Barack Obama has always spoken well and wisely about the challenges posed by the HIV/AIDS crisis, and about the opportunity the United States has to address them.

Two years ago on World AIDS Day, before he was a candidate for the presidency, Obama delivered a remarkable speech at the "2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the Church" at California's Saddleback Church. As part of his remarks, the senator said:

We are all sick because of AIDS - and we are all tested by this crisis. It is a test not only of our willingness to respond, but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response. When you go to places like Africa and you see this problem up close, you realize that it's not a question of either treatment or prevention - or even what kind of prevention - it is all of the above. It is not an issue of either science or values - it is both. Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds; in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist; neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

A year later, on another World AIDS Day, Obama was running what was then seen as an uphill campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. He maintained his race-against-time urgency, describing the day as "a time to stay focused on the task ahead - stopping the spread of this disease once and for all."

Then Obama got specific:

That is what I will fight to do as President. As part of my comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy, we'll provide $50 billion by 2013 to fight the pandemic, and contribute our fair share to the Global Fund. I'll work to dispel the stigma surrounding this disease, which is what Michelle and I tried to do by taking a public HIV test in Kenya a while back. I'll expand the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief by $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years so we can reach more people in places like Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic is growing. We'll make sure medications developed with taxpayer dollars are available as generics in developing countries - because a person shouldn't be denied life-saving drugs just because we can't find a way to reform our patent laws. And we'll work to eliminate the extreme poverty that permits HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria to flourish by doubling our foreign assistance from $25 billion per year to $50 billion per year by 2012.

But leadership on HIV/AIDS has to start at home. We recently learned that our nation's capital has the highest AIDS infection rate of any city in this country. That is an outrage. It's time to launch a national effort to stop this disease, starting with African Americans, who are being affected disproportionately.

We cannot give the boy back the parents he lost or the woman back the future she had dreamed of. But what we can do is prevent any more suffering. What's stopping us is not a lack of knowledge or resources, but a lack of will. And until we -- as Americans and as human beings -- summon the will to end this moral crisis, the conscience of our nation cannot rest.

On this World AIDS Day, Obama is no longer a senator speaking at a church.

Nor is he a candidate making promises.

He is the President-elect.

He has the power to move beyond words to deeds.

When Barack Obama takes his oath as the 44th president of the United States on January 20, 2009, he will face many urgent demands.

But the new president, and the nation he leads, ought never forget that Barack Obama the senator and candidate was right: AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

Comments (31)

1. This is one area where his many detrators give Bush the most credit. He has been very proactive and effective in aid to Africa. Obama would do well to continues Bush's successes here.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 08:34am

2. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 08:34am

   I believe he ALSO tried to push an "abstience-only" approach to fighting it....

   which as we saw from Bristol Palin (as well as numerous studies) has such a rousing success rate!

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 09:20am

3. Here is an article discussing President Bush's efforts to fight AIDS in Africa, for the various libs that will be posting in and ripping President Bush to shreds for ??? (don't see how he can be crucified on this one, but various The Nation lib bloggers will, you can almost guarantee it)

   Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa; Increase in Funding to Impoverished Continent Is Viewed as Altruistic or Pragmatic Publisher: The Washington Post By: Michael A. Fletcher First published: December 31, 2006

   http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/ article_index/ article_display.cfm?id=5755&style= large&SiteTopicRequest=17

   (link may contain blank spaces after upload to server, take them out before trying to call up article)

   And also a web page on the White House web site discussing this:

   http://www.whitehouse.gov /infocus/hivaids/

   Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 09:29am

4. Here is another one for you libs to look over as the lib venom begins to roll in (I see Mask, as always, has hopped in to the fray)

   President Bush, Closest Thing To A Black President? Posted on by Dr.Ethiopia

   http://abesha.wordpress.com/ 2008/01/30/ president-bush-closest-thing -to-a-black-president/

   Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 09:42am

5. Saying Bush "fought" AIDS is just like fawning over Princess Di for her "fight" against poverty....STUPID!

   At least SJ is here to provide us with blogs to back up his "opinion". I must be a lib! LOL!

   Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 10:06am

6. Hello, un-educated, starving, AIDS-infected indigenous African peoples, we have the solution to all of your AIDS related problems:

   Stop fucking!

   As always, I'm sure it was a solid approach with fantastic results.

   Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 10:09am

7. Excellent post by TexasFlood, redefining facts on the fly to fit the lib template (I gather TexasFlood is apparently not a lib, by the words above).

   Crucification of President Bush is a sore subject with me to begin with, but it grates on me the "change" that has taken place (in the media, see below)

   Worldview: Obama needs to focus on more than just bin Laden By Trudy Rubin

   http://www.philly.com/inquirer /columnists/trudy_rubin/ 20081123_Worldview__ Obama_needs_to_focus _on_more_than_just _bin_Laden.html

   Ms. Rubin says:

   "We are talking long term. It may take years before we nab al-Qaeda's No. 1, though we can hurt his organization badly in the meantime. Putting the public focus on catching bin Laden is setting ourselves up to fail."

   and

   "But it's much bigger than the effort to kill one man."

   and

   "So let's drop the rhetoric about catching bin Laden and start preparing Americans for what this struggle really entails."

   What a difference an election result makes!

   This subject has been cited over and over again as one of the big grinding wrongs George W. Bush has been accused of. (No doubt some lib has it down as an "impeachable offense" ) (No Mask or Malcontent, I don't have citations of that it just wouldn't surprise me if there were)

   Yet now that Barack Obama will be President, it will be OK if we don't get binLaden right away and if the war lasts a long time.

   What a difference an election result makes.

   I guess we really do have change - the 180 degree shift of some of the media regarding things!

   Back to AIDS, here is another article refuting the lib template of Mr. Bush

   George Bush: a good man in Africa http://www.guardian.co.uk /world/2008/ feb/15/georgebush.usa

   Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 10:22am

8. And here's the GAO on Bush's AIDS policy-

   http://www.washingtonpost.com /wp-dyn/ content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401628.html

   Not "liberal template"...the US Government's own General Accountability Office.

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 10:34am

9. Mask,

   I will call your Washington Post article and raise you another Washington Post article (poker analogy):

   Bush AIDS Plan Gets Bipartisan Praise

   By Michael A. Fletcher Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 31, 2007; Page A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article /2007/05/30/ AR2007053001403.html

   Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 10:48am

10. Hello, un-educated, starving, AIDS-infected indigenous African peoples, we have the solution to all of your AIDS related problems:

    Stop fucking!

    As always, I'm sure it was a solid approach with fantastic results.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 10:09am

    Speaking of uneducated, you'd be suprised at how informational this measage was. It was widely believed that the "cure" for AIDS was to have sex with a virgin. This led to the rape of countless pre-teen girls. Bush's approach wasn't abstinence only. But I supposed blind hatred makes that hard to see.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 10:57am

11. Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 10:48am

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 10:57am

    I'm citing the General Accountability Office of the United States Federal Government.

    Now, I realize both you guys have to try to salvage SOMETHING from the Dubya Years.....but the "ABC" plan was quite clearly labelled and the "A" stood for "abstinence", and studies showed that that does NOT work, either for prevention of HIV spread or to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 11:17am

12. Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 11:17am

    Uganda was one of the nations hardest hit, and it's leader implemented an abistinence first program and had great success. Look it up.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 11:50am

13. Mask,

    If you notice the date of your article and the date of my article you will notice that the Bipartisan Praise came after your GAO Report.

    So, if the program was no good (according to you) why did it get bipartisan praise? (rare for President Bush to get that at any time).

    Hmmm?

    Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2008 @ 12:14pm

14. The AIDS "fight" is worthless until people change the cause of AIDS-behavior.

    Whether it's homosexual sex, IV drug use, or prostitution, all are choices and thus AIDS is 100% preventable. But liberals hate the answer; they just want to see govt throw money at drugs that allow the behaviors to continue.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 12:33pm

15. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 11:50am

    I did look it up, Darin. Uganda's AIDS cases WERE dropping, from 15% to 8%...under a condom promotion idea.

    That was then dropped in 2005 and their HIV infection rates DOUBLED!

    Look it up-

    http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2007/07/uganda_the_cond.html

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 12:59pm

16. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 12:33pm

    I notice you didn't mention HETEROSEXUAL sex, LVLIB? Not even a passing mention of "sex outside of marriage".

    Oversight or still in the "Fallwell" mode that 'AIDS is God's punishment for fags and junkies'?

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 1:01pm

17. I notice you didn't mention HETEROSEXUAL sex, LVLIB? Not even a passing mention of "sex outside of marriage".

    Oversight or still in the "Fallwell" mode that 'AIDS is God's punishment for fags and junkies'?

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 1:01pm

    Because Heterosexual sex, except with prostitutes constitutes such a small percentage of cases. But I'm willing to include it to satisfy you Mask.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 1:06pm

18. lvliberty-Heterosexual sex is the number one way that people get AIDs.Close to two thirds of new cases are from heterosexual sex.AIDs is not 100% preventable and over two million children have it.It isn't just liberals who want to cure AIDs in order to keep engaging in higher risk sex or to use drugs .Many conservatives get AIDs and do things like have sex with many different people,commit adultery,use IV drugs,are homosexuals,etc.When it comes to sex and drugs there is no difference between liberals and conservatives.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/01/2008 @ 1:36pm

19. Posted by i'm nobody at 12/01/2008 @ 1:36pm

    Well, I will repeat my posting from Peter's thread

    Or people can change their behavior and see the rate of AIDS infection in the US and the world drop dramatically.

    Stop using and sharing needles.

    Stop visiting prostitutes

    Stop having homosexual sex -and also bisexuals who are infecting women.

    Heterosexual monogamous couples who do not use drugs through needles and have no previous sexual partners have a zero percent chance of contracting AIDS

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 1:39pm

20. lvliberty-Read my response to your post on Peter's thread.You have out of date views when it comes to AIDs.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/01/2008 @ 1:50pm

21. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 10:57am

    Yes, blind hatred.

    Trust me little man, I would never give that sort of thought, time, or energy to somebody as worthless as George Bush. To hate somebody would imply that I care about their existence.

    But you, like SJ, love to make assumptions, so assume away!

    Phrase of the year: Lib template! LOL!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 1:52pm

22. You don't want to give George Bush a pass, you must be an Amerika-hatin' librul!!

    Derrrrrr!

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 1:39pm

    LOL!!!!

    You clearly have done lots of research on the various sources of AIDS infections in the U.S.

    Jesus H. Christ, when was the last time you thought about what you post before you hit that submit key?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 1:58pm

23. Because Heterosexual sex, except with prostitutes constitutes such a small percentage of cases. But I'm willing to include it to satisfy you Mask.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 1:06pm

    Can I ask you to PLEASE make at least a cursory attempt to look things up before you say things that are 100% untrue?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:05pm

24. At least learn how to use an internet search engine. Even if it's wrong, or a bad source, at least you have some reason to peddle such abhorrent misinformation.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:06pm

25. Texas and IM,

    My data is correct and current. I have also outlined what further research shows about those incidents of those infected through heterosexual sex.

    You are the ones ignoring the facts.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

26. I think that the Sept 2008 report on the Center for Disease Control (CDC) website is pretty uptodate.

    http://tinyurl.com/5ghcj2

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 2:31pm

27. lvliberty-I just looked up the facts from several sources and posted those.Am not ignoring facts.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/01/2008 @ 2:35pm

28. The HIV/AIDS message has been preached for the better part of 20 years and still no one is listening.

    Posted by ACook at 12/01/2008 @ 2:49pm

29. lvliberty-I just looked up the facts from several sources and posted those.Am not ignoring facts.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/01/2008 @ 2:35pm

    Please show how the CDC is wrong when they show those most affected are:

    1. MSM (male sex with men) 34%

    2. High Risk heterosexual sex 31%

    3. IV Drug Use 15%

    Nowhere do I see any data that conflicts with my statements.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:18pm

30. 1. MSM (male sex with men) 34%

    2. High Risk heterosexual sex 31%

    3. IV Drug Use 15%

    Nowhere do I see any data that conflicts with my statements.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:18pm

    Because Heterosexual sex, except with prostitutes constitutes such a small percentage of cases.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 1:06pm

    31% is "a small percentage"?!?!??

    (Wait, before you leap, the CDC doesn't say "prostitution", it says "high risk", which would include not using condoms!)

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 3:31pm

31. AIDS is a communicable disease that requires closer personal contact ("bodily fluids") or intrusion (blood transfusion, dirty needles etc.)unlike other epizootics such as the Spanish Flu in 1919 which was no respecter of persons or social status.

    Available evidence indicates AIDS spreads more extensively in some populations than others and in widely divergent geographical areas. (Africa, Washington DC and San Francisco, CA).

    The reasonable conclusion is that the spread of AIDS is directly related to cultural practices.

    Moralists are correct when they assert that AIDS could be controlled if people did not engage in various sexual practices and arrangements or in illegal drug use. But figurative chastity belts don't work to overcome cultural practices and the universal drive to reproduce.

    A man who sees nothing wrong with having unprotected sex with multiple wives or girlfriends and prostitutes to boot isn't going to change his practices because of a lecture on sexual morality. If that is all it took, AIDS would not be a problem today.

    As hard, frustrating, and difficult as it is, efforts have to continue to stem the spread of AIDS by practical methods such as condoms, even if such devices are viewed a morally unacceptable by some. There really isn't an alternative.

    I know some moralists and religious types hate to hear this, but people have sex. That is how humanity continues to exist on the earth. The powerful will to reproduce, regardless how it is described, is not going to be frustrated by moral lectures or religious rules.

    Posted by jsens at 12/02/2008 @ 11:25am