I'm not sure I buy that, Jay. There is no one running for president who can match Hillary's fierce intellect, her breadth of experience or depth of knowledge of the political system. It was a mistake, but it was not just a gaffe. Or exhaustion. Or the oft-repeated "misspoken" statement. While I, respectfully, reject Borstal's assertion that this is another illustration of Hillary's supposed deference to the party elite or to special interests, now that I think about it, I do think it is is illustrative of something that cuts to the core of Hillary. She is, as she often says, a pragmatic progressive.
Hillary's argument was that, despite her husband's administration's abject failure and refusal to acknowledge the magnitude of the AIDS crisis, Nancy Reagan quietly (and only when absolutely convenient to her) occasionally advocated for more compassionate treatment of the crisis. And, in a couple of isolated incidents - like supposedly pushing her husband to appoint one openly gay doctor to an AIDS panel in the late 80s - she might have done that. Of course, we all know that a couple of isolated incidents do not discount the fact that the Reagans' true legacy on the AIDS crisis may be found in graveyards across this country.
The problem is, Hillary is looking at the AIDS crisis from Nancy Reagan's perspective instead of of from the perspective of the millions of Americans impacted. Hillary's probably never been the first to say or do anything (except for, possibly be the first woman President!). She believes in incremental change. Bernie believes in (some will argue, the way children believe in fairy tales) revolutionary change. For all the talk about Wall Street and paid speeches and campaign finance reform, this is really what the Democratic race for the White House is about: incremental vs. revolutionary change.
Updated On: 3/11/16 at 07:42 PM