doesn't - the tl;dr version is that the author thinks what Clinton said is how she actually remembers the early phases of the epidemic), but because it sheds some historical light/context on how not just the Republican establishment, but also the Democratic one responded at the time. (spoiler alert: not much better).

It's mostly a curated set of tweets, but there are some telling graphics and visuals that might help especially those who are too young to remember. I was in upper middle school when names like Ryan White and Kimberly Bergalis started entering the news, and at the time, didn't have enough of a sense of the world as to why it supposedly made things "different" that it'd happened to them. Looking back? I'm sorta sitting here groping for words. Plainly, it's infuriating.
 

darkprincealain

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
3,395
Reaction score
1,978
Location
Nowhere. Now here.
I honestly didn't think I was capable of being this angry. It'll take something a bit more heartfelt in terms of apologies.

And it's not like something couldn't have been found to say. Stem cells for instance. But it's as if she'd said that Dan Quayle had started a national conversation around spelling.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."

far worse, for me, than the tone of her apology was the egregious misspelling of "miscalculated."
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,128
Reaction score
10,900
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I'm glad it happened, because people are now talking about the reality of the Reagans.

Yeah, ever since Ronald Reagan died, there has been some serious Rosy-hued glasses action going on about their policies and brand of conservatism, even by people of a moderate-to-liberal bent. RR's policies only seem kind and gentle when compared to the extremes his party has gone to today, but the Reagans helped push it down its current path. I remember how scared I was as a young, sex-positive feminist who wasn't religious. It was far, far scarier, I'm guessing, for people who weren't straight and cisgendered, reasonably well off, or white.
 
Last edited: