Hillary Clinton: "The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start 'a national conversation' about HIV and AIDS."


Shades of Mr Bush pere not recognizing a scanner in a grocery store.
@103 madcaver; Many diseases people develop are a result of those people's behaviour, lung cancer from smoking, different cancers from bad food habits, etc. These diseases, though cause and effect is talked of, where is the same moral tone?
AIDS was riddled with moral judgement, fear and inaction for fucking years.

I sure hope you don't call yourself a Christian@107.
Welcome back, Dan! Hillary has been telling offensive lies like this the whole time... this one woke you up.

Consider supporting Bernie. If he loses the nomination, you can still hold your nose and vote for Hillary as a least-worst candidate for president. But stop this "I support both candidates equally!" nonsense.

To help you think about this, here's what Bernie was up to in the 80's during the AIDS crisis. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/ar…
Uh oh... did I miss the part of the article mentioning cancer or just post in the wrong comments section again? My apologies, I certainly didn't mean to insinuate condoms would save anyone from lung cancer, diabetes or any malady other than what the writer was railing about. RESPONSIBILITY would though...

How about @110 & 111, do a little history reading, before you open your ignorant mouths. @111. You have comprehension problems?
@103, if you're going to go on about "responsibility" you need to acknowledge the fact that for years it was a hypothetical infectious agent believed to be causing immune deficiency. Even after the virus itself was isolated and named, the methods of transmission were not fully understood. The numbers of IV drug users and hemophiliacs infected made blood a fairly obvious method of transmission, but even saliva was still suspect for a decade! Being able to tell people HOW to be responsible when you don't even know if kissing can spread the disease is exactly why well-funded research is so important. Misconceptions about HIV, who can get it, how it is spread, are still shockingly prevalent today (i.e Jenny McCarthy worrying about her kissing scenes with Charlie Sheen) and contribute both to the continuing spread of the disease and the social stigma placed on those who test positive and the gay community in general. Had an unbiased, empathetic leader been willing to have public, science-based conversations about the issue, it would have made an enormous difference.
The notions about "responsibility" and the "monkey disease; jk" alluded to are exactly why the the story about aids needs to be forwarded, as all the walking back won't change a thing. Pat Buchanan in his *syndicated* column in 1983 famously wrote about the retribution (aids) the immoral (homosexual) brings to himself. http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/201… has a clipped screen shot of it (proquest is down for another 5 hours, you can probably find it there in full.) He became the white house press secretary about 21 months later. The Reagans were hateful, supported by the hateful, and telling only the personality-cult correction rather than the whole story, these hateful people can more comfortably persist.
Hillary Clinton's mea culpa https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-th… doesn't say why she "said something inaccurate" and is her usual inspiring vaguery, but mentions some names for which I'm glad; the neolib saves her campaign phew.
What else was Sanders doing in the '80s? Well, he was telling the world how good Castro was for Cuba:

Unlike Clinton, he's not apologizing:

And here's a refresher about how Cuba had been treating LGBT people in the years prior:

Are we actually going to excoriate Clinton and give Sanders a pass for this?
@116 more anti-Sanders smears from the Clinton campaign. Sanders always openly supported LGBT rights and to claim that he condoned Cuba's homophobic policies is way below the belt. Unethical but par for the course from someone who also claims that Sanders supported governments that disappear their people when Clinton herself enabled the 2009 Honduran coup that since resulted into 100's of dead human rights campaigners. The hypocrisy of Clinton's red-baiting propaganda is staggering but unfortunately not very surprising.

Phew, you do sound young. Social likes and rants on media mean nothing unless it translates to the polls.

While Sanders has done a tremendous job climbing in national awareness, Hillary has outpaced him by 2 million votes. Yeah, millennial power! I am very favorable to the millennial generation (Gen X) but the people are voting and voting for Hillary. And the polls - no matter how much value you give them - show the word socialist is an anathema to a significant portion of the electorate. The millenials are but one cohort with the right to vote, they tend to have low turn out.

I'd recommend hitting some 538 as well as Facebook.
So glad to see virulent homophobia is alive and well in this comments section. It almost makes me nostalgic for the 80s and 90s.

BTW, Hillary apologized for real yesterday: https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-th…

Personally I'm done being pissed at her. That apology strikes me as what she should have said the day before, instead of that weak "misspoke" line. (Frankly, it reads like the one floated on Twitter as a model.) I'm still somewhere between feeling perplexed at this flub and annoyed at this baffling attempt to win Reagan Democrats (like they were gonna vote Sanders anyway...). Not pissed anymore. Just wary.
A sincere thank you Dan Savage for having a memory and sense of history.
Praising Nancy Reagan for her response to HIV/AIDS is like like praising her for "Just say No" campaign which was in starkly hypocritical contrast to her husbands administrations active policy of importing and selling crack cocaine to US inner cities to fund the Contras.
So glad to see virulent homophobia is alive and well in this comments section. It almost makes me nostalgic for the 80s and 90s.

I know. I reported it last night, but nothing's happened.
No, not red-baiting. My point is not about communism. It is about how Castro treated sexual minorities. Did Sanders "condone" that? Well, in 1985, he definitely ignored it. We can all decide for ourselves whether that constitutes condoning it.

Both Clinton and Sanders have made positive statements about heads of state whose horrific records on LGBT issues resulted in incalculable death and anguish. One of those statements has made people's heads explode; the other is rationalized away. I'm just pointing out the double standard.
The Cuba thing is adorable. How many months deep are we into the campaign and this is what you're gonna hang your hat on?

Sanders' mild praise of Castro in the '80s for getting his citizens medical care and education vs. Hillary taking millions of dollars from some of the most repressive regimes in the world.

The mental gymnastics are astounding.
@122 You are making shit up as you go along. These 2 events are not at all comparable.

First, the absence of evidence is just that, so you don't know whether or not Sanders "ignored" LGBT rights in Cuba (as you claim) and considering a) his pro-LGBT stance for his entire political career and b) his labeling himself a democratic socialist, there is every reason to believe he didn't "ignore" Cuba's homophobic policies.

Second, you are comparing apples to oranges. Clinton praised the Reagans explicitly for addressing the AIDS crisis when in fact they let people die without doing anything for years. The equivalent of what Clinton did would be for Sanders to explicitly praise Castro for his good deeds toward LGBT people.

I also see that you have no comment regarding Clinton's smearing Sanders' human rights record while herself enabling the 2009 Honduran coup d'etat that was followed by the death of hundred of human right campaigners.
While you guys are bickering amongst yourselves, there is a raving fucking lunatic on the loose.
@123 Not hanging my hat on anything—just pointing out, in this specific context, what I think is a pretty egregious double standard.

@124 For "ignored" read "remained silent on" if that makes you feel better, which it probably will.

Also, i don't see that difference as significant enough to exonerate Sanders on this point. Braeburns to Fujis, at the very most. For an excellent example of apple/orange comparison, btw, see 123's second graph.

@125 I couldn't agree more, which is why this selective outrage is so maddening. Neither side's hands are entirely clean on this point, and I think both Clinton and Sanders deserve censure, but this is being used as yet another my-side-good/your-side-bad wedge issue.
Anyone remember Ryan White?
@126; this started out as a reaction to a super foot in mouth moment by Hillary Clinton, which activated memories of grief and rage and a real feeling of wtf.
if Bernie Sanders had made such a colossal mistake, I'm sure Dan and many others' outrage would have been the same.
@126 You are tiresome because elementary logic should tell you that you don't know whether Sanders "remained silent". The only fact you know is that Sanders didn't say anything about it in the video clips you saw. You don't know what he said in the rest of the interview or before or after, you troll.
Considering your lack of thinking, one can see how you construe that Clinton saying something clearly wrong and hurtful is equivalent to YOU not having evidence that Sanders said anything.

I also see that you still have nothing to say about Clinton's role in enabling the 2009 Honduran Coup.
@54: Yeah, it's hard to keep all your stories straight when the story keeps changing. #WhichHillary
Yes, anon1256, the Honduran coup also is awful (obviously)—a tragic and terrible miscalculation on Clinton’s part.

You seem to think my point is to defend Clinton from any and all allegations of wrongdoing. It isn’t. It’s to be clear-eyed and honest about the strengths and failures of both candidates—as opposed to picking and choosing, along strictly partisan lines, what to be offended by, and rationalizing away the rest. No selective outrage. No double standards. Is it really not possible to be distressed by BOTH what Clinton said about Nancy Reagan AND about what Sanders said about Castro? Do we have to choose only one?

And if there is, floating around out there somewhere, a statement by Sanders condemning Castro’s treatment of the LGBT community, let’s see if we can dig it up. Probably there are many such condemnations, but Sanders and his staff and his supporters have all for whatever reason decided not to widely publicize them. Still, one shouldn’t assume they don’t exist. To quote you and Donald Rumsfeld, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And LavaGirl, you’re no doubt right--
Thank you future President Hillary Clinton for you heartfelt, prompt, and accurate-this-time apology. Redeemed, you have re-earned my vote.


"We shall overcome the lethal myth of heterosex-supremacy that dominates life and law on Planet Heterosex-Supremacy!" - The Reverend Timmy, Ordained Awestruckian. Welcome VIDEO: https://youtu.be/0GJN5JcjhOQ

Heterosex-supremacist politicians, regardless of their godstyle-choice, that choose to pervert the sanctity of our legal marriage into their political football choose to not earn our votes.

Over 6 million views! Hubby Earl & Rev.Timmy hoofing down 5thAvenue NYC for our freedom to marry! (at minutes 1:27).
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/WSiehK2asbI
@131 it was not a miscalculation, it was a calculation, and in the name of "telling the whole story" why not too mention the US Marines on the streets in Honduras in recent years helping clamp down the violence (among other cooperative events with the US), and Hernandez, the current president, getting the very no-second-term-law Zelaya was accused of trying to change with a popular vote changed via a stacked court lickety split. Hillary Clinton has glowing things to say about Johnson-Sirleaf, who put anti-sodomy law on the books, and at least a handful of homosexuals in jail. HC condems Mugabe and others, but J-S gets a pass because of blah strategic friend feminist etc. And too for many US allies with scrum human rights records.

As to the Castro remarks, the full interview (the same year Sanders signed an anti-discrimination housing law for Burlington, which included protections for gays, something he praises this explictly in his statement at the time) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1xrAv9c… is all about why the US shouldn't invade Nicaragua, the already desperate situation there, and that such an action would likely send them to the USSR for support. The Cuba remarks contextualize ~10:45, but if you can, watch the whole interview, it's a reminder how little has changed. In it Sanders is all about the nuance; it closes with him saying they'd barely scratched the surface and that despite inviting national press for an extended discussion on his visit there, only one of the sound-bite reporters showed.

I get we can't know all details (is Obama rigging keeping gas low to help Iran the EU and Democrats and hurt ISIS and Venezuela, etc.?) but we can anticipate how people will react based on past actions, and with Sanders-Clinton, we can expect her to be a lot more trigger happy and less interested in other nation's sovereignty than him, and so too a lot less helpful to gay rights and human rights.

ps. Stein2016! #itsinourhands