Hillary Clinton issues long mea culpa over Reagan-AIDS snafu

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tonight issued a long statement about HIV/AIDS, in response to the uproar over mistaken comments she made at Nancy Reagan’s funeral on Friday.

At the funeral, Clinton told MSNBC that Nancy and Ronald Reagan helped start a national conversation about HIV/AIDS. Hillary retracted the statement and apologized a few hours later, saying she confused Nancy Reagan’s legacy on stem cells (in which she did take a courageous stand) with her record on AIDS.

In fact, the Reagan administration dropped the ball on the AIDS epidemic — Reagan refused to even mention the disease for years — and Nancy Reagan herself turned away a deathbed request from her longtime friend Rock Hudson, who was then dying from complications related to AIDS.

When I first watched Clinton’s statement yesterday I was mad. Oh hell, I was furious. I only lost one friend to HIV in 1991, my friend Paul Clark who helped me come out, and was the inspiration of much of my political work over the past two decades. But I have friends who lost far more. And I just couldn’t understand how Hillary could say that the Reagans were some kind of AIDS heroes. Why would she say that?

Source: Donald Moffett: He Kills Me, 1987, poster. From a touring art exhibit Act-Up New York.

Source: Donald Moffett: He Kills Me, 1987, poster. From a touring art exhibit Act-Up New York.

But this morning I woke up, thought more about it, and I wasn’t angry any longer — simply because Hillary’s comments didn’t make sense. She’s not Rush Limbaugh. She has an excellent record on LGBT rights.  She has along LGBT action plan on her campaign site, that includes a lot about AIDS, so she clearly cares about the issue. (There’s nothing about HIV/AIDS on Sanders’ much-shorter LGBT page.) So why would she say something so stupid? Was she trying to woo GOP voters, pulling a Sista Souljah on us over HIV? Not only was that unlikely, but she immediately repudiated the comments and apologized — that’s not something you do if the comments were coldly calculated to woo the other side of the aisle.

The only explanation that makes sense is that she screwed up. She misspoke. She was tired. She was sick. She was asked a question she didn’t know the answer to. Or that she simply got confused. There is no explanation that makes sense other than this. Or else, as I noted, she wouldn’t have immediately apologized. She would have stuck to her guns. She would have given some lame defense. And she didn’t. She fessed up and asked forgiveness.

It’s been a bad week for Democratic presidential candidates. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton suggested that the Reagans were good on AIDS, seriously ticking off the gays. While only days before, Bernie Sanders claimed that white people have never experienced poverty, and that most African-Americans come from the ghetto. So if we’re going to write off Hillary as a homophobe, then we need to equally write off Bernie as a racist. And since I have no interest in seeing President Trump sworn in next January, I’m willing to call it a draw.

Here is Secretary Clinton’s statement in full:

Yesterday, at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, I said something inaccurate when speaking about the Reagans’ record on HIV and AIDS. Since then, I’ve heard from countless people who were devastated by the loss of friends and loved ones, and hurt and disappointed by what I said. As someone who has also lost friends and loved ones to AIDS, I understand why. I made a mistake, plain and simple.

I want to use this opportunity to talk not only about where we’ve come from, but where we must go in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

To be clear, the Reagans did not start a national conversation about HIV and AIDS. That distinction belongs to generations of brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, along with straight allies, who started not just a conversation but a movement that continues to this day.

The AIDS crisis in America began as a quiet, deadly epidemic. Because of discrimination and disregard, it remained that way for far too long. When many in positions of power turned a blind eye, it was groups like ACT UP, Gay Men’s Health Crisis and others that came forward to shatter the silence — because as they reminded us again and again, Silence = Death. They organized and marched, held die-ins on the steps of city halls and vigils in the streets. They fought alongside a few courageous voices in Washington, like U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, who spoke out from the floor of Congress.

Then there were all the people whose names we don’t often hear today — the unsung heroes who fought on the front lines of the crisis, from hospital wards and bedsides, some with their last breath. Slowly, too slowly, ignorance was crowded out by information. People who had once closed their eyes opened their hearts.

If not for those advocates, activists, and ordinary, heroic people, we would not be where we are in preventing and treating HIV and AIDS. Their courage — and their refusal to accept silence as the status quo — saved lives.

We’ve come a long way. But we still have work to do to eradicate this disease for good and to erase the stigma that is an echo of a shameful and painful period in our country’s history.
This issue matters to me deeply. And I’ve always tried to do my part in the fight against this disease, and the stigma and pain that accompanies it. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, when my husband accepted the nomination for president, we marked a break with the past by having two HIV-positive speakers — the first time that ever happened at a national convention. As First Lady, I brought together world leaders to strategize and coordinate efforts to take on HIV and AIDS around the world. In the Senate, I put forward legislation to expand global AIDS research and assistance and to increase prevention and education, and I proudly voted for the creation of PEPFAR and to defend and protect the Ryan White Act. And as secretary of state, I launched a campaign to usher in an AIDS-free generation through prevention and treatment, targeting the populations at greatest risk of contracting HIV.

The AIDS crisis looks very different today. There are more options for treatment and prevention than ever before. More people with HIV are leading full and happy lives. But HIV and AIDS are still with us. They continue to disproportionately impact communities of color, transgender people, young people and gay and bisexual men. There are still 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States today, with about 50,000 people newly diagnosed each year. In Sub-Saharan Africa, almost 60 percent of people with HIV are women and girls. Even though the tools exist to end this epidemic once and for all, there are still far too many people dying today.

That is absolutely inexcusable.

I believe there’s even more we can — and must — do together. For starters, let’s continue to increase HIV and AIDS research and invest in the promising innovations that research is producing. Medications like PrEP are proving effective in preventing HIV infection; we should expand access to that drug for everyone, including at-risk populations. We should call on Republican governors to put people’s health and well-being ahead of politics and extend Medicaid, which would provide health care to those with HIV and AIDS.

We should call on states to reform outdated and stigmatizing HIV criminalization laws. We should increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. And we should cap out-of-pocket expenses and drug costs—and hold companies like Turing and Valeant accountable when they attempt to gouge patients by jacking up the price of lifesaving medications.

We’re still surrounded by memories of loved ones lost and lives cut short. But we’re also surrounded by survivors who are fighting harder than ever. We owe it to them and to future generations to continue that fight together. For the first time, an AIDS-free generation is in sight. As president, I promise you that I will not let up until we reach that goal. We will not leave anyone behind.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

108 Responses to “Hillary Clinton issues long mea culpa over Reagan-AIDS snafu”

  1. future_man says:

    The more I think about it the more I’m asking this sort of question—

    Q. Was Hillary’s “Reagan funeral mistake and apology” moment a signal to Republicans that she is willing to negotiate for something big that makes her look presidential by backing off enough to give them their small minded “Religious Liberty Bill” in 2017???

    In other words another “throw us under the bus” moment like when Obama invited the Saddleback Church dude Pastor Rick Warren to his first Inaug. Except this one will
    be worse since it won’t just be window dressing but will have real life consequences.

    I’m not arguing against Clinton or for Bernie or Trump (never) but trying to see through the smoke and mirrors of the campaign world and anticipate what’s actually headed our way down the road and what we may need to prepare ourselves for once campaigning ends and real life governing takes over.

  2. future_man says:

    The only way I can give Hillary any kind of a pass on this is the she was dead tired from campaigning and she fuzzed over. You know…brain fart. And her campaign isn’t going to go there.

    Otherwise, if she were in a clear state of mind her statement reveals that in her heart of hearts she erases the contributions gay communities directed towards getting the country to notice the effects of HIV….which could be the case…yet somewhat debatable.

  3. PDQ says:

    I imagine she repudiated it so fast because the reaction went from smoldering ember to brushfire pretty damn quick. She probably figured since she had the DC Black Tie Gala Gays (Human Rights Campaign) in her pocket, she was good to go and no one would call her out on something so egregiously wrong.

    I agree that Hillary is astute when it comes to the strategy of politics. But she’s an Elite who is no doubt insulated from the rest of us by a coterie of people who are intent on getting her (and them) into the White House. This was one situation she couldn’t triangulate her way out of.

  4. Hue-Man says:

    She flubbed it then issued two appropriate apologies. She was handed her speaking notes and either didn’t recall the horrific Reagan record on HIV/AIDS or was too tired from campaigning to challenge the text.

    My interpretation is that LGBT history isn’t part of her DNA – she lived
    through the 1980s and 1990s in a position of power and influence but
    probably didn’t live the AIDS massacre the way that so many LGBT friends
    and family did. As a candidate for all Americans, she can be excused for not having 100% grasp of history of EVERY issue – I’m more concerned about the lack of historical awareness within the post-AIDS era LGBT community.

  5. Hue-Man says:

    The leadership campaign isn’t 6 to 12 weeks – the federal election period in Canada is typically 8 weeks. The Conservatives made the following announcement January 15-17, 2016:

    “Federal Conservatives set May 27, 2017, for leadership election”


    wiki describes the selection process: “Candidates must be members of the party for at least six months in order to be eligible. Voting will be on a One Member One Vote basis using a ranked ballot; however votes will be calculated so that each electoral district have equal weight with each electoral district allocated 100 points. Candidates will be assigned a point total based on his or her percentage of the vote in each electoral district. To win, a candidate must receive at least 16,901 points which would be a majority.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election,_2017#Rules

    CPC also announced the spending cap for each candidate at CAD 5 million although most expect to spend $1 to $1.5 million. Campaign contributions are limited to $1,500 per individual per year – corporations cannot make political contributions.

    A new CPC leader will be chosen TWO YEARS before the next election. Spending on the campaign is minuscule compared to the U.S. Voting happens on one day rather than spread out over many months.

  6. peteywheats says:

    Goldwater Girl gets confused about what she believes sometimes.

  7. Gwendolynaellis says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!387➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!387…….

  8. basenjilover says:

    Not fazed by your snarky remarks. Hillary did say something very stupid and perhaps you don’t like how it backfired. Thank you dearly, but keep the hearty congrats to yourself.

  9. hiker_sf says:

    Yes. Killfile. It is WONDERFUL.

  10. Doug105 says:


  11. emjayay says:

    Dear John: (good thing no one writes letters any more): Great that you are back.

    I go to AM because it is an interesting and fun site about current political issues from a generally gayish and progressive (and formerly personal with doggie stuff and located in the epicenter, where I once also lived) angle. Washington Monthly and Think Progress on one side, JoeMyGod and Towleroad on the other, AB in between. All with intelligent, substantial, interesting and amusing comments.

    So you’re back here and the comments are suddenly not necessarily any of the above.

  12. Ok nice trolling, I’ll continue to do what I want thanks! ;)

  13. jasoncalsyn says:

    What brought that on? I would imagine Clinton’s fucked up statement and damage control response. You say I’m in denial about my candidate. I say you’re in denial about yours.

    And I’ll be leaving this thread now, since I don’t have the time or energy to defend myself on multiple fronts on this thread. Apparently having an opinion that varies from the herd is frowned upon around here. Bye now…

  14. SkippyFlipjack says:

    They still let you be a moderator? :)

    Good post, I agree that Hillary’s comments just don’t make sense. You don’t laud Gerald Ford for signing the Dream Act or Bill Clinton for the Affordable Care Act without some serious brain hiccup. So odd.

  15. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I don’t like how she bends over backwards to avoid actually criticizing Ronnie and Nancy in her so-called apology. She says “I misspoke, the Reagans weren’t the ones who were strong advocates, that was ALL THESE WONDERFUL PEOPLE WHO DID THESE THINGS AND LET’S TALK ABOUT HISTORY AND AIDS AND GAY STRUGGLES AND LOOK OVER THERE! AND maybe you won’t notice that I never mentioned that the Reagans not only didn’t do f*ck-all about HIV but were actually intentionally and deliberately quiet about a public health crisis because it meant acknowledging, you know, gay stuff.”

  16. hiker_sf says:

    Yes, because Clinton supporters are going to stampede to support Sanders when he wins or when Hillary is forced out.

  17. emjayay says:

    Maybe some of them. A bunch more will drift away and not bother.

  18. hiker_sf says:

    Actually, only minorities live in ghettos. From wiki (and many others): A ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure. The term was originally used in Venice to describe the part of the city to which Jews were restricted and segregated.

    Depending where you are in the world, the minority can changes.

  19. sophie says:


  20. gdaddo says:

    Voters are not your parents, dear. They will not give you everything you want in order to get you to stop nagging. As for threats in the form of a petition…very ill-advised

    As for the petition’s content…everyone is already aware that most of the bros are going to vote for Trump in November. It’s just who they are.

  21. gdaddo says:

    He also signed off on the evangelical-led “We Believe in Marriage Week” proclamtion whien he was the mayor.


  22. gdaddo says:

    Hillary won the LTBGQ vote in the 2008 primaries due to her long-standing support of the community as both a first lady and a senator. To this day, she is the only first lady to have ever marched in a pride event, and she stopped being a first lady 16 years ago. There is nothing new about her advocacy.

    Sanders, on the other hand, announced earlier today that he will be releasing a plan to fight HIV/Aids shortly. It didn’t matter enough to him a week ago to actually develop a detailed and comprehensive platform. Now that he can use it to his own advantage and ambitions, it’s suddenly important.

  23. gdaddo says:

    An inference is only as reasonable as the argument it’s based on. Your argument sucks.

    Your definitions are dubious as well. A troll is not someone who disagrees with you. A troll is someone in opposition to the author who shows up and tries to hijack a discussion by…..wait a minute…you’re the troll.

  24. gdaddo says:

    The bros are as bad as the Trump supporters. And when Sanders loses the nomination, they will be Trump supporters

  25. gdaddo says:

    Maybe he was talking about the # mississippi berning hashtag that was on Sanders official website.

    “Not culturally competent” is that new code for racist?

  26. gdaddo says:

    You’re in denial about your candidate. There was no attack on Sanders. You’re allowed to bolster you argument with evidence and that evidence can include the fact that one candidate has a better platform on this issue than her opponent.

    Sanders’s campaign announced today that it will shortly be releasing a policy plan on HIV/AIDS. I wonder what brought that on?

  27. moniss says:

    So John wants to vote for the one who was all about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. She’s evolved though. She even said so and we no Hillary doesn’t lie don’t we.

  28. moniss says:

    Up yours John. He did not claim that all blacks come from the ghetto.

  29. Krusher says:

    So then you’ve never said anything stupid, I assume. Hearty congratulations to you.

  30. gdaddo says:

    She’s not like Bernie or his supporters who wear their biases on the their sleeves with # bern the witch and # mississippi berning.

    Funny how whenever Bernie gets called out, it’s a smear. Bernie has no HIV/AIDS policy information on his website. He has no platform on this issue. That’s not a smear; that’s the truth. For the record, the Sanders campaign announced today that he will be releasing a plan to fight AIDS.

    See, Bernie genuinely cares about people with AIDS or who are HIV positive. It’s not like he’s using them to take advantage of an opponent’s mistake.

  31. gdaddo says:

    Why hasn’t Bernie apologized for the Bern the Witch events and # mississippi berning hashtag that were promoted on his official website?

    If Bernie ever has the decency to apologize, will you care about the precise wording then?

  32. Outspoken1 says:

    Heck, I would not want to go thru the meat-grinder we call ‘election season’ for even a local office, much less a national one. Why does it take two years to plod though the winnowing process to get our leaders when those other democratic nations like Canada or much of Europe can do it in 6 to 12 weeks?

  33. gdaddo says:

    If it were damage control, plain and simple, then there would be a minimal record of support and advocacy. Her record and presidential platform support the “mistake” explanation. There is no evidence to support your claim.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “lingo”, and why you think it “probably came from Bill”, but baseless assertions seem to be your specialty.

    And you wanna know what’s really tone deaf? Allowing supporters to promote Bern the Witch parties and a racist hashtag on your official website.



  34. timncguy says:

    First, after the debate where Sanders made the statements referred to here there was an outcry in the media about those statements. In fact there was an outcry on Twitter before the debate ended. So, you are wrong on that.

    Secondly, it is racist to make the claim that only minorities live in ghettos and only minorities know poverty. And, besides being racist, it is factually incorrect.

  35. jasoncalsyn says:

    It is intellectually dishonest to spend an entire article defending Clinton over her “mistake” and then throw in an attack on Sanders at the end (which, as far as I’ve seen, has not had much of an outcry surrounding it) and try to say they’re equivalent. This false equivalency game happens all the time in politics, and that’s what I see here. You can disagree with me on that, but that’s how I see it.

    And, FWIW, John’s made some comments here suggesting that Bernie’s comments were racist. I disagree with that 100% as well.

  36. timncguy says:

    your previously stated problem with the article was that John included details about Bernie’s mistake from this week in an article that you think should have focused solely on Clinton’s mistake for this week. If you are now willing to admit that the article is allowed to discuss the author’s opinion that mistakes were made by both candidates, then that changes thing. What you are saying now is that what Sanders said about white people and about ghettos was not a mistake. Or, at least in your opinion, not as egregious mistake as Clinton’s.

    It is not intellectually dishonest to argue that Sanders saying that white people don’t know what it’s like to be poor is a mistake.

  37. jasoncalsyn says:

    I disagree with the post. I disagree even more with your comment above. Despite what John said in his self-righteous tirade against me, I’m allowed to have an opinion and disagree with people, and I understand that not everyone will agree with me. I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty, and that’s my problem with the article. Not that it wasn’t written how I would write it.

  38. timncguy says:

    Look, the sub-heading for the article is:

    “Hillary and Bernie both had a bad week. She snafu’d on AIDS, while he claimed all blacks come from the ghetto.”

    So, your claim that the article is solely about Clinton and HIV is just not accurate. The article is about mistakes made this week by both candidates. And, I just happened to point out that in addition to the mistake Sanders made about there not being any poor white people, he also made a mistake by refusing to walk back his previous support for Castro.

    I understand you don’t like having it pointed out. But, that’s your problem. It’s not John’s. He has written a post discussing mistakes made by each candidate this week. That is his right. You want him to only write about Clinton’s mistake. Too bad. Write your own article.

  39. jasoncalsyn says:

    I’m “lucky”? Because the obvious thing to do in an article about Clinton and the U.S. HIV (non-)policy of the 80’s is to talk about the other candidate and go the “that guy’s a communist” route?

  40. Phil in FLL says:

    Bernie is the best of this year’s crop, and I wish him good luck. I could do without his bit of fluff about Nancy Reagan, but let’s not kid ourselves about comparisons with Trump, the substantially greater evil. Today’s big news is that Trump tweeted a threat to send his supporters to Bernie’s rallies to do violence to Bernie supporters. Here’s a link from The Hill, but the news is everywhere. If Trump goes too far, local authorities could prosecute him for incitement to violence or incitement to riot:

  41. Houndentenor says:

    I’ve already voted in the primary, so people yelling at me about Bernie or Hillary just annoys me. I can’t do anything for their candidate now anyway. I do wish supporters of all these candidates (I have FB friends who are Republican too) understood that most of what they post makes us like their candidate LESS. That’s how tone deaf and in a bubble most of the country is today. They can’t understand that they are making us less likely to vote for their candidate with every lie and bullshit meme they put up.

  42. basenjilover says:

    I’ve lost two generations of extended families to AIDS and for Clinton to speak so highly of Nancy infuriated me. She could have at least shut up or spoken very little without praising her…. “misspeak” my arse.

  43. Houndentenor says:

    Damn I missed you! Also, you are never cuter than when you’re a little pissed off and ranty. Just sayin’.

  44. Houndentenor says:

    I can’t stand any of them. I made my peace with the fact that Hillary is the least objectionable of the lot but that is an incredibly low bar. But I would jump at the chance for a better option. And no, Sanders is not better among other reasons he would get trampled in a general election a la McGovern.

  45. Houndentenor says:

    No one is complaining that she found nice things to say about a fellow first lady. They’re mad that she lied her face off while doing so.

  46. Houndentenor says:

    Maybe they confused Nancy with Betty Ford who was one of the first people to hold AIDS fundraisers. Unlike the Reagans, the Fords did not turn their backs on their gay friends.

  47. hiker_sf says:

    I’ve temporarily blocked so many people on Facebook because I can’t handle “candidate adoration” nor the petty nonsense that they use to attack the other candidate. When the primary elections are over, things will calm down.

  48. Houndentenor says:

    I can’t believe it was intentional without some evidence. I think someone who was too young to know prepared the remarks and picked up something online and didn’t bother to double check. there’s a lot of that these days like Trump repeating the lie about the person who grabbed him yesterday being tied to ISIS. Since the media is too lazy to fact check any more, why should the candidates bother. If it were for us smartypants and old fogeys on social media they’d get away with it too.

  49. Houndentenor says:

    I don’t know who annoys me more: Berniebros or Clintonbots. If O’Malley had stayed in the race I’d have voted for him on Super Tuesday. Not kidding. So annoyed and it’s only March. this election is going to be the death of me. It’s one big horror show all around.

  50. Houndentenor says:

    Unlike cable news some of us can follow more than one story per day. For example there was a major explosion in Ankara earlier today. Because I follow foreign media I got an alert to that story from LeMonde on my cell phone. The fact that I was pissed about Hillary’s fuck-up re Nancy Reagan doesn’t mean I don’t have one eye on Trump and am following other stories and I still found time to retweet a pic of John Aravosis’s dog, couple of otters and pics of the guy who just spent a year in space. It’s not that hard. But it does require getting news from better sources than CNN or msnbc.

  51. Houndentenor says:

    They were prepared remarks so she didn’t “misspeak”. It’s possible that whoever wrote her talking points fucked up. I’ll buy that. Although does she really have that many gays on her staff, because if so then there’s REALLY no excuse.

  52. lynchie says:

    She was widely attacked on Twitter. As far as gays on her staff the queen sets the agenda

  53. Phil in FLL says:

    hiker_sf apparently has some sophisticated html code or such that is not listed in the online Disqus rules or help pages. Well, good for hiker_sf.

  54. Moderator3 says:

    To my knowledge, you are correct.

  55. hiker_sf says:

    Not wanting to add fuel to the fire because while I support Sanders, I’m not a disciple, in countries with nationalized healthcare, they don’t have the need for detailed platforms regarding HIV/AIDS.

  56. 2karmanot says:

    I love it when you kick ass Becca!

  57. 2karmanot says:

    Phill! Hello, after all these years a name for FLL……

  58. LOL good to see you too :)

  59. But then why would she repudiate it immediately afterwards? If it was intentional, then she and her staff knew it would cause problems? And they clearly cared about the problems since they immediately apologized. So why would they do it at all, knowing they’d have to immediately retract it? I just don’t see the logic in it for her, and she’s quite smart politically.

  60. That’s nice. I’d like to see him talk about HIV/AIDS in his LGBT platform on his Web site. I’d also like to see a much longer, more detailed, more substantive platform. Hers is. His is not. So if we’re making decisions based on our issues, we should hear more from him on those issues.

  61. 2karmanot says:

    Hillary made an oopsi….sort of like dropping water on boiling oil…it’s a painful and tinder topic. I leave you with this:


  62. Yeah, I wondered about that too. But then why repudiate it immediately afterwards, and why issue an immediate apology? There are more than enough gays working on that campaign, and Hillary herself is no slouch politically. They knew this kind of comment would explode, and clearly they cared about the explosion or they wouldn’t have apologized. So why do it, unless it was a massive f up, a glitch, a misspeak? It’s the simplest explanation.

  63. Thanks Karma!

  64. 2karmanot says:

    Oh my gosh….NYC snarkattude! Welcome back John, welcome back! # that’s a good thing :-)

  65. 2karmanot says:

    Good one Becca. I’ll just drop this here in solidarity: http://adgitadiaries.com/2016/03/13/hillarys-little-oopsi/

  66. 2karmanot says:

    Welcome back John!

  67. hiker_sf says:

    Phil in FLL, I’ve blocked your comments. I can see that you replied, but the “content” of what you wrote is blocked.

  68. mark_in_toronto says:

    Another one to add to Hilary’s “mistakes.” She has so many now that if she wins the nomination, whoever she runs against will have LOTS of ammo. And since American voters prefer scandals over issues, get ready for president Trump.
    Or you could make Bernie the nominee.
    Please vote responsibly.

  69. Jimmy says:

    One has to wonder just what the hell she was thinking. I don’t believe for a minute she didn’t know better. This wreaks of Clinton being told by some politico idiot in her campaign that she should be nice to the memory of Nancy Reagan. A woman who spent more time buying new china, fancy dresses, and remodeling the White House than she did giving a thought to AIDS. Clinton new better. She was being political and it backfired. This is a prime example of why she continues to struggle against Bernie Sanders.

  70. timncguy says:

    It is an out and out lie for Sanders to say that white people don’t know what it is to be poor. In actual fact there are more poor white people than poor blacks. So, in your world Bernie needs to explain why he LIED about the existence of poor white people. He not only got history wrong, he got current facts wrong.

  71. timncguy says:

    you’re lucky he didn’t bring up Sanders being unwilling to disavow his support for Castro after the video was played at the last debate. That didn’t win him any support in FLA

  72. kladinvt says:

    So has anyone asked Hillary “why” she “misspoke”? Was it amnesia? Was it some mental health lapse? Or was it just that she wasn’t “into” the gay community in the 80s & 90s, so what we went through, just wasn’t all that important to her?

  73. Phil in FLL says:

    You cannot block users in Disqus (which is to say, prevent their comments from appearing) unless you are a moderator. (Moderators or Disqus experts, please correct me if I’m wrong about this.) You can stop users from “following” you, but that is a non-issue, since I have never followed you. Your comment is misinformation.

  74. marknc says:


  75. Pathfinder says:

    As we are discussing Bernie and Hillary and their respective positions in support of the community at large, let me just leave this right here.

  76. pcbegone says:

    Granny Cankles never says anything because she really believes it. She says it because a survey told her to say it. This time she went off script and got a little confused.

  77. Ruthsarndt says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!284➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!284…….

  78. Hi! Lets elect Bernie! The entire race now comes down to one day, March 15th. After March 15th Bernie might literally win every state because the map is so favorable to him, but first we have to get past March 15th. If there is anyone you can talk to, any money you can give, any door you can knock on, now is the time. Right now might be the last time we ever get the chance to change America for the better. This revolution counts on the extraordinary efforts of people like you so lets fight! Together we are a force stronger than those that would bind us! What are you willing to do? what can you do for the revolution? That question will have been answered by March 15th, do not let history find you wanting. Here is the link to donate,


    Hillary sent this to her supporters today, “But [Bernie Sanders] is still out raising us by large margins, and if that continues, we could see more results like we saw in Michigan last night.” That is like music to my ears. Lets keep it up and outspend the billionaires!

    Here is the link to the phone bank,


    The only thing more important you can do than call supporters directly, is to go from door to door, which I encourage you to do. Please spread/repost this message, together we are going to take America back!

    Also check out, sign and share this petition if you don’t plan on supporting Hillary in the general election, if she is the nominee


  79. BeccaM says:

    Meanwhile, as we have our party-internecine pie fight, this is happening:

    “I hope these guys get thrown into a jail,” Drumpf said during a rally at a historic theater in Kansas City on Saturday night that was repeatedly interrupted by protesters. “They’ll never do it again. It’ll destroy their record. They’ll have to explain to mom and dad why they have a police record and why they can’t get a job. And you know what? I’m going to start pressing charges against all of these people. And then we won’t have a problem.”
    “I hope you arrest ’em and do whatever you have to do,” Drumpf said. “And you know what? Once that starts happening, we’re not going to have any more protesters, folks. We’re not going to have any more protesters.”

    Later in the evening, Drumpf said he doesn’t like seeing people arrested but that he has no choice. At one point, he heard the voice of a protester and said: “Did I hear a voice back there? Oh, do I hear somebody who wants to go to prison?”
    “But the only way we’re going to stop this craziness is if we press charges, because then their lives are going to be ruined,” he said. “They’re going to know that their lives are going to be ruined. So I’ll just tell you folks, from now on, if you do anything, we’re pressing charges.”


    Let’s not let the perfect get in the way of opposing the significantly greater evil.

  80. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, well, I’m pissed at MY preferred candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, because this was his statement last week:

    U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders issued the following statement Sunday on the passing of former first lady Nancy Reagan:

    “No matter your party or political ideology, this is a sad day for America. Nancy Reagan was an exemplary first lady. A devoted partner, she was her husband’s most trusted advisor and, as such, served our country well. Even after her time in the White House, she was an outspoken advocate for stem-cell research to find a cure for Alzheimer’s. Nancy Reagan had a good heart, and she will be dearly missed.”

    ‘Served our country well’? She was the genesis of the Just Say No anti-drug campaigns. She was apparently instrumental in propping up her increasingly senile husband when he should have resigned due to mental incapacity at least 3 years before the end of his 2nd term. She was the one who didn’t give two damns about gay people until one of her personal friends was diagnosed with it — and even then, when Rock Hudson wanted to go to France to try one of the new experimental treatments at the time, she and her husband refused even to try to help.


    And yet Senator Sanders still praised her. Praised Nancy Reagan as a treasure the country had lost. I threw up a little in my mouth at that.

    Like I said, decent people say nice things even about appalling people at their funerals because funerals are really for the families and friends. This isn’t ‘glossing over’, this is moving on because I don’t actually give a fuck what Clinton said or didn’t say or the precise wording of her after-the-fact apology that doesn’t even include “if people were offended’ no-pology weasel words.

  81. hiker_sf says:

    I’m seeing your comments for the first time in ages because I blocked all comments from plain old FLL because you are annoying and always picking petty fights with someone over something they wrote ages ago.

    Just to let you know that I thought you were female. Don’t worry – I’m not going to further engage you because I’m blocking your new name. Carry on, Phil.

  82. hiker_sf says:

    I’m a Sanders supporter and I believe that every move that Clinton makes is vetted, calculated and measured, including this apology that I’m accepting. But I’d still send her $100 and put a Clinton bumper sticker on my car if she took a dump on Nancy’s casket.

  83. hiker_sf says:

    It was inappropriate to compare what Clinton said to what Sanders said. That implies that there is unfairness and while there is always unfairness in politics, clearly the dirty tricks are mostly being played by Clinton, including the slanderous whisper campaign, casting doubt on Sanders’ participation in the civil rights marches and claiming that black colleges would have to close if Sanders’ makes getting a college education free. And that article you linked to in the NYTimes has the Clinton campaign promoting the ‘outrage’ over what Sanders said. The outrage over Clinton’s remark was quick and widespread, and not managed by the Sanders campaign.

    I’m happy that Clinton endeavored to apologize. I wished she had condemned the Reagan’s for their inaction, but from her I’ll take what I can get.

    While I’m voting for Sanders, if Elizabeth Warren was running or if Obama could run again, they’d have my vote, which is to say that I’m not a “Berniebot” or whatever. For me it is a vote for the lesser of two evils in the primary and the lesser of two evils in the November election. And if Clinton is the Democrat on the ballot in November, she has my vote, even though I’m 100% sure that she will throw some group under the bus in order to achieve her political objectives.

  84. PDQ says:

    “I’m not going to get all freaked out because Hillary tried to say
    something nice about a dead woman at that woman’s funeral, in front of
    the dead woman’s family and friends.”

    My understand is that she said it in an interview with Mrs. Alan Greenspan on MSNBC, not in her prepared tribute to Nancy Reagan at the funeral. Right?

    So yeah. She fucked up – big time. This is not something that an apologist article is just going to gloss over. Sorry!!

  85. Phil_in_FLL says:

    OK, point taken. Maybe “FLL” comes off as too mysterious and snide. “FLL” is not the name of a person; it’s just the common abbreviation for Fort Lauderdale. So now, other commenters can swear and curse at me using my name, Phil. And yes, I do live in Fort Lauderdale.

  86. PDQ says:

    “Hillary seemed so reasoned in her AIDS comments (now), it’s almost as if
    she had a day to put something more coherent together to mop this up”

    It was damage control, plain and simple. And the lingo probably came from Bill. I doubt that Debbie Wasserman Schultz even caught the mistake. She’s as clueless and tone deaf as Hillary is.

  87. PDQ says:

    Having looked at the video of her making the remarks, it doesn’t look like something off the cuff. It looks very much like something that was written for her and rehearsed by her so she got it right. There was no uncertainty or improvising. She knew exactly what she was saying.


    It’s shameful and I think she’s a sellout. I wonder how much she and Bill stand to reap if she gets them both back into the White House. Look at how lucrative it’s been for them already!

  88. Joel says:

    Hillary seemed so reasoned in her AIDS comments (now), it’s almost as if she had a day to put something more coherent together to mop this up, but when you watch the funeral commentary, it’s utterly convincing that she believes in Nancy’s sainthood based on what she thought was rock solid evidence that only younger viewers might forget. But there was a logic behind her error–her history of pandering to the right is well known and in an election cycle when you need as many moderates/republicans as possible (the young people do not like her) she would obviously have wanted to seem insightful on the former first lady and the issue of AIDS to wink wink at her LGBT base as well.

    Now, with Aravosis’ article, you have to believe that actually this elder stateswoman just got it wrong and not only that, her apology is so great, we need to accept it, move on, and be glad she is the kind of candidate that learns from her mistakes. Very convenient!

  89. alanbounville says:

    John – you’re the one on here writing an ‘article’ then getting all nasty with people who disagree with your point of view. One could question your intentions. Do you want to post things that inflame people? Are you trying to do the good work? Whatever your reasons, it lacks clarity, I feel.

  90. BeccaM says:

    FLL is not a nameless troll. He is a frequent commenter on this and many other progressive blogs. You are the one we’ve never seen here until tonight.

    The likelihood is you and that Jason guy, the one whose comments you’ve been upvoting, are the actual trolls here tonight

  91. alanbounville says:

    Dear FLL, aka nameless troll – there is this thingy called inference. Like subtext or some may say reading between the lines. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? Perhaps not. Anywho, enough of this bickering for me tonight.

  92. alanbounville says:

    Racist? What, the “ghetto comment”? Or are you talking about something else? Either way, yes, his use of the term ‘ghetto’ is not culturally competent. But it is not the same as an out and out lie about history that is weeeeeeellll documented. Now, if we want to shift the conversation to Bernie we can do that. It does not in the slightest diminish this post about Hillary.

  93. jasoncalsyn says:

    I didn’t say you attacked me. You attacked Sanders out of nowhere, while bending over backwards to defend Clinton.

  94. BeccaM says:

    Yes, Secretary Clinton fucked up. Big-time. She ascribed decent motives to a dead woman who’d had none at all regarding HIV until her good friend Rock Hudson became ill with it. Clinton didn’t even say Nancy Reagan had actually done anything positive, just that she and her dead husband had “opened a dialogue.”

    Yeah, stupid thing to say. A false thing to say. An insult to all the people who died from HIV and HIV-related complications for years while Ronald Reagan literally laughed about it.

    People often try to find nice things to say about the dead, even when the dead don’t deserve it. If Hillary had dropped pantsuit trou and taken a dump on Nancy Reagan’s casket, there would be those who claim she’d done it insincerely and as a mere political stunt to boost her standing with the progressive left.

    I am a Sanders supporter, but I will accept this apology. It’s a good one. It’s detailed and classy. I cannot imagine any of the Republican candidates doing anything other than continuing to insist that HIV is God’s punishment for gay people committing the crime of existing.

    The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation have done a ton of good work world-wide in combating HIV. I’m not going to get all freaked out because Hillary tried to say something nice about a dead woman at that woman’s funeral, in front of the dead woman’s family and friends.

  95. BeccaM says:

    We’ve missed you, too, John. Jon Green’s been great, don’t get me wrong, but this place was not the same without you.

  96. FLL says:

    Just like old times. Rational argumentation can be fun.

  97. I miss you guys ;-)

  98. Ah, ok this makes sense now. You’re offended when people disagree with you. Well, it’s going to happen from time to time. And sorry but you attacked me. You called me a “clinton apologist,” and claimed that my article came from “an alternative universe.” And that I was “biased.” So, please don’t claim that I somehow attacked you. You attacked me, I responded. With proof in fact. And then you got even angrier. Again, I get that you don’t agree with me on everything. And I get that for a lot of people nowadays that’s a deal killer — they can only handle people who agree with them 1000% of the time. But that’s not my way. I don’t reject people simply for disagreeing with me. And I can’t write things that every liberal agrees with. It’s simply not possible :)

  99. FLL says:

    “Bernie Sanders had nothing to do with Clinton’s messed up statement about Nancy Reagan and AIDS.”

    No, Bernie had nothing to do with Hillary’s statement, nor did Hillary have anything to do with Bernie’s statement about “no poor whites/all blacks from the ghetto.” That’s because Bernie and Hillary don’t communicate telepathically. I think we already know that. The two statements are just two examples of people making mistaken statements. Fair enough?

  100. jasoncalsyn says:

    Cute. Since you’re bringing up the distant past like that: you know, I stepped away from this site for a long time after you smeared Edward Snowden for daring to speak out against the U.S. intelligence apparatus, but decided to check things out again this election cycle. I thought maybe things had changed around here. I guess not. You’re still more interested in attacking those you disagree with than contributing useful commentary. Bernie Sanders had nothing to do with Clinton’s messed up statement about Nancy Reagan and AIDS.

  101. If it’s impossible for candidate to misspeak, then Bernie Sanders is a racist and should end his candidacy right now. Which one is it?

  102. Yes, well, I “hated” Hillary in 08. But now I’m in Hillary’s pocket. Ah it’s good to be back :) Oh, and since you insist on going there, you might want to ask Trayvon Martin’s mom if she’s biased too.


  103. jasoncalsyn says:

    What alternate universe did this article come from? I’ve seen some absurd Clinton apologists at work before, but this takes the cake. And the smear on Sanders towards the end would be cute if it weren’t so sad (and unnecessary, as it’s not relevant to the subject at hand at all). You could at least make some effort to hide your bias.

  104. FLL says:

    “Maybe she was too busy trying to get onto WalMart’s board of directors so she could ignore worker’s rights.”

    By explaining your motive in so many words, you’re making it obvious that you will pretend to read her mind. In other words, your judgment is not based on the available information. (Hint: You probably don’t have psychic powers.)

  105. alanbounville says:

    Nope – no smoke screen in the world covers up this for me. She must have slept through the 80s to make such a remark in the first place. Maybe she was too busy trying to get onto WalMart’s board of directors so she could ignore worker’s rights. Yeah, that makes sense. I’d be distracted by the reality that was slamming everyone else in the face if I was a ravenous plutocrat too!

  106. Because she f’d up. Clearly. What’s the other explanation? There is none. She made a mistake. A bad one, but she fessed up to it immediately. And as FLL notes below, when do political candidates actually do that?

  107. alanbounville says:

    ummhmm – why don’t you tell us, -H, why you lied in the first place? Copying and pasting HIV history talking points doesn’t explain away how you could have EVER possibly not known as the words were coming out of your mouth about the Reagans and HIV that what you were saying was anything but true! SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

  108. FLL says:

    Now compare this with what happens when you confront Trump or Cruz in a similar situation, in other words, the facts prove that what they said was wrong. Both of them consistently double down on their lie and demand that you kiss their ass by accepting their false statement as the truth.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS