Hillary's comment about AIDS and white women was egregious pandering.

If it were true that the government would rush in to do something if it were white women dying in the same age group and numbers of AA women why hasn't the government "rushed in" to do anything about the many diseases that effect ALL women, including "white" women, such as breast cancer and heart disease? The inequality of medical care between women and men has been a well known disgrace forever.Hillary lost some of the new found respect I had garnered from her last Debate.I think this was shameless and as a woman, I am offended.

who take them seriously.

My wife usually does, but she won't tolerate anything else. But I've seen it too many times. Doctors tend to treat women dismissively, and I think that's a symptom of the greater problem.

So Clinton was leaning on a false premise all the way around. Not surprising, really, since she's rich and famous and she doesn't really know how it works on the ground.

in general. But the situation would have been viewed as more of an emergency if heterosexual white women had been dying in great numbers, as oppposed to gay men, black women, and drug users.

And it doesn't matter what color they are.The government isn't rushing in.

attention re "female mortality problems" - and the vast majority of breast cancer deaths is at the retirement ages and later.

And while that attention given breast cancer is minimal, it was more than Aids got for many years.

It's one of the most highly funded diseases in America.

just a 15 years ago when I was motivated to try to find what was the latest.

So, no, it got less attention than AIDS which was first recognized in the early 80s. I'd say 10 years vs 40 years.

40 years to get up to speed because, in my opinion, of the fact that it is mainly a post retirement problem. The early age deaths we now hear about always occurred - but they remain few in number - and early on bias in research - my opinion of course - accepted post retirement/near retirement breast cancer deaths as not that important.

The above is quite simplified of course as, indeed, Cancer was chemo/x-ray/removal and hope for the best for many years - with the chemo not working usually - colon cancer in last 5-6 years finally got some effective treatments and perhaps Breast Cancer non-action was the result of the general lack of funding for basic science research in the non-drug areas like cancer.

(1) Right or wrong, pandering or not, she was echoing what many African-Americans believe.

(2) It's arguable to say that the inequality of the medical care available for minorities compared to what's available to white Americans - economically speaking - is a deeper and more complex problem than that of men vs. women. She was speaking to that, and in that context, that also hit home.

She was only "wrong" if you assume all things are equal. They are not.

AA medical care may be a race issue but Hillary made it about AA women with an unfair contrast.The government is not helping ANY women.But I guess she doesnt know that!

In bold:

Right or wrong, pandering or not, she was echoing what many African-Americans believe.

Telling people what they WANT to hear, without regard to the truth, is the definition of pandering.

You're also a little misguided about this:

It's arguable to say that the inequality of the medical care available for minorities compared to what's available to white Americans - economically speaking - is a deeper and more complex problem than that of men vs. women. She was speaking to that, and in that context, that also hit home. She was only "wrong" if you assume all things are equal. They are not.

No one disputes the first part of your point -- that there are many reasons blacks and other minorities are disadvantaged re healthcare. But if she wanted to speak to that, she didn't have to state that white women are getting such great healthcare and such great attention from research funding because we are NOT.

AFAIC, her comment was spoken like some terribly misguided and misogynist man, not a woman who's even a little familiar with the INequalities for ALL women in the field of medicine and healthcare.

Hell, I don't even know if the practice of totally excluding women from medical trials for drugs -- which will nevertheless be prescribed for women -- simply because our biology is more complicated still goes on or not. Probably does -- why wouldn't it without some law getting passed to mandate it?

Your offhand dismissal of the opinions and concerns of an entire group of people, who believe that they are at a disadvantage when it comes to medical care, seems to underline Clinton's point, doesn't it? Their health concerns don't matter to you, either.

And where did Clinton "state" that "white women are getting such great healthcare and such great attention from research funding." Did she say that? I was responding to what was in the OP. If she said that, please quote it precisely, and I and others can address what she actually said.

rich white Republican guys.

I do recognize your point (OP) though... women get short-shrifted in the doctor's office, and a lot of other places too (the auto dealer for example). I didn't find it to be offensive pandering though.

But, touché.

in this case blacks. Bill was a master too.

the good ones anyway.

wome " more action would be taken. Not so.Many things effect "white women" and "al"l women and little is done.That is the point!

If white women had Aids, they would be communicating the disease to white men. It would then be the white men who would be pushing for a cure.

Imagine what it would be like if, before a white guy jumped into bed with some hot blonde, he seriously felt he had to think "Uh-oh, what if she has HIV?"

You bet we'd get a cure.

AIDS research has received tens of billions of dollars in funding, and has some of the best scientists in the world working on it. They haven't found a cure because *they haven't found a cure*, not because white men have told them to ignore it. Suggesting that there's a massive worldwide conspiracy to stop AIDS research is just stupid. And in case you hadn't noticed, it affects plenty of white people too.

You have a really vivid imagination. Here, for your reading pleasure, is what she actually said, and it comes nowhere close to what you read into it (worldwide conspiracy, white men told them to ignore AIDS):

Imagine what it would be like if, before a white guy jumped into bed with some hot blonde, he seriously felt he had to think "Uh-oh, what if she has HIV?"

You bet we'd get a cure.

Plus, you can't deny that most white men -- including Reagan -- ignored the problem for years because it mostly only affected gay men.

Does the phrase "Eight years of Ronald Reagan" ring any bells?

I think that's your foot, in your mouth. (I'm referring to "The Wraith")

ages 25-34."

This is the only cohort of women the media and much of the establishment even wants to recognize. They're the women that men in our society are supposed to fantasize about. I give her credit for recognizing this, and that because of these facts, panic would ensue if AIDS were a major health problem for them. Not even because we'd be so solicitous of the women, but because of its effect on advertising and other media assumptions.

DU-ers who support the white man in the race - think themselves better and more astute than that particular crowd? :shrug:

I'm being very diplomatic today.

Hillary is just extrapolating from the "if it's blonde, let it run," philosophy of t.v., so she's right.

And the poster is also right. Too many valid female ailments are brushed off as "being in their head."

I focused on "white women," but, of course, there was reason to mention that age group. The ones most sexually desirable to men. So older white women join the ranks of the neglected in terms of medical research. Her remark doesn't seem so annoying with that perspective.

posing as progressive candidates....

If we can't solve every problem equally perfectly all at once then we don't get to talk about any of them?

is something only a white woman could get away with. I give her credit for knowing the angles, but I also credit you for seeing through the bullshit.

if there are people here who take strong exception to it, there were plenty of others in the listening audience.

i couldn't agree more.

you'll notice she had nothing to say about Gravel's remarks on the "war on drugs". Gravel said the policy discriminated against blacks, especially poor inner city blacks and that drug use and drug addiction should be treated like a public health issue rather than a criminal issue.

the Queen of Triangulation wouldn't go within a million miles of that one. It's politically safe to call for more money for AIDS research and tell an audience of black people that whites get all the funding; it's leadership to do something about a policy that results in so many blacks getting thrown in jail.

as for your point about the government not adequately funding diseases that affect ALL women, while I totally agree there is no excuse for it, I see the issue less in terms of gender inequity (although that is absolutely the case) but more in terms of a much broader problem. i'm no expert on the medical research field but I do know that many diseases receive almost no funding at all. i do know that we have a bloated military budget that literally starves programs that should be used to help the American people. I do know that we've seen the insanity of certain religious wackos who fight against stem cell research that could lead to cures for many diseases.

So, while I totally agree with the discriminatory nature of federal funding for disease research between men and women, my focus is that ALL research suffers from a greedy military-industrial complex that devours a wildly inappropriate amount of federally funding. The inequities you cited need to be addressed to be sure but the larger objective should be to choose the right priorities in the federal budget. We shouldn't be left fighting over the crumbs that remain after mega-defense contractors take their lion's share. Right now, the priorities put profits before people. Until we have publically funded campaigns and until we elect people who are courageous enough to stand up to the mega-lobbies, we can point out all the inequities we want to but nothing will change. Nothing.

she got a good zinger off, and the crowd responded, they liked what she said, whether you did or not. Of course it was pandering, but that's how you get elected. Politics is sound bites in this day and age.

there's not much point in trying to discuss anything with you ... nothing will change in this country as long as we continue to accept that type of garbage from our candidates ...

so I guess that's where we differ.

Pandering: When a centrist/DLC/Clinton says something true
Speaking truth to power: When a "progressive" says something true.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, the Coulter hate can only go so far....
You know, there's a lot Hillary says and does that warrants criticism (like having voted for the war bill your candidate SPONSORED). This is NOT one of them - she was right on - and Edwards operatives on DU are getting truly off base.

The reaction from the media would have been:

Playing the victim/commiseration/race card, not talking about responsibility, whipping the crowd into a frenzy and not offering concrete solutions, old-style liberal fast food from Mr. New Politics.

And do you seriously think this is something she will say in front of white audiences? The answer is no, and that's what makes it pandering.

I think what Hillary said was on the money. Too many people still think of AIDS as a "gay men's" disease, not realizing it has shifted to people of color, sometimes because of IV drug use, but not exclusively. Not using condoms is the main culprit. Young women MUST learn to be able to say, no glove no love. Unfortunately now sex ed in schools emphasize abstinence not safe sex.

I also think she said it not to pander to a black audience but because she is a woman and cognizant of women's health issues.

Some people here will bash Hillary reflexively.

"If we don't begin to take it seriously and address it the way we did back in the 90's when it was primarily a gay mens' disease, we will never get the services and public education we need."

Hillary seemed to have dissed both white women aged 25-34 and gay men in her efforts to pander to the black women in the audience before her.

Universal, affordable healthcare for all would solve this problem. If we can get to single payer through the types of plans both Edwards and Obama have put forth, all Americans would be able to get the healthcare they need and deserve. It is probably the only way we can get there without public financing of federal elections.

and the issue was elevated to high priority during his presidency - as well as after.

They gave her a standing ovation and no one else.

So are you saying the audience last night is stupid?

Sounded like she was saying the government put more money into AIDS when it was considered a gay men's disease. The reality is, the government only began taking AIDS seriously when it was recognized as a threat to heterosexuals. I thought it sounded like pandering too. It wasn't stated, of course, but the heterosexual black community has often thought of the gay (men's) community as being white and affluent. Anyone who is a member of the gay community knows that's a crock.

and she was spot on, I hope she keeps smacking these points around.

on breast caner than on prostate cancer.

This year 218,890 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. By comparison, 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women. Not a huge difference, but a new report finds that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there are seven used to treat breast cancer, and federal spending on breast cancer research outpaces prostate cancer spending by a ratio of nearly two to one.

The National Prostate Cancer Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington, released the report, titled "The Prostate Cancer Gap: A Crisis in Men's Health." It examines what the group calls "glaring disparities" in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research between prostate and breast cancer, even though prostate cancer is the second-deadliest cancer in men after lung cancer. "Year after year, the prostate cancer community has received less attention and less funding than many other diseases," says Dr. Richard Adkins, chief executive office and vice-chairman of the prostate cancer coalition.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070612_953676.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_science

and the national attention white women get when missing. There is a bias that is obvious. http://meeting.jco.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/18_suppl/603

I saw the line

I thought it was good

I didn't see it as pandering

Maybe because I have no 'favorite' in the race yet.

Seems more like we have a Hillary opponent who just can't stand the fact that Hillary has yet again put on a stellar debate performance....

grasp at straws.

The feign outrage has gone from amusing to downright stupid

Cancer kills more people than AIDS. Outcry or not, a cure for cancer doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon.

It was pure, divisive racial pandering.

I mean, what the hell is she proposing? Free condoms? Many cities have that already. Give me a fucking break.

Oh right NAFTA and Welfare Reform.

About what a caring sensitive person he is. Puh-fucking-leeze.

health issues were undertaken and passed during the Big Dawgs 8 years. To say she has done nothing is way off.....What happened to the Health Care she was working on, it was not because some organization ran ads it was the right wing talking against it and the no balls democrats that took the knife and rammed it in the back of HRC and WJC....
We got too damn many, as BArtCop calls them PINK TUTU democrats....
I do thank you
Ben David

"If only White, straight MEN got AIDS the government would rush in to do something!"

Just like Viagra is covered by the Feds but Abortions and Birth Control aren't...

n/t