Clinton's AIDS statement reflects a larger problem beyond that issue

[Armstead]

Last edited Mon Mar 14, 2016, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I initially was ready to overlook Clinton's AIDS statement as the kind of mistake we all make. I didn't see or hear her original statement, and I kind of dismissed the brouhaha as a political "gotchya."

I figured it was in the context of meaning to say something like "the Reagans started a national conversation about Alzheimers" but instead she mistakenly said HIV/AIDS. A slip of the tongue.

But then I saw the clip and realized it was symptomatic of a bigger problem with her, beyond the issue of AIDS and Nancy Reagan's role.

Rather than just say a few nice words about Nancy Reagan with respect, Clinton automatically (perhaps reflexively) used it an an opportunity to once again portray herself as the Smartest Person in the Room.

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV-AIDS back in the 1980s."

Clinton was, once again, lecturing us and trying to demonstrate her "superior" grasp of issues, and her in depth knowledge and experience....She is really good at that. Toss a bunch of words and explanations at you, and you walk away going "Wow. She sure knows a lot." .....And she also tries to use that ability to portray Sanders as a "know-nothing" compared to her insider knowledge of the details and all encompassing intellect.

While the history (and current status) of AIDS as an issue can be debated and discussed endlessly, Clinton's remarks do raise a difficult aspect of Clinton's approach to all issues and her qualifications. And her tendency to cloak the core of subjects in an endless word salad of "facts and reality" that are not always facts or realities.

The problem is this time, she tried to use that show-off tendency on something anyone who was alive at that time DOES remember.

One did not have to be gay or involved in the AIDS-awareness movement to remember that most people WERE talking about it. And as it became more widely known, even straight people were SCARED SHITLESS.....There was endless speculation and information and misinformation about how it was spread. Heterosexual contact too? Mosquitoes? Breathing the air? Simply touching someone?....Anyone who ever had sexual contact with anyone -- gay or straight -- was going over a checklist of their partners, and wondering.

And although the public unfortunately did not rally enmasse in solidarity on the issue, most people (aside from the right-wing "Christians,&quot with any sense of human decency had some compassion for its victims when the ravages were exposed, especial;ly when celebrities like Rock Hudson were revealed.

And it was well known at the time that Reagan did NOT take the lead to start any kind of conversation on it. Just the opposite.


FULL QUOTE BELOW:

"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 that I really appreciate with her very effective, low-key advocacy, but it penetrated the public conscious, and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too.'"

[Skwmom]

1. Great description of Clinton.

" Toss a bunch of words and explanations at you, and you walk away going "Wow. She sure knows a lot." "

I've known people like this which is why her laundry list of items in the debates has never impressed me.

She has been part of one monumental f.u. after another and when that among other things is pointed out in the general election the Democrats are in serious trouble. We will become known as the corrupt and stupid party. It isn't only the Republican Party that has problems.

[Raster]

2. Hillary Clinton in a nutshell: If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance...

...then baffle them with your bullshit.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. The AIDs crisis was a perfect example of failed leadership.

Something that required a scientific approach to resolve was stumped and stopped by political concerns. Maybe in Hillary's circles it was a subject that was hard to talk about, but everyone else was looking for someone to take a leadership role on this one.

The kind of leader who is inadequate in resolving these kinds of crisis are the ones who wait for favorable polls. Republicans are no good at it either, because they would use it to shut down borders.

[FlatBaroque]

4. She said it because that is how she gains favor with the royal class.

That's why the CLinton's worked so hard to befriend the Bush clan. That is how they gain favor.

[KPN]

5. Yup!

That characteristic is a huge turn off to many.

[karynnj]

6. You stated well why people reacted as they did to the statement

The combination of mischaracterizing the role of the Reagans, in a way that she as much as all of us who were adults at that time had to know was wrong and the condescending lead in was cringe worthy.

One problem is that either she intentionally lied where there was no reason to lie or she mentally rewrites history and then ends up believing the edited version. In a world, where understanding where others come from, including at least understanding narratives of other peoples even when they are negative towards the US, having an inability to distinguish things that provably happened and things that one might have wanted to happen is pretty serious.

It is the President who needs to weigh the alternatives brought to him by his advisers and others and then use his/her judgment and perspective based on history to make the final decision. Here, actual knowledge of details on esoteric issues is less important than being able to decide based on all the expert information.

[Waiting For Everyman]

7. She had already praised Nancy Reagan enough

she didn't have to "gild the lily". But Hillary never seems to know when "enough" is reached and that goes to EXTREMELY BAD JUDGEMENT on a very basic level.

That's kind of a problem. (massive understatement)

She is NOT as qualified as she wants to pretend, not even close. Additionally most of her resume rests on being married to Bill. She probably would not have been a Senator or Secretary of State as say, Hillary Smith.

Look at the email thing. Again, bad judgement, and incompetence. She makes a mistake that almost no one would make. And now we find that it may be covering up a shadow State Department.

I think she's going to get busted, in addition to being incompetent, and a habitual liar.

So yes, I agree with you, this gaffe does reflect a larger problem beyond that issue.