2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's full quote. It is worse than I thought. I am furious
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, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too.
Clinton’s telling of HIV/AIDS history doesn’t align with the facts. President Reagan waited seven years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, even as thousands of Americans died from the disease. Dr. C. Everett Koop, the administration’s surgeon general, said the president dragged his feet on the issue “because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs.” Koop said their position was that AIDS victims were “only getting what they justly deserve.”
In 1985 the Reagans’ friend Rock Hudson, then dying of AIDS, traveled to Paris in a desperate attempt to be treated by a French military doctor. As Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner reported last year, Hudson’s publicist sent the Reagan White House a telegram begging for help in getting Hudson moved to a French military hospital where the doctor could treat him. Nancy Reagan personally saw and rejected the request.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)As the nation mourns the former first lady’s death, those on the frontline of the 1980s Aids crisis remember something else: a couple who turned a blind eye
The activists, in trademark Catholic drag, spent the Aids crisis fighting on behalf of infected friends and lovers – and for dying men they would never know. As much of the nation mourned the former first lady’s passing this week, their email anguish underscored the Reagan administration’s darker legacy.
Ronald Reagan, who died in 2004, was president for nearly five years before he said the word “Aids” in public, nearly seven years before he gave a speech on a health crisis that would go on to kill more than 650,000 Americans and stigmatize even more.
In recent months, published reports have revealed an administration that laughed at the scourge and its victims and a first lady who turned her back on Rock Hudson, a close friend, when he reached out to the White House for help as he was dying from an Aids-related illness.
“If there is a hell both Ronny and Nancy are Roasting,” wrote one Sister.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you see, she mispoke.
(Rather, she did not expect pushback and 10 years ago, she would not have. In that sense the country has grown)
Oh and inevitable 
Aerows
(39,961 posts)We lost so many vibrant, beautiful people.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)I'm going to hell anyway for not supporting Hillary, so I can look around for them. They should be easy to find: Nancy will be wearing red and scolding her astrologer for not warning her the "Just Say No to Drugs" campaign would fail.
And Ronnie — deep in debate — will be denying his role in Iran-Contra and insisting the reason he didn't act sooner on the AIDS crisis had nothing to do with his hatred for homosexuals.
There he goes again.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)and found herself at odds with her own Conservatives over Stem Cell Research
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)or understand issues until it affects them or someone they care about.
One of his examples was Nancy's conversion to stem cell research. (he also erred by thinking Rock Hudson's illness woke the Reagans up to AIDS)
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/republicans_lack_the_empathy_gene_bill_maher_proves_right_wingers_like_dick_cheney_only_become_human_when_things_directly_impact_them/
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)“You can’t spend the first half of a debate bitching about how immigrants are ruining the country,” Maher began, “and the second half talking about the uplifting stories of your immigrant parents.”
anothergreenbus
(110 posts)stem cell research is murder unless it benefits me. Then it's ok.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)her by helping her husband. You know, the selfish republican way.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I never knew much about her. I will never forget this detail. It now defines her to me.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)If someone is a pathological liar, even if they can be negated almost instantly, I guess it doesn't bother them - ?
kath
(10,565 posts)Lie after lie after lie.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)This to her is revisionist history and I'm sure she's hoping that when she's gone the establishment will work just as hard to revise her history. This is the reason the majority of the history being taught in schools today is mostly make believe and not the true facts.
Bernblu
(441 posts)monicaangela
(1,508 posts)
brewens
(13,582 posts)prepared for her, having no memory of what she once knew about the Reagans and AIDs, could really be the case. Or she thought she could get away with lying about it and gain some support among conservatives.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)I remember how horrible it was for those that were suffering with HIV, I remember how hard they had to fight to get the government to get involved and I remember how Reagan joked about it because he and Nancy thought it was just a Gay disease and of course that didn't require any assistant from a man who was suppose to be president for all the people in this nation. I remember reading the stories about Rock Hudson and how he begged to no avail for their assistance. If I can as an ordinary citizen remember this as though it was yesterday, believe me Hillary Clinton as a public citizens should remember. If she thought she could get cross over conservative votes because she lies, that's even worse in my opinion.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)for spending every year after 82 or 83. And he was not silent at all- just not as vocal as Kramer would have preferred. His retelling makes it look as if no action was taken.
Sorry, but he is rewriting history here.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)urging. So while he was not talking to the public about prevention, there was a lot being done. In subsequent years under Reagan the funding doubled again and again. Kramer is angry the Koop wasn't onboard to talk about prevention. IIRC, Kramer was one of the few gay activists that did want to talk about prevention early on, it was not necessarily a popular opinion, and was contentious within the GMHC.
"Comparing a political opponent to Hitler is obvious evidence of fanaticism, but we are living in hyper-partisan times. Rep. Henry Waxman’s official congressional website repeats the “seven years” calumny while adding that “the Reagan administration consistently refused to commit the resources and effort necessary to provide urgently needed research, health care, and preventive services.”
For the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around.
As for Waxman’s recollections about AIDS funding, he does an unusual thing for a politician: He’s forgotten the success he and other Democrats had in convincing Reagan to spend more money. The administration increased AIDS funding requests from $8 million in 1982 to $26.5 million in 1983, which Congress bumped to $44 million, a number that doubled every year thereafter during Reagan’s presidency."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)know the truth must not remain silent. Too many have died for that"
The last line from this article: "Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death" http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reagan-s-AIDS-Legacy-Silence-equals-death-2751030.php
How can Democrats support what the Reagans' did or didn't do?
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)revisionist history, regardless of the direction, should be rejected period.
If reagan didnt say it at the press conference and didnt mention it speaking to the HHS, then people would be saying so.
Certainly more could have & should have been done, but making up stuff to further that point only weakens the message. These days, its too easy to find out if something like "never mentioned it in 7 years" really was the case
As much as I didnt like G W Bush, I'll give him credit for doing more far for AIDS in Africa than any other president had done. Even Pres Obama says as much.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)actually asked for a reduction in 1986.
The funding was woefully inadequate and more of an insult than assistance.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)who buy Kramer's version wholesale are pretty misinformed and think that nothing happened for seven years. But that is not the truth at all. NYC and SF both spent a whole lot of money on AIDs because they HAD to, that is where the patients were largely in the beginning. Koch wasn't nearly as progressive as SF politicians- but SF is the most progressive city in the USA, no surprise there.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)what Reagan's admin allocated to an entire nation of 231.7 million.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)None of this is surprising. But what surprises me is people getting the impression that there was no AIDS spending at all in the Reagan years. The budget doubled and doubled again, until it was much higher than SFs- how many years did that take- 2-3? I am just saying the Kramer story is very very misleading. So yeah, I have a problem with it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...would that impress you?
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I was here during the AIDS crisis. Back then our City was nothing like you are describing, I am sorry. It was much more blue collar, and more conservative. And I saw too many desperate protests, saw too many walking wraiths for far too long to buy into the narrative that is being pushed here. Every bit of funding was clawed from the government, fought for tooth and nail by thousands of activists. The GOP and the Reagans didn't give a FUCK so long as it was gay men getting the disease, and that is a fact. It wasn't until Ryan White and non-gay people who were getting it from blood transfusions that they took any sort of notice. That was the turning point.
Kramer is DEAD on.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Truth speak truth to asshats!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)excerpts from The Truth About Reagan and AIDS by Michael Bronski, November 2003:
"When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.
When health and support groups in the gay community were beginning to initiate education and prevention programs, they were denied federal funding. In October 1987 Senator Helms amended a federal appropriations bill to prohibit AIDS education efforts that "encourage or promote homosexual activity" — that is, efforts that tell gay men how to have safe sex.
...
When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagans, was diagnosed with AIDS and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out as president. When family friend William F. Buckley, in a March 18, 1986, New York Times opinion article, called for mandatory testing for HIV and said that HIV-positive gay men should have this information forcibly tattooed on their buttocks (and IV-drug users on their arms) Reagan said nothing. In 1986 (after five years of complete silence), when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a report calling for AIDS education in schools, Bennett and Bauer did everything possible to undercut and prevent funding for Koop's too-little-too-late initiative. Reagan, again, said and did nothing. By the end of 1986, 37,061 AIDS cases had been reported; 16,301 people had died......."
http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the funding skyrocketed throughout the 80s. Demi deserve more credit than Reagan, but it was doubled every year for like 6-8 years straight throughout the 80's.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Thank our Democrats in Congress. No credit goes to that piece of shit Reagan.
The Heroic Story of How Congress First Confronted AIDS
Oddly enough, it was the specter of Republican budget cuts that led to the first awareness of the AIDS epidemic in Congress. Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, had targeted public health agencies for massive cuts. A Waxman staffer, concerned about their potential effects, had gone to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to do reconnaissance. CDC scientists were alarmed and predicted that the cuts would lead to an epidemic, although they imagined it would involve a preventable childhood illness, since Reagan had proposed cutting the immunization budget in half. Waxman was worried enough by what he learned to join with a Republican colleague, Pete Domenici, to protect the immunization budget.
The epidemic came anyway. While in Atlanta, the Waxman staffer was told that he should meet with a doctor named Jim Curran, who had noticed an outbreak of an unusual and deadly pneumonia among gay men in Los Angeles. Today, Curran is renowned as the doctor who first raised the alarm among epidemiologists. But back then, he declined the offer of a congressional hearing to help direct research funding to his work because he was afraid that the attention would interfere with his access to a gay community that was fearful of the government (homosexuality was a felony in many states). "I'll call you when I'm ready," he told Waxman's staff. Let's pause here to note that before AIDS even had a name, members of Congress were aware of the disease and working to help.
Response to bettyellen (Reply #69)
Post removed
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)That is the critical difference.
ms liberty
(8,573 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)untrue. I hated the Regans as much as anyone, but there are loads of posts with misinformation as well.
pscot
(21,024 posts)You should read the article yourself.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)were already dead. Or dying.
By then the tainted blood transfusions into the straight and non- junkie populations had started its toll in earnest......
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to get help, when he APPEALED to her for help. Elizabeth Taylor otoh, risked her career, under the Reagan admins people had to go underground, act illegally iow, as Taylor did, to try to get the drugs needed for those sick with AIDS.
There is simply now way to spin this. No way.
Besides, Hillary has apologized for her statement. I know it's hard to keep supporting someone who so frequently lets you down. I used to do it, but realized that if I have to constantly try to defend someone, anyone, as much as that, maybe I am on the wrong side.
The day I admitted that, I felt so relieved.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)"Ronald Reagan did not mention AIDS until 1985, in response to a reporter’s question at a press conference. He did not give a major speech about the epidemic until mid-1987—at which point 20,849 people had died of the disease in the United States alone. As my colleague Laura Helmuth explained, Reagan was silent at a time when silence equaled death. His cowardice in the face of the crisis will forever tarnish his legacy."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/12/01/reagan_press_secretary_laughs_about_gay_people_dying_of_aids.html
Logical
(22,457 posts)SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)"In 1985 — the year Rock Hudson died — House Representative Henry Waxman said, 'It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic’s existence.'
"Nancy Reagan, like her husband, remained very quiet about HIV/AIDS in America. She denied actor Rock Hudson’s request for help in securing a spot at a French military hospital where he could have had access to life-saving treatments. He died shortly thereafter.
"In other words, the Reagans kept largely silent on one of the worst scourges of their day because they didn’t want to anger their donors."
http://lauraturner.religionnews.com/2016/03/11/nancy-reagan-hillary-clinton-c-everett-koop-rock-hudson-and-aids/#sthash.zToL2sYu.dpuf|
I strongly encourage everyone to watch "The Battle of AmFAR": http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-battle-of-amfar
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Cavallo
(348 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)The way they spoke, disregarded and then mocked and LAUGHED at the dying.
Cavallo
(348 posts)And, I'm sure getting an education about who Hillary really is.
When there are links of her when she was younger and talking(constantly speaking a republican sociopathic line) she strikes me as cold blooded and scary.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,326 posts)
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)RayGun and Nancy quite well...if, like me, you had friends and fellow workers who died from AIDS, you can appreciate the hatred we had for Raygun and his criminal administration...Do a google search or two and find out how many from his administration left office in disgrace or went to jail...None of them deserve praise of any sort...
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Thespian2 - thank you. This whole thing makes me weep for my lost friends and family.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)"On a personal level, she was someone who was not against gay people," said Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay issues. "But when the country needed leadership, President Reagan was not there, and his wife — who was able to do more — was not willing to step up. It reflects rather harshly on both of them."
Peter Staley, a longtime HIV/AIDS activist based in New York, said Ronald Reagan virtually ignored the AIDS crisis in an era where the federal government had responded swiftly to less deadly outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease and other ailments.
......
"When people try to crown Nancy Reagan as some champion of the AIDS epidemic, I always say, 'Tell her friend Rock Hudson that,'" activist and TV host Scott Nevins said in an email.
"If my friend came down with a devastating and unknown disease, and I had every resource at my disposal, I would do everything in my power to get them the help they needed," Nevins wrote. "Nancy Reagan, ironically, just said no."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
klook
(12,154 posts)Thanks for the vid.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
I want to just show you what my politics are
I support the left, though I'm leaning to the right
I support the left hey, though I'm leaning to the right
I'm just not there when it's coming to a fight
navarth
(5,927 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)and nothing from the federal government. Certainly nothing from Reagan. There was a "let the homos die" mentality about a bunch of people even when the god people are still around spreading their crap and HIV still an issue Did you know one state outlawed Needle giveaways and the HIV rate soared. When the penny pinchers (who give away millions to corporations ) mange to close planned parenthood and stop funding clinics - expect a part 2 explosion.
I hate the white washing of history and select people when some people are trying to lionize McCarthy again and they will probably clean up Nixon next. But the people who died because of their action or inaction died unspoken of.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)As i remember it, once it was no longer just gay men infected then they kinda acknowledged it but funding was never enough.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)From a transfusion it got real.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Just when I think I've seen the limits of her dishonesty, she again surprises me.
I'm glad I'm not in a position where I have to defend this crap! The memo machine must be working overtime today!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Reagan said:
"How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not government. But let's be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call 'value neutral.' After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons."
http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Basically saying it was the fault it was a "gay" disease so "they" got what they deserved. 
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts) 
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Why choose AIDS and rewrite the story? I remember well how the Reagan administration ignored the crisis for years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)but why lie about the Reagan's abominable record on HIV/AIDS?
Merryland
(1,134 posts)it is pitiful.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Merryland
(1,134 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)not lie about what they consciously chose not to do.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)on DU for McCLurkin and Rick Warren appearing w/ Obama?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts) 
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)Being polite would be something along the lines of "she cleared loved and supported her husband very much"...or something about the "Just say no" initiative...or stem cell research. To specifically point out the AIDS epidemic and attempt to diminish the harm caused by the Reagans is beyond the pale. Screw anyone who would try to stick up for them. They deserve all the criticism in the world and then some for their callous handling of the issue.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/reagan-administration-response-to-aids-crisis
Using never-before-heard audio tapes from three separate press conferences, in 1982, 1983, and 1984, When AIDS Was Funny illustrates how the reporter Lester Kinsolving, a conservative (and not at all gay-friendly) fixture in the White House press corps, was consistently scoffed at when he posed urgent questions about the AIDS epidemic. With snickering, homophobic jokes and a disturbing air of uninterest, Speakes dismisses Kinsolving’s concerns about the escalating problem. “Lester was known as somewhat of a kook and a crank (many people still feel the same way),” says Calonico. “But, at the time, he was just a journalist asking questions only to be mocked by both the White House and his peers.”
What Calonico has compiled, juxtaposing the deeply troubling audio with images of AIDS patients at Seattle’s Bailey-Boushay House in the 1990s, is an infuriating summation of the Reagan administration’s fatal inaction in confronting a generation-defining tragedy. Watch the concise, damning short above, but be warned: it will make you angry.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The First Lady Who Looked Away: Nancy and the Reagans' troubling Aids legacy
"But as the Los Angeles area grieves the death of its famous resident – a woman lauded for her support of stem cell research and Alzheimer’s sufferers – the San Francisco Bay Area still seethes with memories of a terrible time made worse by what many consider the first couple’s calculated coldness.
“Nancy and Ron Reagan were a functional team in the Presidency,” wrote Kenneth Bunch, aka Sister Vicious Power Hungry Bitch, one of the order’s co-founders. “They are both responsible for the death of thousands from HIV in the LGBT community due to their inaction in the 1980’s. So I understand the anger in the LGBT community toward Nancy. I feel that anger as well.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/nancy-ronald-reagan-aids-crisis-first-lady-legacy
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)them makes me sick.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)I lost my brother, as well as 2 friends to complications from the HIV virus.
The Reagans did jack-all to advance the conversation. Nothing, except snide remarks and stonewalling.
That Hillary would say this.....ugh.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I went to in the 80s and 90s. This bit of revisionist history is disgusting.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I can't express how much I hate the Reagans and the rest of the religious right bastards that abandoned him and all the other victims of AIDS.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)to that terrible blight. 
I lost two good friends.
The revisionism, that Clueless Nancy was in the vanguard of rallying a national response to HIV/aids, is horse feathers, and shame on Clinton for shoveling it.
840high
(17,196 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I live in SF and saw the epidemic up close and personal. Only when nice straight people started getting the disease did they give one single fuck.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts) Although I was a kid in the80's, even I remember the Reagan's callous disregard for the epidemic. As a healthcare professional today, I can point back to that as one of the things that drew me into the medical field. Thankfully, we've come a long way in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, to the point I can count on one hand the number of full blown AIDS pts I've taken care of I the last ten years. The advances in research and medical treatment of AIDS happened in spite of, not due to the Reagans. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best and callous white washing at worst.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)HRC's part. The first time Reagan even mentioned the issue of AIDS was in 87 well into his second term and that was after Liz Taylor (who was a good friend of both Reagan and Rock Hudson) asked him to speak at an event she put together. Hell his surgeon general (Koop) wrote a report about the epidemic and released it without the White House knowing prior to the release before Reagans admin even acknowledged the issue.
Is there nothing HRC will not say in order to pander...
SMH
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)13 Times The Reagan White House Press Briefing Erupted With Laughter Over AIDS
Politics
13 Times The Reagan White House Press Briefing Erupted With Laughter Over AIDS
White House Press Briefing — Oct. 15, 1982
Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What’s AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It’s known as “gay plague.” (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it’s a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don’t.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn’t answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President—
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s been any—
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he’s had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn’t have gay plague, is that what you’re saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn’t say that.
Q: Didn’t say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn’t you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you, Larry, that’s why. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don’t put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It’s too late.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Honestly? She already made the big bucks. Really big. 100 million plus bucks. Maybe she is just running to put on a show for her sponsors? Maybe she would rather retire? Every thing she has done up to now is like she is taking a dive. Seriously. Could she run a worse campaign?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)Maybe she figures she isn't going to ever get the real left's support so we're under the bus already.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)will be her downfall.
bvf
(6,604 posts)She ought to consider running as a Nihilist the way she's going.
pugetres
(507 posts)Wasn't it the Clinton administration that dismissed the Surgeon General who said that sex-ed classes should also talk/teach about masturbation because of the HIV crisis?
That was from my "era". Our songs where subtly telling us to have sex with ourselves and then the SG gets canned for saying the same thing.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)An entire OP could be devoted to 90's pop/rock/grunge songs encouraging masturbation!
eppur_se_muova
(36,261 posts)If they weren't good people, there should be no obligation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Gary 50
(381 posts)Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara2.asp
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)Oh there were those who praised her but there didn't seem to be a lot of crocodile tears from those who had opposed her policies while she was P.M.
Glenda Jackson's speech in the House of Commons was beautiful - you would never have seen a Democrat with the spine to stand up and tell the truth about Reagan the way Jackson did about Thatcher.
There was a website called "Is Thatcher Dead Yet?" Of course for years it said "No, check back later." So I checked back when the day came and it had a big Yes! and links to where people could discuss how to celebrate.
http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/
The FB link below is still an active group apparently for those who don't care for Tories.
https://www.facebook.com/Margaret-Thatcher-Dies-Piss-On-Her-Grave-Tours-580163285341739/?fref=nf
eppur_se_muova
(36,261 posts)Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, etc.
Personally, I think when DC dies it should be observed as International Freedom Day. Same for RM.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Ronald and Nancy Reagan Ignored the AIDS Crisis and You Know It, Hillary Clinton:
"They did nothing to start the national conversation," Jennifer Avril, a member of ACT UP, told Mic. "Activists in Denver, California and New York started the conversation and never stopped, even while Reagan's policies and inaction allowed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans."
Avril said Clinton needs to learn her "HIV 101" before making any further comments. "I'm disappointed in her," she said.
Alysia Abbott, who took care of her father before his eventual death from an AIDS-related illness in 1992 and wrote about it in the memoir Fairyland, also had a much different recollection of events surrounding the HIV/AIDS conversation.
"The Reagans did precisely nothing to start a national conversation about AIDS," Abbott told Mic. "They did everything to avoid it."
http://mic.com/articles/137718/ronald-and-nancy-reagan-ignored-the-aids-crisis-and-you-know-it-hillary-clinton#.CQysu1sAp
She's going to be grilled by big, loud voices over this and she deserves it. She needs to be educated. America needs to be educated......
TM99
(8,352 posts)and her pathological lying!
In 1986, my best friend, a gay man, and co-head of the philosophy forum at my college and I put together the first AIDS Symposium to educate the students, faculty and staff of our campus because no one was talking about it!
We had three speakers our first year, a Catholic priest and ethicist, a GOP state senator, and a bioethics philosophy professor from Yale. The priest said it was God's punishment to those in sin. He was asked to leave before he could finish his speech. The senator called it the 'gay disease' and said it was not an epidemic or of any concern to 'normal' people. He was asked to leave as well. We spent the next two days with only one panelist, and she was fantastic. She describe what was really going on, what the Reagan administration was not doing, and what we could do to support AIDS awareness on our campus from getting condom machines in the dorm bathrooms to HIV testing at our student clinic.
Clinton is full of shit. Period. There were plenty of us talking about it. It just wasn't the neoliberals like the Clintons and the Reagans. 
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)She has no shame, absolutely none.
840high
(17,196 posts)to wonder if she's all there.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)(hat tip to Bluenorthwest)
But the public scandal over the Reagan administration's reaction to AIDS is complex and goes much deeper, far beyond the commander-in-chief's refusal to speak out about the epidemic. Reagan understood that a great deal of his power resided in a broad base of born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a deeply reactionary social agenda of which a virulent, demonizing homophobia was a central tenet. In the media men such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell articulated these sentiments that portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God and that the gay rights movement had to be stopped. In the Republican Party, zealous right-wingers such as Rep. William Dannemeyer of California and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina hammered home this message. In the Reagan White House, people such as Secretary of Education William Bennett and Gary Bauer, Reagan's domestic policy adviser, worked to enact it in the administration's policies.
What did this mean in practical terms? Most importantly, AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.
When health and support groups in the gay community were beginning to initiate education and prevention programs, they were denied federal funding. In October 1987 Senator Helms amended a federal appropriations bill to prohibit AIDS education efforts that "encourage or promote homosexual activity" — that is, efforts that tell gay men how to have safe sex.
http://www.actupny.org/reports/reagan.html
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... do you think she could've possible confused HIV/AIDS with Alzheimers?
If she did, she might need to look into a screening for herself.
If she didn't, it's pretty inexplicable.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)mooseprime
(474 posts)and there was a magazine called DPN. On the cover was a woman & Reagan seated at a table with manicure stuff in evidence and a bowl of dark fluid, his hand in the bowl. The image framed a title that said: "The blood of 100,000 Americans who died of AIDS, Mr. President? Why, you're soaking in it!" The thickest part of the paper was obits, week after week after week.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)mooseprime
(474 posts)of course you're right.
maybe alone the dissonance in the idea of "misspeaking" from prepared comments will be enough.
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Note this article is FROM 1986
http://articles.philly.com/1986-02-06/news/26087972_1_aids-research-aids-report-reagan-people
"I don't know how many times we have to tell the Reagan people that AIDS is a national emergency and that without the basic research and education - things we should have done years ago - the epidemic will continue to grow," Waxman said.
Last year, the Reagan administration originally requested $85 million for AIDS research and treatment. In July, under pressure from a Waxman subcommittee on health and the environment, it sharply increased its request to $126 million.
~~~
To keep the spending level at $193 million, Reagan proposes not spending $14 million for research into therapeutic drugs, $10 million for blood-testing funds, and $2 million for AIDS hotlines.
The administration also proposes to keep the total spending amount constant for the next five years.
It was only Democratic pressure that increased the funding for AIDS research and assistance and Reagan tried to backdoor a budget cut even as he was (finally after YEARS of silence) starting to acknowledge the need to address this crisis.
I am so angry about this right now. There was no need for her to add this revisionist bullshit to her otherwise fine and appreciative comments about Nancy.
Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)
Dem2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That's what she did. She didn't say Nancy was dignified in office, she said she started a conversation about AIDS when she and Ron are infamous for not doing that at all, for ignoring it at thousands died.
What she said was despicable and it demonstrates how little attention she has paid to LGBT issues all along, if she thinks Nancy and Ron helped the AIDS conversations she's just an idiot with no information at her disposal.
They were the villains of the AIDS Era, pure and simple.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
malletgirl02
(1,523 posts)She just didn't use it. The Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD endorsed her. She could have asked them to educate her about Reagan ignoring the AIDS crisis.
H2O Man
(73,537 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)something nice about some dead person. We are bashing her rightly for making shit up about that dead person.
That you think the first is more important than the later is indeed something you should be ashamed of. 
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)How horrible does a person have to be before it's okay to say the truth about them? Would you bash people who lost nearly their entire families under the rule of Saloth Sar?
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #115)
Dem2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Does the body have to be cold before it's okay to say a horrible person died. If they were horrible in life, death doesn't make them a saint. Although it does make them a lot better of a person.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)You're here defending Hillary's whitewashing of history, a history that resulted in thousands of dead gay people.
As usual, LGBT people are handy props for y'all until they start objecting to Dear Leader, then it's time to start getting rid of them again.
Response to JoeyT (Reply #128)
Dem2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Wednesdays
(17,362 posts)nt
840high
(17,196 posts)about Scalia.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Response to merrily (Reply #194)
Dem2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Ad hominem nonsense posts are all I've seen from you. You are defending lies about Aids victims and trying to make it about me.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Response to merrily (Reply #196)
Dem2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and you lied about my supposedly not caring about the substance of what she said. Ugh!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)You question the timing of their attack, not the substance. At least initially.
After that you started putting words in their mouths.
Stop being a provocateur.
DeGreg
(72 posts)Here's the thing, everybody dies, so death in and of itself is not something that suddenly changes the kind of person one was while living. Without exception we die, the only reason some people feel obliged to "be nice" to people who die whom we did not care for in life, is because it's part of the ritual that let's us pretend that we won't die––not to mention how we worry no one will show for our own funerals. Most eulogies are self-serving.
When you say something nice about someone who, when living, treated you poorly or worse, just because they died (something we all do) then it's dishonest by definition. So, this idea of not speaking ill of the dead in pure superstition; and, to my mind, it is similar at the root, to voting for a candidate you don't really believe in simply because you think they can win, or because they're electable, or just because of their gender, or because they're the "practical" choice, etc.,––no good conscience involved in doing either.
So, Democrat/liberal/progressive folks still bending their conscience to hold onto Hillary as their candidate, ought to examine whether or not they're being honest with themselves, and perhaps more likely, ought to find another way to self identify their politics.
Add to this a common sense take on what Hillary said about Mrs. Reagan. The phrase "If you don't have anything nice to say..." plays into this, because that's how you maintain civility when necessary (or when there's consequences to true feelings). Hillary knews damn well what she had to say about Nancy would be reported and what did she do? She did not chose to "say nothing," she did not choose to say something considerate and politically inert, she tried to score political points, and that's doubly dishonest in my book.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)1987
41,027 persons are dead and
71,176 persons diagnosed with AIDS in the US.
After years of negligent silence, President Ronald Reagan finally uses the word "AIDS" in public. He sided with his Education Secretary William Bennett and other conservatives who said the Government should not provide sex education information. (They are still saying it!)
On April 2, 1987, Reagan said: "How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not government. But let's be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call 'value neutral.' After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons."
Not good enough Hillary.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)she was getting blasted (still is, actually) on social media.
how do you "misspeak" about that? Why speak about it at all?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)and if she did "misspeak", then what did she mean to say about the Nancy Reagan and AIDS?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Bullshit!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)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"
haikugal
(6,476 posts)They wouldn't even say the word much less fund a meaningful response. It was all about 'the gays' and religion and truly horrendous people.
She's lying, again.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)that she got it mixed up with Alzheimer's and stem cell research.
But even if I'm right, that shows how much she doesn`t care/know about this issue.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...which is clear from her phrasing: "It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s..."
No one would say that about Alzheimer's or stem cell research. The reason it was "difficult to talk about" AIDS was because it had to do not only with sex, but (gasp!) gay sex.
Furthermore, if it were possible to spin it that way, as "I meant to say Alzheimer's", she would have done so in her apology in a New York minute. Instead she admitted that she simply "misspoke" about the Reagans' history on AIDS.
I find it to be a truly weird gaffe. I totally get that she would say nice things about Nancy Reagan at her funeral, of course! Even I can think of some nice things to say about her. But the AIDS issue was one where the role of the Reagans is unremittingly bad, and anyone who lived through it (which of course includes Hillary Clinton) knows that.
So why go there? Really, when you look at the whole quote, it is shockingly revisionist. I wonder if there is something else going on, is she subconsciously sabotaging her own campaign? Who knows, of course. Not trying to do any long-distance psychoanalysis. But this gaffe is really, really strange and unexpected.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)It wasn't acknowledged that Reagan even had Alzheimers while he was in office, let alone Nancy advocating for it. Here is a copy of a letter from Reagan announcing he had the disease.
“Nov. 5, 1994
My Fellow Americans,
I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer’s Disease.
Upon learning this news, Nancy and I had to decide whether as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or whether we would make this news known in a public way.
In the past Nancy suffered from breast cancer and I had my cancer surgeries. We found through our open disclosures we were able to raise public awareness. We were happy that as a result many more people underwent testing.
They were treated in early stages and able to return to normal, healthy lives.
So now, we feel it is important to share it with you. In opening our hearts, we hope this might promote greater awareness of this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it.
At the moment I feel just fine. I intend to live the remainder of the years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done. I will continue to share life’s journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy the great outdoors and stay in touch with my friends and supporters.
Unfortunately, as Alzheimer’s Disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When the time comes I am confident that with your help she will face it with faith and courage.
In closing let me thank you, the American people for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your President. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.
I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.
Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan”
Notice the date. Nancy became an advocate for Alzheimers after Reagans left office. Nice try though, I imagine some people here bought your theory.
My source? Pristine. https://reaganlibrary.archives.gov/archives/reference/alzheimerletter.html
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I was going with a theory I heard on KPFT, but I stand corrected.
My current theory is "inexplicable in any rational world."
Which is the only reason I came up with any theory at all. What were she/her advisors *thinking*???? Were they?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2016, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)
It's practically out of my hearing range.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Why the fuck isn't the government doing anything about this????!!!
I remember it well.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)In the 80's so politics was not an interest at all. Interests were MTV, big hair bands like Van Halen, Ratt, Motley Crue, skateboarding, surfing, my Commodore 64 and beach/desert parties 😈...
But I do remember the Iran/Contra hearings, the firing of ATC employees and Reagan saying at a press conference or to a reporter that homeless people were homeless by choice and hearing my mother go ballistic about that comment. Looking back the 80's really was the "Me,Me,Me" decade and the Reagan administration really did set that tone. It is amazing that here we are 20+ years later and the effects of his presidency still linger.
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)Of all the harmless, diplomatic things she could have said, she chooses to dress up one of Reagan's worst failures and hurt her friends. Who's doing the thinking over there?
senz
(11,945 posts)Connecting words to actual events seems to be beyond her, so she probably figured the nice words would be enough.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
jalan48
(13,863 posts)Not!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)It seems another half-truth and/or fabrication comes out.
Ugh
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Shame on her. Yet one more reason she can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)One that was setup to post monthly?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I can't find anything at all about how to cancel future recurring donations.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)There should be a 1-800 number on the back of the card.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)They should be able to do that w/o problems.
dr60omg
(283 posts)I watched my friends die and family members die and i will never forget what happened. The Reagan's ignored it ALL for years and years and years ---- her advocacy was so low key it did not exist and so many people died needlessly ....
What sort of revisionist nonsense is this? If their lies got any more despicable ... well, Clintonian lies have always been despicable and it must be only those who have no historic memory at all that would attempt to justify this sort of stuff
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Now Hillary is apologizing for these comments.
Seems she spoke "in error," according to the Guardian.
Error, Madame? That was some damn error! Was it really "error" or do you perhaps care now about as much as you always have for revisionist history? Or do you perhaps actually gaze back fondly upon the (long and devastating) Reagan years, as a tribute to your own neoCON soul? Whatever they'll swallow in Peoria, is it?
[link:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/hillary-clinton-comments-reagan-aids-crisis-backlash|
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)almost like an apology ...in bizzarrow land!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Film star’s appeal to US first lady, an old friend, was rejected because Aids was seen as gay disease, say critics of administration’s record
Hudson, who kept his homosexuality secret while starring in a string of box-office hits with actors such as Elizabeth Taylor and Doris Day, flew to France in July 1985, during the last months of his life, to seek experimental treatment with the drug HPA-23 that was unavailable in the US.
But he collapsed at the Ritz hotel, and was taken to the American hospital in the French capital. His publicist contacted the White House – the Reagans were old friends – in an attempt to speed up a transfer to a military hospital to be seen by Dr Dominique Dormant, a French army doctor who had previously treated Hudson in secret.
But the commanding officer of the Percy military hospital in Clamart initially refused to admit Hudson because he was not a French citizen. According to documents published by BuzzFeed on Wednesday, Nancy Reagan, the US first lady, declined to help.
...
Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)
Dems to Win This message was self-deleted by its author.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)while we know that she's repeatedly opposed and actively destroyed those things for decades
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)are the Conservadems on this site going to defend in order to prop up Hillary. That's what I wonder. Defending Ronald FUCKING Reagan on a "liberal" site.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)I wonder if some folks were alive during that time based on their comments in support of Sec Clinton's statement
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'm shocked and embarrassed that she wasn't keenly aware of that. However, I'm glad she apologized without making excuses.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)What was the point of making this shit up?
She could have stayed safe by talking about Alzheimers. WTF?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)in Democratic clothing?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)they simply can't help themselves 
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Hillary sure did "out" herself and a compulsive, pathological lying snake. Of all the nice lies she could have told, she chose to insult the entire gay community by whitewashing the shameful record of two homophobes who sat cloistered in the WH while thousands died needlessly. And then the self-aggrandizement on top of it. This woman's habit of discounting cold-blooded murder and mouthing platitudes about those responsible is truly jaw-dropping.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)She had already made separate points about Nancy's support of Alzheimer's research, stem cell research, and other positive statements.
There was no mixing up issues here.
She introduced this statement separately and specifically.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)and that means not revising history. 39 million people have died of HIV/AIDS. Reagan refused to address the crisis because it appeared to be only killing gay men.
JEB
(4,748 posts)
skygazer
(20,546 posts)Am I in the right place? Whether you support Hillary or not, the Reagans' handling of the AIDS crisis was horrible. And defending him on the basis of funding when he was so publicly silent - the man known as the Great Communicator publicly silent - is just absurd.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts) 
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's all blame her for Ronnie's positions on it.
What could she have done to help Rock? Seems like someone wanted her to pull strings? How do we know what she could or could not have done? That story sounds like it's trying to blame her for something she had nothing to do with. What powers did she have in France?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And it is the day of her funeral and the 80s was quite some time ago.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)because Hillary was a First Lady and there are things y'all want to give her cover for because of the actions of her husband that are so often vilified.
We actually do know that Nancy Reagan did nothing to help her dear friend Rock Hudson when he called her from France deathly ill.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The FLOTUS does not have authority there.
TM99
(8,352 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)would not be in favor or privileges for the 1%, as among AIDS patients, how many had contact with FLOTUS? Still does not show what the heck she was supposed to do or why she was asked to be involved.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Jesus on a pogo stick.
Her friend, their friend was dying of AIDS. They could have spoke out finally on the crisis. They could have allocated real money for research and prevention. Remember, that's what presidents do, like Obama did speaking out about gun violence.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but about what a specific FLOTUS was asked to do for a specific person in another country. And he was a member of the 1%. Suddenly Bernie supporters care about Rock Hudson but not about the millions of other unknown AIDS patients, all to make some point against Hillary who was talking about Nancy Reagan the day of Nancy's funeral and merely made an error. Really you are making Hillary responsible for the fact Ronnie Raygun was not a liberal?
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)everyone else?
TM99
(8,352 posts)for fuck's sake.
Now you are creating straw men that we did not care about millions of unknown AIDS patients?! You are sick and disgusting in your partisanship.
I and many others worked with AIDS patients, advocated for HIV awareness and education, and watched our friends, family, and loved ones die from this disease while the Reagan administration mock and joked about the 'gay plague'.
If Nancy Reagan was not willing to do something, hell anything, for a friend who was dying of AIDS, then it goes to the point that the Reagan's did not lift a finger to help the American people who died year after year after year during their administration.
This completely dispels any pretense that Clinton's lie was 'misspeaking'. She created a falsehood that easily dismissed for the lie that it was. That you and so many other Clinton supporters refuse to acknowledge this makes the lot of y'all look horribly bad.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)His mind was shot and she was calling a lot of the plays. She was telling him what to do. She was a total bitch. People were being fired either because she didn't like them or her fortune teller told ner to.
treestar
(82,383 posts)even right wingers - could get hides on DU for saying that of right wing women too.
Marr
(20,317 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I see now we are reaching into the 1980s.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Because you don't actually give a shit about the subject, you only care about Hillary's PR. That's fine-- I doubt many considered the HRC team's claims of LGBT support to be anything more than empty words anyway, but still.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)Were you alive in the 80's? The silence from the Reagan administration was deafening. This statement from Sec Clinton reeks of pandering and whitewashing of history. What power did Nancy have? She had the power to be a human being with compassion for a friend and actually try to get him the treatment he needed instead of refusing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's the part that is rather vague. I don't agree with Reagan's politics, but I do not think lying about his FLOTUS is anything that makes us look good. And there were many AIDS patients who did not have contacts like the FLOTUS, and one would think the liberals would be most worried about them, not having access to the very best treatment of the time.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)The Reagans ignored the AIDS epidemic, even in the face of their own friends succumbing to the disease. Your argument is ridiculous. No one here is suggesting that the thousands of average citizens didn't matter. What we are saying is their deaths had no impact on Reagan or his wife, even when their own close friend reached out for help they refused to do so. Was there a duty there beyond friendship to act? No, but that shows a callous disregard for life, and that is the point. Quit trying to twist this into something else.
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)ardnas58
(8 posts)in one of her stand-up sets for not being more compassionate to the hemophiliac brothers in the Midwest who contracted the disease through transfusions; I believe one was Ryan White. I will never forget Whoopi's utter contempt for Nancy.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts) ardnas58
(8 posts)prior to her going on camera and getting it completely wrong about Nancy. Perplexing, indeed.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Have you looked at Clinton's record of actually doing something for LGBT rights? Both here and abroad?
The Clinton Foundation has WORKED FOR YEARS to lower the cost of AIDS drugs.
She misspoke. At Nancy Reagan's funeral. Check you fury and check the dang facts.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Misspeaking is a minor gaffe. This was a well-thought out response to a direct question after the funeral. It was a 'folksy' story about how things 'really were' in the 1980's. And it was utter horseshit.
So check your facts and get a grip.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)And then there's Bubba talking about her homophobia BEFORE she was a senator:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245373/Bill-confided-Hillary-little-gay-rights-not-comfortable-gay-people-acting-longtime-Clinton-pal-claims.html
Misspoke my ass! She knew what she was saying.
unc70
(6,113 posts)It describes her continuing efforts to thread the needle (i.e. evolve) on the topic of same-sex marriage.
I have no idea what Clinton was thinking when she was talking about Nancy Reagan.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Its not like Republicans will ever vote for Democrats.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)She probably saw internal polls that said the West Coast was in Bernies corner. This will be her excuse for losing. Yeah that's how twisted I think her campaign has been that I would even think of this.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)This isn't some distant past. Hillary was an adult in the 80's. Who the fuck makes a statement like this?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)But, the truth is, the Reagans -- both of them --- sat idly by while millions of Americans died and many millions more were affected by HIV/AIDS.
The kid I grew up with, who lived next to my childhood home, died of AIDS in 1986, while the Reagans were still in the White House.
I met him again several years after his family had moved to another part of town.
He had received a blood transfusion that was tainted with the HIV virus, and it took him 3 years to die.
There are no words to express how devastated I was to find out that my good friend had died from AIDS.
I ran into his younger sister several months after he had passed away, and she told me that her whole family, whose parents built a family of 5 kids, had been devastated and severely depressed by it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) polichick
(37,152 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)berningman
(144 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)But Clinton is sorely mistaken if she feels that the man who came to power through the clusterf*ck her Iraq War vote enabled, gives her a margin to work with - like when she shows she doesn't know the first thing about the decimation the Reagans visited on the gay and lesbian communities.
She may not be the MOST disgusting person in the world, but she certainly is disgusting.
It shows once again: THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS STILL EVIL.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Right next to what Carlin called, "The silver douchebag".
JGug1
(320 posts)I also understood that Ray-Gun ignored Aids while people died but I also thought that he became supportive when his friend Hudson contracted the disease. Somewhere is the reality. I disdain Ray-Gun because I believe be originated the demise of the middle class and because he trashed the Constitution with Iran-Contra and because he negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election, knowing that it damaged his predecessor. In short, he was slime.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Why on Gods green earth would she say such a thing?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)I was there in the trenches with my friends watching them die and NO ONE FUCKING Cared One Wit...Not President Reagan or his wife. She didn't start anything and frankly she simply didn't care.
As far as I am concern these soft words to cater to Republicans she hopes to win to her side when Trump is elected GOP Presidential Candidate are scary.
Getting soft on women's right to choice
And now praising Ms. Reagan for what - nothing she did nothing.
Anastasia_N
(8 posts)on AIDS is like praising G. W. Bush for his effective response to helping the people of New Orleans following Katrina.
It defies history, the truth, and is a blatant attempt by Mz. Clinton to pander to the nostalgic emotions of dyed in the wool Republicrats for their vote.
An absolutely obvious and shameful kick in the teeth to the people....Americans.... who were abandoned and neglected by the Reagan Administration....to devastating effect.
Clearly, if Clinton had any integrity then she would "set the record" straight and apologize and correct the history that she "mis-remembered" and clearly state that the negligent political response by the Reagan Administration promoted and exacerbated the AIDS Epidemic in America and, by proxy, the world which has become, in the eyes of the world, as the object example of what "Not-to-do" in the beginning, middle, and end of a world health crisis.
The only analogue for the disastrous policy of neglect by the Reagan Administration to addressing the AIDS Crisis is the policy of neglect by the G.W. Bush Administration to addressing the crisis in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Any wonder that both of those were responses by Republicans to marginalized populations?
Is there any wonder to whom Mz. Clinton is pandering for votes? Or, whose votes she has abandoned as unimportant. She is shimmying to the Right to take up the Republicrat votes that Drumph cannot win.
As an American; I am as offended by Mz. Clinton and her "MizRemembering" as I was when it happened. If she honestly and actually "MizRemembered" then she needs to set the story straight....correct her revisionist history....and disavow the positive contributions of the Reagan Administration to addressing the World AIDS Crisis. But, anyone knows that she'll never do that because she is at heart dishonest, greedy, power-hungry, and narcissistic.
Lady Dianna was the first world leader to honestly address and bring attention to the World AIDS Crisis without judgment.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)My goodness. This is so maddening. There were street postering campaigns in '82 by concerned groups in Toronto - ripped down daily. It wasn't just Hillary. No politicians did a thing. Why alert the public to a 'rare' disease that affected people that weren't going to vote for you, that would require medicines that wouldn't sell as widely as aspirin, that that - ahhh!
She's just too late to the party, again.
Followers make really shitty leaders
bvf
(6,604 posts)This alone makes her unfit for office.
Reading the accounts by all the people here who remember the truth is heartbreaking.
That plus Libya, Syria, Iraq and Ukraine...but especially this statement. She's just making shit up, out of nowhere. What a major malfunction!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)She specifically brought up the issue, with intent.
malletgirl02
(1,523 posts)What I find amazing is that the interviewer didn't challenge her on such a blatant falsehood. No wonder people don't trust the mainstream media.
videohead5
(2,172 posts)She made a mistake but you forget how many lives have been saved in Africa by her and her husband through the Clinton foundation.the hatred for Hillary on here is as bad as on any right wing web site.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)as first lady together with her president-husband, chose to not give a damn about AIDS and as such was responsible for thousands and thousands of preventable deaths?
Oh but that's all right, because thousands of heterosexual Africans have been saved through some foundation?
You are totally out of touch with the LGBT community. All I can say is your comments are worthy of Clinton's level of discourse.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Tell that to the people of Libya. How many lives lost there because Clinton had it turned into an ISIS hell hole? "We came; we saw; he died" and laughed about it.
That is sociopathic crazy.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)Watch the interview. She clearly knew what she was saying when she made the point about Nancy and the AIDS epidemic. Crazy? Yeah, crazy pissed off that a democrat could praise someone for something that they deserve absolutely no praise for. People were dying by the thousands and the Reagan administration couldn't have cared less. Hell, they even laughed about it in freaking press conferences. This isn't some gaffe or misstatement. She clearly stated an opinion about Nancy Reagan and that opinion is fucking fantasy.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Dear Hillary, just GO F&**$% yourself!
You will NEVER have my support.
DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)Down the memory hole we go.
unflapped
(18 posts)How a person could be an adult - nay, a governor's wife! - in the 1980s and come away thinking positively of the Reagans' inaction on HIV/AIDS is to be either braindead, anti-human, or extremely, dangerously forgetful.
I'm trying to chalk this one up to being overly tired from campaigning so hard against the spritely Sanders. My question is, how awake will she be when she gets that 3am phone call when president? "Yes, commander, I hear that the Iranians are attacking, but they were so good back in the 1980s that I'd like to give the one more chance..."
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)We've ( i.e. her DEM critics) have been saying all along that she believes in NOTHING and that she will say ANYTHING.
Seriously: is there any further proof of that proposition needed?
She tipped her hand here to the post-nomination campaign she will run. Only the most rabid, the most fanatical, the absolutely most OBTUSE supporter will fail .... at this point... to see the reality.
Not that there aren't plenty of *them*, but not ALL of her supporters are beyond hope.
Thank you Nancy. Thank you Hillary.
Response to Luminous Animal (Original post)
thucythucy This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)His refusal to address the health crisis killing thousands of Americas was a topic of national discussion. For those who either were gay or cared about gay people in their life it was absolutely infuriating. And it was impossible to forget. At the absolute least this shows me that AIDS wasn't something Hillary Clinton spent much time focusing on back when the epidemic was spreading and decimating the gay community. I'm straight and only knew a few gay men personally at the time and I sure as hell knew that NOTHING was coming out of the Reagan Administration to address it. You don't get something like that totally confused if you were angry about it at the time.
randr
(12,412 posts)Hillary's disconnection to the real world. To express such nonsense in this day and age exposes a serious lapse of awareness.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 03:25 PM - Edit history (2)
I am still extremely angry about what Hillary Clinton said, and am amazed my opinion of her can be any lower. But here we are.
This satire helped put a smile on my face briefly.
Hillary Recalls Reagans Killing HIV/AIDS in Oval Office Ambush
+
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
NNadir
(33,516 posts)...attention of smashing the Democratic candidate.
Speaking correct speak about events that took place 30 years ago is way, way, way, way, way more important than facing a Presidential candidate who has just announced that he intends to confront 1.3 billion human beings as enemies based on their religion.
I mean, it involves a major, major, major movie star, the star of the movie Giant, which was about a bigot who hated Mexicans and called them "wetbacks" even though it was only in the script.
Screw giving a rat's ass about the fascist who will declare war on Mexico if they don't build a 50 foot wall around their country.
Let's bash the former Secretary of State under the current President because she uttered words in praise of a dead woman that none of us liked.
It's would be the end of the world if that woman became President of the United States.
I say all of this as a scientist who was involved, albeit in support roles only, in the work that brought Saquinavir, Nelfinavir, Indinavir, and Lopinavir, the protease inhibitors to market.
I note with some trepidation that many people who are all prepared to jump down the throats of the first Secretary of State of the former President, are never shy about jumping down the throats of the companies that brought, um, Saquinavir, Nelfinavir, Indinavir and Lopinavir to market. I recall reading here, at this wonderful site of liberal generosity of spirit, that the company that developed in Indinavir, in particular, is a secret supporter of human slavery, working of course, in concert with the awful, horrible, vicious, blood sucking (blood dripping down her lips all the time) Ms. Clinton.
We, the Democrats, are not the cure. We are the problem.