John Oliver on Hillary Clinton’s HIV/AIDS gaffe

[NWCorona]

"The fact Hillary Clinton didn’t know that is a little weird. It’s strange to forget something so fundamental about a person. It’s like forgetting Cookie Monster’s thoughts on cookies or Sir Mix A Lot’s opinions on big butts. A president is supposed to know this stuff.”

That's pretty much the whole article but the qoute sums it up nicely. Hillary should have known this and said something else nice about Nancy.


http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/03/john-oliver-on-hillary-clintons-hivaids-gaffe/

[tabasco]

1. She was pandering to republicans and lying to do it.

She knows goddamn well what the Reagans did with AIDS and she lied about it anyway.

[NWCorona]

3. I happen to agree

I don't think Hillary thought she'd be called out as fast and to the extreme as she was.

[UglyGreed]

7. There it is

[Funtatlaguy]

2. Why is Andrea Mitchell Greenspan not criticized?

Was she even listening to her own interview with Hillary?
Why wouldn't she follow up with something like....
"That's a very interesting comment. Did you really mean to say Hiv/Aids and not Alzheimer's.
Since it's common knowledge that President Reagan was widely criticized in some circles for not responding early enough to the Aids crisis?"

Follow up questions, my dear media friends.
They are important.
Listen closely to what your interview subject says.
If they dodge the subject, ask it again.
If, like in this instance, you think they made a mistake, give the subject a chance to clarify it.
This is taught in every journalism school.

[NWCorona]

4. I think your question is the answer

As to why people don't trust main stream media anymore.

[farleftlib]

6. You're kidding right?

It's the interviewer's fault that Hillary told a big fat whopper of a lie? It's not the responsibility of a reporter to keep someone from making a huge ass of themselves if that's what they're determined to do.

And yes, there are certain basic interview methods taught in school. They stopped being used decades ago. Politicians have been able to lie with impunity for years and that's the only reason they agree to do these interviews.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. No, I'm not kidding.

I about swallowed my tongue when I heard Hillarys answer.
It was stunningly false.
It was just wrong.
Almost any new reporter, much less an experienced one, would have followed up.

Not to get Hillary off the hook, but just out of amazement if nothing else.

Not Andreas fault for HillRys insane comment.
But, I just can't believe that Andrea wasn't stunned enuf to followup.

[farleftlib]

9. I see what you mean

But most reporters in general, and Ms Mitchell in particular, are so used to giving a pass to whatever bullcrap is being promoted on any given day that they have lost their capacity to be shocked. They know it's coming and they play dutiful stenographer. I would have swallowed my own tongue, but that's just me.

Sorry if I came off snarky, I just "misread" what you wrote.

[Funtatlaguy]

10. No problem

It was just so outrageously wrong.
I just can't believe it didn't stun Andrea.
Maybe a producer was talking to her in her IFB and Andrea didn't really hear Hillarys comment.
That's the only slack I will give Andrea.
As for Hillary, she either had a brain freeze or just somehow misremembered the early years of the Aids crisis. Still, just utterly amazing.

[Mosby]

5. Someone sent out a series of tweets that made a lot of sense

Found it:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/12/11210044/clinton-reagan-hiv-aids-lgbt

That Bob Hope joke, I'm speechless. How was that ever funny? I bet there were a lot of prominent Dems in the crowd that thought it was funny just like the Reagans did.