jump to navigation

I Hate Hillary Clinton 29 June 2007

Posted by Todd in HIV/AIDS, Political Commentary.

In the most recent round of babbling Democratic presidential hopefuls, Ms. Clinton let loose this gem, yet another in her long line of back-handed, veiled anti-gay-to-get-the-anti-gay-vote bullshit (quoted in Salon.com):

–On the number of black teenagers diagnosed with HIV/AIDS: “This is a multiple-dimension problem. But if we don’t begin to take it seriously and address it the way we did back in the ’90s when it was primarily a gay men’s disease, we will never get the services and the public education that we need.”

So in addition to prevaricating her position on gay rights over the past couple of years and speaking out of both sides of her mouth, and saying downright homophobic things about same-sex marriage and then appearing at gay events expecting gay people to fawn all over her–in addition to all of that, she misremembers history.

Who is this “we” who paid attention to AIDS, Madam Senator? It was the gay men and women who were in the streets, protesting, shouting, and demanding to be heard. It was the gay men and women who started the very organizations and research projects that are now addressing the global problem, even though gay men’s issues were basically shut out of the most recent world aids conference in Canada. It was not the government and it was barely any “liberals” in America. The “we” who paid attention to AIDS were the “we” who were dying. You, Madam Senator, don’t get to say “we” when talking about AIDS, no matter how many of your hair dressers or interior designers died.

She’s a panderer. She panders to the black vote by appealing to their homophobia; but tomorrow she’s be pandering to gay people talking about how much she loves them; then the next day she’ll be pandering to the anti-gay-marriage bigots but affirming her belief that “real” marriage is between a man and a woman.

Why gay people (let alone blacks and marriage-fascists) still even give this woman the time of day is beyond me.



1. MoHoHawaii - 29 June 2007

I’m with you on this one. The era of being able to expect unconditional political support from one’s gay constituency is over.

If it comes to it, I’ll hold my nose and vote for HRC in the general election to prevent another Republican debacle like Bush. But for now I give money to Sen. Obama. He’s a panderer as well, but far less divisive than Sen. Clinton and far less “Nixonian.”

2. Eric - 29 June 2007

I’m not advocating or defending her comments, but this kind of pandering is prett indicative of politicians in general. There’s not a one of them who stand a chance of getting the White House I fully expect to help us. In fact, I think our next President, even with majorities in the House and Senate, will likely attempt to squelch any equal treatment laws (like repealing Doma/DADT or enacting even ENDA). They’re going to just forget we exist. Again.
Meanwhile, I’m praying the country’s ready for a Jewish New Yorker to be president since Gov. Spitzer has proved to be a man of his word.

3. ted - 10 July 2007

I can’t believe I’ve spent today defending this lady, but it was Bill (and Hillary) Clinton who had the first PWA speak at a national convention, created the job of the AIDS czar, and, if I remember correctly, Clinton mentioned AIDS in the first 100 words of his acceptance speech in 1992. Before she started pandering to the right while a senator, she and her husband were pretty awesome on AIDS. She did not march with ACT-UP, but saying she has no right to say she did something isn’t fair.

4. Todd - 12 July 2007

I can’t believe it either, Ted. Surely, by they early 1990s, the Clintons were relatively solid on gay issues. But read her quote again. What the fuck is she talking about? By the time some liberal straight politicos got on board, there had been 10 years of gay men and women screaming their heads off for someone to pay attention, establishing community-level efforts to save ourselves, funding research and hospice care, etc. The way she said that, to appeal to the homophobia of her audience and to pit gay men against black men is reprehensible. Fuck her.

5. ted - 16 July 2007

I don’t think that quote shows her trying to pit gay men against black men or appealing to her audience’s homophobia. There’s nothing in the diction or the syntax in the quote that does anything remotely as sinister as you seem to think. And if she changed the word “we” (which could mean “Americans,” “folks,” “people,” or “Bill and I”) to “public health activists,” her point would be dead on. She’s right about the need to treat AIDS in the black community as seriously as it has been treated in the gay community. She’s a creepy lady, but I really think you picked the wrong quote to use against her.

6. Stenar - 27 July 2007

Complaining about Reagan’s and Bush Sr.’s lack of response to the issue of AIDS is not a fair assessment of what the Clintons did on the issue. The Clintons were not in power in the 1980s.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: