On Clinton’s Apology

Rob Tisinai

March 12th, 2016

I didn’t realize what a strong Clinton supporter I was until her words on Nancy Reagan kicked me so hard in the gut. I’ve been wondering since why her terse apology seems so inadequate, almost insulting. I have a few ideas.

First, it rings false. It does not sound like she “misspoke.” Misspeaking is when you think “Wynona” and say “Wyoming.” This was more than that — articulate, specific fulsome praise that was wrong from beginning to end. Did she simply mean to say “Alzheimer’s” rather than “HIV/AIDS”? Then why did she refer to the 1980s rather than the 1990s, when Ms. Reagan’s Alzheimer’s advocacy begin? This was no slip of the tongue; it was an extended falsity.

But even if it was misspeaking rather than ignorance or calculated centrist pandering, the apology is inadequate to the offense. Too many of us remember when AIDS was literally a laughing matter at White House press conferences during the Reagan Administration. Too many of us remember, as Cleve Jones does, bumper stickers reading, “AIDS. Killing all the right people,” being sold outside Republican political conventions. Too many of us remember the inexplicable Reagan silence while those we loved were sickening, wasting, and dying.

So it’s not enough for Clinton to acknowledge a simple blunder of words, even if that’s all it was. When you make a simple blunder that rips open old wounds that can never really heal, rubs salt in them, and reignites their grievous pain, it’s not enough to merely acknowledge the blunder. Your apology must address the pain you’ve brought on that followed. It must be a salve equal to the injury. If you care about the people you’ve hurt, it must make this attempt. Clinton’s apology tweet does none of that.

I’m not going to change my vote over this. I’ll probably continue viewing Sanders as the idealist who belongs in the Senate, pushing the doers to be better doers, while viewing the pragmatic Clinton as the tough compromiser who can get things done. But I can still wish she’d stop reinforcing – with her own errors! – the idea that she’s a soulless political machine who views gays and other Americans as blocs of votes rather than actual human beings.

BradFagan

March 12th, 2016

Here, Here!
Thank you Rob. I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. But I have to go all the way and say it is positively political pandering; plain and simple. And a twatted ‘misspoken’ apology, isn’t even close to being enough for all the damage that was done. Personally, I felt my heart drop and then I was livid.
She courted HRC for their endorsement and therefore she thinks she has everyone in the LGBTQ community, steadfastly in her pocket? Give me a break. Well, Hillary is wrong. She was WAY-out-there-wrong about Nancy, and she’s wrong to be so smug and certain that she has this all sewn up.
Feel the Bern.

Lucrece

March 12th, 2016

Obama is an idealist, and he compromised anyways. Compromising is sort of the only option when you don’t own the House and Senate.

To think that Sanders would keep the country in gridlock while Clinton would get solutions is silly. Most of the policy making is done in Congress; the President is little more than a PR suit with the power to issue executive orders and veto bills he knows can’t get an override.

I know as a Sanders supporter that he’s not funded by banks and corporate university interests.

Priya Lynn

March 12th, 2016

So, what was it Clinton said that you didn’t like?

Rob Tisinai

March 12th, 2016

Priya: http://gawker.com/hillary-clintons-reagan-aids-revisionism-is-shocking-i-1764346878

Gene in L.A.

March 12th, 2016

I was there in the 80’s (and before) too. I’m almost as shocked by the emotional responses virtually untempered by intellect as I was by what she said. Too many Americans, including I’m afraid too many of us, have become too unforgiving of the trespasses of others. I take Clinton at her word that she misspoke. Sincerity matters more than degree. Doubting her sincerity would be one thing; calling her apology “inadequate to the offense” is quite another.

Ben in oakland

March 12th, 2016

I I think muchthink much the same, Gene.

Is Hillary perfect? Absolutely not. But she is light years ahead of her republican competition. I like Bernie a lot, but I don’t think that he will make it to the presidency.

Priya Lynn

March 12th, 2016

Yes, I don’t think Hillary deserves to be beat up over this.

JohnInTheBayArea

March 12th, 2016

A politician said something outright wrong, and before the sun went down issued an apology and admitted she was wrong.

Man, it has been a while since I have seen that kind of behavior.

I think we should be encouraging this sort of behavior, not discouraging it.

Daniel

March 13th, 2016

I agree 100%. You said what I feel as well.

Lord_Byron

March 13th, 2016

It was also false of her to praise Nancy’s advocacy for stem cell research. The only reason she started advocating for it was when it became apparent to everyone that Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s.

Kind of tangential, and I’m not sure how accurate this is, but on a different blog someone mentioned how many of the items that Nancy chose to include in the display at the memorial library were gifts from right-wing dictators.

I wonder, now that Nancy is gone, if this will stop the cult of Reagan from defying them or if it will become worse.

Al Raymond

March 13th, 2016

Whatever Clinton’s faults—and the fact that (to me, anyway) Sanders usually says the right thing—let’s be realistic.

Even assuming Sanders is nominated and elected, by next January 20th he will be five years OLDER than Reagan (so far the oldest man to be elected president) was at his first inaugural in ’81, and I suspect Reagan was getting dementia even before he left office. Maybe Sanders will live to be 100+ and keep all his “marbles” to his last day, but the odds are against it.

So I think Clinton and Sanders should make the same deal Kennedy and Johnson made in 1960. If Clinton is nominated, Sanders as VP could add good, solid planks to the Democrats’ platform, and if they are elected he would be President of the Senate and able to break a tie vote on some major issues.

If Sanders (against current odds) is nominated, Clinton as his VP would reassure voters that she has the relative youth and experience to take over if he should die or be incapacitated in office; and of course she’d also be President of the Senate.

What’s the alternative?—The RAPE-publicans! So let’s drop our ad hominem (or is it ad feminam?) criticisms and find a way to unite the Democrats!

enough already

March 14th, 2016

If a male politician had made such a bad mistake as Hillary did and then corrected himself whilst apologizing – all within 8 hours! – we’d be praising him.
Instead, we’re tearing her to pieces.
Enough with the SJW and PC-Nazi approach.
Hillary is electable. Bernie, sadly is not. Elizabeth isn’t interested.
She’s capable of apology when wrong. In my book, that’s immeasurably preferable to Drumpf, 卐Cruz卐, Marcobot or Kasick.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.