Would it be disparaging to show the ‘receipts’ as Gawker likes to say?

Do you think prisoner rights groups don’t go there?

woo cheap labor!

Me too. I’ve tried to look at any possible angle here - I just find it mind boggling.

The weird part about this is that it doesn’t look good either way. They were “thoughtful remarks” in that what she said was on purpose—she had a thesis and defended it. Even if this was ‘off the cuff,’ she was saying something she believed, which is really awful and devastating.

The weird and most hopeful…

How did this happen, then?

I’m not ruling that out. She still has time to earn my vote, but some of her remarks are beyond the pale.

She literally said “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”

The outcome of the ‘voter scandal’ was a pending lawsuit, and the DNC trying to save face. The staffer who made the error was suggested by the DNC, by the way, and he was fired immediately.

She shouldn’t have said anything about Nancy and the Reagans’ devastating apathy toward the epidemic. It was weird.

It’s odd in context, though too. The Reagan administration literally laughed while thousands of people died.

It was a good joke

This apology doesn’t explain why she said such a thing in the first place. How long has she believed the Reagan’s brought about a “national conversation on AIDS’? How did she come to that belief?

What a real apology would look like:

I also don’t buy her revision; she was saying Reagan was a cultural, if understated leader in making AIDS a public conversation. What could that possibly have to do with funding stem cell research?

OK then

Given the words she actually said about starting a conversation about AIDS, I still just don’t get how this maps.

Like was she asleep during the ‘80s?

No one would have known about it if his father didn’t make public statements.

I would, however, not recommend he choose you to represent him if this is the case.