Hillary Clinton apologizes for comment about Nancy Reagan

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
96,626
33,587
Pittsburgh, PA
#31
Interesting...

I think it's fair to say that the Republicans are not the only folks that have grown into a wild eyed mob. While I don't fault Clinton for trying to be nice, I do fault her for not being politically smart enough to pick something she actually knew about before making a public statement. Also, I fault her for picking something that ended up be controversial with her constituents. And now that I'm thinking about it, I question the sincerity of her "nice" gesture, since she ended up throwing out a seemingly random liberal friendly topic, rather than actually discuss something that Reagan actually did. So the more I think of it, the more politically contrived her "nicety" seems to have been.

Reagan championed "just say no". She did a lot of work to help kids make better choices than drug use. That's a low hanging fruit that anyone should be able to grab.

Anyway, getting back to her constituents... look at some of the recent threads and comments by lefties here about Reagan after her passing. This is where we are as a society... We have lost that sort of polite, respectful tone. We have lost that capacity to get along with folks of another stripe. If we at PH think Trump's anger mongering is bad... maybe we ought not to pursue that too then.
People said nice things about Nixon of all people when he died. That's just what you do. You say nice things about someone when they die. Or you keep your mouth shut.
But in the 21st century, people can say whatever they want to the world in anonymity. So it seems like half the internet is tap dancing on someone's grave.
 
Likes: 1 person
Apr 2012
60,201
45,337
Englewood,Ohio
#32
Let me get this straight. She apologized for praising someone at their funeral?
After every one turned it into a major production. CNN ran the apology on thier scroll all day long. Probably will again tomorrow.

While showing Trump constantly.
 
Apr 2012
60,201
45,337
Englewood,Ohio
#33
People said nice things about Nixon of all people when he died. That's just what you do. You say nice things about someone when they die. Or you keep your mouth shut.
But in the 21st century, people can say whatever they want to the world in anonymity. So it seems like half the internet is tap dancing on someone's grave.
No matter what mistakes people make in life they have done good things.
Richard Nixon wanted Health Care for all. He also opened the door to China. He did many good things.
 
Dec 2006
89,206
68,550
In the Witness Protection Program
#34
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.
Have you read the posts on this forum about Obama? Or do you skip those?
 
Likes: 1 person
Mar 2012
57,873
39,432
New Hampshire
#35
I'm not sure that I understand the question. Are you asking if what she originally said was "over the top", or whether it was "over the top" for her to apologize for having mispoken?
I was just asking if it was really necessary for her to do it at all. I mean we know Pres Reagan was behind the ball as far as AIDS go, but I don't really recall Nancys views. As a first lady, I am not sure its necessary for her to have had views at all. It just seems it may have been the PC thing to do by going after Hillary, I get AIDS activists are angry at the Reagan admin but not sure a first lady has responsibility in it all. Should future first ladies go after Hillary Clinton for things her husband did?
 
Apr 2012
60,201
45,337
Englewood,Ohio
#36
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.
Good to see you here,Havelock.:)
 
Dec 2006
89,206
68,550
In the Witness Protection Program
#37
just because the TIMELINE is not exact, does NOT make it a lie... Hell, I remember that
time well, and NOTHING in what she said, struck me as a lie....

Nancy NEVER said anything about it? Or, she did, it was just much later?
It was not the truth. She was correct to apologize and not double down on her remarks
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2006
89,206
68,550
In the Witness Protection Program
#38
People said nice things about Nixon of all people when he died. That's just what you do. You say nice things about someone when they die. Or you keep your mouth shut.
But in the 21st century, people can say whatever they want to the world in anonymity. So it seems like half the internet is tap dancing on someone's grave.
You don't say nnice things about someone at the expense of pissing on someone else's grave
 
Apr 2011
37,967
12,803
Under your skin
#39
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

 
Jul 2014
38,658
10,264
midwest
#40
You don't say nnice things about someone at the expense of pissing on someone else's grave
Then Hillary should not have said anything at all.

Or, at the very least, Hillary should have made some noncommittal statement.

As she has admitted, she is a bad campaigner.

She needs to learn the basics of campaigning, and speech making, and how to be complimentary of a fellow former first lady without stepping into a big steaming pile of crap.