By now I'm sure you've heard that Hillary Clinton issued a follow-up to her Tweet apologizing for disgustingly praising the Reagans for "starting a conversation" about AIDS. (Read her post HERE.) In the midst of the initial comment, I pointed out that I found it interesting that everyone -- namely countless right-wring media outlets -- was suddenly more than willing to discuss President Reagan's indefensible record on HIV and AIDS ... now that it's a bat with which to hit Mrs. Clinton.
With that in mind, I also found it interesting that Bernie Sanders, rightfully, joined the attack on Mrs. Clinton ...
“I just don’t know what she was talking about,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “In fact, that was a very tragic moment in modern American history. There were many, many people dying of AIDS, and in fact, there was demand all over this country for President Reagan to start talking about this terrible tragedy. And yet he refused to talk about it while the AIDS epidemic was sweeping this country. So, I'm not quite sure where Secretary Clinton got her information.”... and then suddenly updated his website, which hitherto had nary a mention of HIV/AIDS, to include a page about -- you guessed it -- HIV and AIDS, pledging "virtually universal access to drugs" to treat the disease. Great to see him add the topic to his campaign site -- and I'm certainly not accusing him of not being a friend of the gays. (He voted against DOMA, voted to overturn DADT and Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for LGBT couples, after all.) But as Americablog's John Aravosis points out, it would have been nice if he had done it earlier and not merely as a political opportunity. And it's a stark reminder of the never-ending double standard Hillary faces.
Hillary has had her position online since Day 1. But I can only imagine what people would be saying about her right now if she only added it after her opponent f**ked up. ("She's so calculated." "She's so inauthentic.") Ugh. In my three-plus decades following politics, I have never seen a candidate face such a ridiculous level of scrutiny -- and be held to such an impossibly high standard. It's truly unheard of. And the whole women saying "I'm not just going to vote for her because she's a woman" argument is such bullshit. Would any of us ever think a black person -- or any liberal, really -- voting for Obama because he was black was wrong or stupid? And show me one Evangelical Christian who doesn't latch on to whichever candidate is the biggest bible-thumper.
UPDATE:
Just to be clear, I'm THRILLED Bernie put out an HIV/AIDS policy statement (we need all the help we can get). I'm just driving home the double-standard in that I am 100 percent sure if it were the other way around she would be lambasted as an opportunist. And imagine if she stole his verbiage!
3 comments:
Oh, boom! Way to catch this one!
Keep this going Kenneth! Keep telling it to stay on page 1.
To put another perspective to this: the entire time Nancy Reagan lived in the White House, Barney Frank lived in The Closet!
Another perspective: in 1994, Hillary Clinton became not only the first First Lady, but the first of any White House official as the keynote address at the San Francisco HRC Annual Gala (I know because my boyfriend/now husband and I were there with several hundred others)!
Final another perspective: Clinton was spoke a handful of pleasant comments at the effing funeral; poor choices of words, absolutely, end of the world words, fuck no.,
Sorry, Hillary had to have been aware of the history related to her comments. This was a political move that BACKFIRED. And now she is backtracking. Bernie has been consistent in his politics, while Hillary (though I also like her) has adjusted her politics in an effort to appeal to voters, and has not been the most genuine of politicians. She also runs a terrible campaign, this time as well as against Obama.
None of this to say that I would be opposed to a Clinton presidency, but I think Sanders is the more skilled and genuine person for the job.
Post a Comment