After swift backlash from LGBT activists, the Democratic frontrunner apologizes for saying Ronald and Nancy Reagan ‘started a national conversation’
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Now Clinton wants to rewrite this despicable history. Has she no decency?? How can anyone stand her?
Great job, Human Rights Campaign. Semper HRC.
I know how you feel, I feel that too, and now I'd like to know exactly what she said so I can demand a walkback/burn her in effigy.
My Clinton Derangement Syndrome is causing a(nother) rage blackout.
I am so sorry Dan and others, that she has stirred deep feelings of loss and rage for you.
Of course its also likely that Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, but who would you rather have in the White House?
She and Phyllis Schlafly were scissoring, and when the moth balls mixed with the Pine-Sol, it created an even more noxious cloud.
May be the tipping point indeed.
First time I've heard Ronnie talk about AIDS was after failing to kill Qaddafi in early 1986. Our beloved folksy American hero said something like, "Maybe we should send him to San Francisco instead."
WHen you run out of demon's blood, you simply move to the Devil’s chowder (aka Satan's smegma.)
Fuck off with your unprofessional put downs. Dan Savage is rightly admired and loved by many, many people.
So, what is life going to be like under President Donald Trump?
"Hillary Clinton praising Nancy Reagan AIDS advocacy has everyone talking about what a bad person Nancy was on her funeral day! Well played!"
"In 1985, Reagan called for a massive government research project into the disease."
Yeah - $12 million for a disease with 12,500 dead and 250,000 known infected. That's $45 per person. Thanks, Reagan.
"... [research funding] was $1.6 billion in 1988 (when he left), an increase of over 1000 percent. ... Reagan literally ordered the US Government to spend over a billion dollars on research."
Uhhhh, no. ACT-UP likely had far more to do with it than Reagan.
The AIDS amendments of 1988, better known as the Health Omnibus Programs Extension (HOPE) Act of 1988 was introduced in the Senate as S. 2889 by Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) on October 13, 1988. It also established the National Commission on AIDS.
As required by statute, the commission released its first major report called "America Living with AIDS" on September 26, 1991 (under Bush - when people call George C- Bush "the idiot son of an asshole," this is that asshole's (aka Babs) husband) . Its overall assessment said:
"Our nation's leaders have not done well. In the past decade, the White House has rarely broken its silence on the topic of AIDS. Congress has shown leadership in developing critical legislation, but has often failed to provide adequate funding for AIDS programs. Articulate leadership guiding Americans toward a proper response to AIDS has been notably absent."
"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. For that, I'm sorry."
If one has to say something nice about some awful person who is dead, stick to generalities. Although I don't know what you can say about her that was nice. Even her china was ugly, and that creepy official portrait of her makes her look like a thermometer that is boiling over.
(Although Clinton does make a good point about Nancy Reagan and Alzheimer research. in her walk-back. But isn't it funny how Republicans only become advocates for something after it impacts them? I'm sure that before Ronnie got diagnosed they thought that it was something that only happened to "those people")
And yes, MiscKitty, Mrs. Bowers is spot-on on that one. I'm glad it came up on this day we're all supposed to be "mourning" someone who really was a dreadful person.
Side note: I had some Mormons over the other night, after I called out their church on their "atrocious human rights record", one of them mentioned that he thought gay marriage was genetic suicide. I was probably too polite in response.
Please don't ruminate over 30-year-old history and let it prevent you from seeing the bigger picture.
[Dr. Marcus Conant's] first bird’s-eye view was a 1983 meeting about the Aids epidemic in Washington DC, with the White House liaison for medical care. Conant and his colleagues “were going on and on about how this was a disease, an infectious disease”, he recalled. Reagan’s representative wasn’t buying it.
“Her response was [that] this was a legal problem, not a medical problem,” Conant said. Simply because of who gay men with Aids were and who their sexual partners were, she told him, “these people were breaking the law”.
People keep asking how she could make this mistake, my response: It's called balancing encyclopedic volumes of information in your brain across every possible category of human knowledge while speaking eloquently about it. None of us could do better.
Dan, this post of yours is indicative of that.
I think it's a helluva lot more important that we don't jump right on her back and proclaim her statements in such absolutely terms, not recognizing that we make mistakes, that forgiveness is one of the most important things we can offer each other, and that by god, we are more than just the sum of one single moment, one single gaffe, or one single missed opportunity.
We owe each other this type of compassion, which Dan, given her support of LGBT, I'd expect you to be a little bit more willing to give before you write another salacious blog post.
Bless me Father, for I have sinned by remembering a time in our cultural history when a plague visited the earth. And nobody in charge much cared.
but what did Nancy do? I honestly don't remember anything; comments, actions, anything. did she convince Ronnie to finally act because it was hurting his polls? I guess that's something.
This is the danger of forming an opinion of who you want to be your president a decade early; then ignoring her actions ever since.
Of course, this whole AIDs brouhaha changes nothing for me. I've known for some time that what Hillary says bears no relation whatsoever to what Hillary might believe or what she might do if elected. In view of her husband's record as governor and President, and her own record as Wal-Mart director, First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State, large contributions to her campaign and allied Super PACs, large gifts to the Clinton Foundation, and large speaking fees to her and Bill personally strike me as the most reliable indicators of her true intentions. She could go on national TV and swear she was in favor of free education, free healthcare, free housing, free food, free pot, free electric bicycles, free public transportation, world peace, an end to poverty, free LGBTQA polyamorous open marriage, and a free pony for every child, and I'd still peg her as yet another agent for Wall Street, Big Health, Big Oil, and the Military-Industrial Complex.
So, as per usual, a conservative is only capable of empathy when it affects them personally. Otherwise she might have been an advocate of stem-cell research in general, given how many advancements they might unlock.
in Seattle and as part of Gay City Arts. At times funny, biting, and somber, Marching in Gucci chronicles my coming-of-age as a black gay AIDS activist in the nineties in New York City. While exploring the paradoxical relationship between fighting to save lives of the unknown while simultaneously engaging in multiple self-harming behaviors.
Saying what you don't mean is a fucking sign of mental illness.
Also: that update quoting Bernie's obligatory banal platitudes re: the late Nancy Reagan as if they're worth mentioning in comparison to HRC's remarks today was just bizarre. Including it implies some kind of equivalence.
Still trying to figure out what the hell Clinton was thinking.
I dare say that it sounds a little similar to someone noticing that Clinton is an opportunist only when she plays with historical facts concerning their gender ID, race, etc
Just to be clear, I'm going to vote for her, as I think she has the best chance to beat the Republican nominee, and in general believe she will be a fine, upstanding, liberal President. But if she makes this kind of fuck up, I wonder if she is losing it. Or, more likely, she just needs better fact checkers. Either way it is not a good sign (if her staff can't stop her from saying stupid things, then she will say them, and get very little done).
Better get another line to show your loving.
I love you like the Australians love their Friday Night Football..
I am sorry Clinton did this. I am deeply sorry for the old wounds she has reopened. I am sorry that "walking it back" as she tried to do didn't take away the pain she caused. I readily admit I was not on the front lines of this so can't really put myself in the shoes of those who watched their friends die, back turned by a cruel nation.
But unless you want to go back there, we have to put a Democrat in the whitehouse. Or else another Scalia will be there - with an entirely republican congress, whitehouse, and judiciary, and with many of the states in republican hands, we will find ourselves turned back to Reagan's era. Never again.
She is a political opportunist who is perfectly content to sidle up to repressive governments that are terrible for gay people when it serves her aims. There's only one candidate in this election who is the ethical choice for humanists, and it's not the pandering Kissinger acolyte.
I get it, Dan, you and your staff are still clutching your pearls over Nader, despite the fact that Sanders has been working constantly in DC for progressive policies his entire career and Nader, to put it mildly, was not. But every time you and your staff write something snide about Sanders, have that laugh track from Larry Speakes play in response, because that's who you sound like.
This "memory lapse" does help explain a few things about Hillary and the Clintons. It places in stark relief her position on DOMA and her coming so late to the table on LGBT rights and gay marriage. More imporantly, it may offer insight into why the Clintons were so willing to move the Democratic Party to the right. At the time, they asserted the country had moved right so the Democratic Party had to move with it. This insight into Hillary's values illustrates that the "Third Way" move by the Clinton had far more to do with Hillary stands than where the country stood. And the loss of the majority of elective offices by the Democratic Party since the Clintons bears this out.
Oh, and by the way, as an aside, I think I have figured out how Gloria Steinem developed her views on how twenty-something women evolve their political leanings. She must have observed how Hillary Clinton moved from a supporter of Goldwater in 1964 and an attendee to the Republican Convention in 1968 when Nixon was nominated (Kissinger's President) to working for the liberal George McGovern in 1972. She fell in love with a liberal young man named Bill Clinton in 1970. Clearly, in her heart, Hillary has remained a “Goldwater Girl.”
Can you, in good conscious, honestly give Hillary your endorsement? Please think about this.
No more chicken hawks.
Bernie Sanders / Tulsi Gabbard 2016.
Have The Stranger endorse Bernie in time for the Washington Caucuses on March 26th.
That's the way to make Hillary pay for this.
Hope Bernie comes out against it continuing.
Cause it would become tit for tat.
Peaceful demonstrations against the rise of fascism.
Using violence is just being like them.
Some of the stories are by men who were witnesses to that time in the 80's.
Truly a tragic tragic time. I was many degrees removed, yet when I think of that time, my heart starts to beat faster.
What I feel those men taught all of us, was about deep love and compassion. After we all saw how the gay community looked after their own, I think it humbled many of us. Brave, strong and loving men. Many women were also part of the supports and love and care when those boys got sick and died.
Here is what I over heard in a doctor's office:
"That Bernie is a socialist." - a dad.
"What's that?" - his 18 year old daughter.
No, words have meaning and a socialist is not a communist, but that is how he's viewed.
I think Bernie is a man of ethics, a man of principles while hillary is a politician. But show me how he wins in a national election.
That said, I love Tulsi. She is amazing.
If liberals want a liberal, why not vote for the one who is running, instead of the conservative war hawk running against him for the nomination? Seems an easy choice; one has actual liberal values, and one pretends they do whenever it is convenient.
Also funny to not see any of the "you have to vote for Hillary because she is a woman" commenters on this post. Shocking.
that friend ?
oh, and Dan Savage is an angel. (just had to say that.) =)
Will Clinton apologize to Hondurans? Hillary Clinton's Response To Honduran Coup Was Scrubbed From Her Paperback Memoirs
The Penguin Book of Gay Short Stories.
Editors; David Leavitt & Mark Mitchell.
There are only a couple that I've read that are AIDS related.
It includes stories by E.M. Forster. Christopher Isherwood. Edmund White
and many others.
DarkHorse@90; yes. I looked up Tulsi after someone upthread mentioned her name. She does look amazing.
I believe one thing is fairly certain though, ALL of Dan's friends and lovers would still be here if they had done one simple thing - worn a condom. Maybe he could have mentioned that in his diatribe. I also take from his 'lovely guys' comment that he is blessed none of his female friends died of AIDS or he would have mentioned them as well.
I'm not trying to be dispassionate, but I hate a hypocrite on a soapbox criticizing another hypocrite on a soapbox as he/she rails against other hypocrites on soapboxes...