Hillary Clinton apologizes for comment about Nancy Reagan

Mar 2012
57,279
38,820
New Hampshire
#1
What does everyone think about this? A necessary apology or over the top?


"Hillary Clinton apologized on Friday for calling the late Nancy Reagan a "very effective, low-key" advocate on AIDS/HIV, saying she "misspoke" in an interview with MSNBC. Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral." But Nancy Reagan's husband, President Ronald Reagan, didn't deliver a major speech on the epidemic until 1987, six years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first reported on the disease. Many in the gay community have criticized Reagan for not doing more to respond to the AIDS outbreak during his presidency."

"Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton White House aide, knocked Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist. Clinton soon after tweeted an apology.

"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."


Hillary Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate - CNNPolitics.com
 
Oct 2015
1,380
390
Earth
#3
Why on God's Green Earth do all the idiots think it's the President's responsibility to fix every single stupid little thing?

As for Hillary, she needs to learn to stop nodding her bobble head and kept her frothing mouth shut.
 
Oct 2013
26,534
22,748
USA
#4
Compared to AID's it is merely a rather clumsy AID's mistake I suspect. It isn't like none of us step in the steaming pile of memory now and then. I think it will only go as far as anyone wants to remember it and society has a short memory. Look how many now think Obama caused the recession. Give it a week for everyone to forget and give it eternity for some few posters who will repeat it for years on end. :)
 
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2013
1,482
2,004
U.S.A.
#5
What does everyone think about this? A necessary apology or over the top?


"Hillary Clinton apologized on Friday for calling the late Nancy Reagan a "very effective, low-key" advocate on AIDS/HIV, saying she "misspoke" in an interview with MSNBC. Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral." But Nancy Reagan's husband, President Ronald Reagan, didn't deliver a major speech on the epidemic until 1987, six years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first reported on the disease. Many in the gay community have criticized Reagan for not doing more to respond to the AIDS outbreak during his presidency."

"Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton White House aide, knocked Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist. Clinton soon after tweeted an apology.

"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."


Hillary Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate - CNNPolitics.com
Strictly speaking, I wouldn't characterize Hillary's apology as either "necessary" or "over the top." I can understand why she apologized -- and probably that was the smart and best thing to do. Past that, I see no reason to beat Hillary up over a kind, if somewhat misplaced, gesture. Nancy Reagan was a low-key advocate for some types of medical research that mainstream Republicans like to condemn. Stem-cell research was the prime example of that advocacy, as Secretary Clinton noted in her mea culpa. So, fair enough... Clinton was a tad over-generous. That's hardly a major gaff, is it?

That said, I can understand why so many folks gag a little to hear the Reagans associated with AIDS advocacy. The Reagan administration was awfully slow out of the box in addressing the AIDS crisis, there's no doubt. And that sense of cold disdain from on high in the face of overwhelming personal tragedy and fear leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, to be sure. Reagan's reaction to the AIDS epidemic was a black mark on his administration, pure and simple.

And yet...

Let's suppose Reagan addressed the issue head on from day one. Would that have changed the course of history dramatically? I doubt it. In the days when Larry Speakes was making jokes about the gay plague no one knew much about the disease or how to stem it's spread. I can vividly recall all sorts of frankly bizarre hypotheses being promulgated by highly educated but ignorant people suggesting that the illness was a "natural" consequence of certain aspects of the "gay lifestyle." It was an odd time. And, let's be honest, lots of folks bought into the fear and speculation and propaganda that suggested that AIDS was a gay problem -- and/or just retribution for unnatural acts.

I don't want to excuse anyone's bad actions, but I think in a way the urge to talk about how awful the Reagan administration's reaction to the AIDS crisis was is a way to absolve everyone else. In some senses it's similar to the way in which some folks want to beat up on Washington and Jefferson, for example, for owning and exploiting slaves. If we can personalize the bad actions of the past in the form of a handful of villains, then we can maintain the idea that at any given point in time our society as a whole is generally good and only a few bad actors need to answer for the sins of the past. It's psychologically useful, but it's not really accurate.

Cheers.
 
Likes: 5 people
Jul 2014
38,149
10,082
midwest
#7
What does everyone think about this? A necessary apology or over the top?


"Hillary Clinton apologized on Friday for calling the late Nancy Reagan a "very effective, low-key" advocate on AIDS/HIV, saying she "misspoke" in an interview with MSNBC. Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral." But Nancy Reagan's husband, President Ronald Reagan, didn't deliver a major speech on the epidemic until 1987, six years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first reported on the disease. Many in the gay community have criticized Reagan for not doing more to respond to the AIDS outbreak during his presidency."

"Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton White House aide, knocked Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist. Clinton soon after tweeted an apology.

"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."


Hillary Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate - CNNPolitics.com
Too many people looking for a reason to be outraged.

Hillary was just trying to be nice and respectful.

No matter what she said, SOMEBODY was going to be offended.

I'm sure than some people are offended by her "apology".

I wouldn't be surprised if she is called upon to apologize for her apology...
 
Likes: 7 people
Jul 2014
38,922
33,911
Border Fence
#8
What does everyone think about this? A necessary apology or over the top?


"Hillary Clinton apologized on Friday for calling the late Nancy Reagan a "very effective, low-key" advocate on AIDS/HIV, saying she "misspoke" in an interview with MSNBC. Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral." But Nancy Reagan's husband, President Ronald Reagan, didn't deliver a major speech on the epidemic until 1987, six years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first reported on the disease. Many in the gay community have criticized Reagan for not doing more to respond to the AIDS outbreak during his presidency."

"Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a former Clinton White House aide, knocked Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist. Clinton soon after tweeted an apology.

"While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS," Clinton said in a statement. "For that, I'm sorry."


Hillary Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate - CNNPolitics.com
Mrs Reagan is dead. who did she apologize to?
 
May 2014
12,533
9,805
American in Socialist Sweden
#10
Too many people looking for a reason to be outraged.

Hillary was just trying to be nice and respectful.

No matter what she said, SOMEBODY was going to be offended.

I'm sure than some people are offended by her "apology".

I wouldn't be surprised if she is called upon to apologize for her apology...

YOU summed it up, PERFECTLY!!!


I would just like to add....

some people are just ASSHOLES!!!!!
 
Likes: 3 people