Ben Smith is one of the finest political observers in American politics. His daily column on politico.com is a must read to keep on top of the upcoming presidential election. He constantly has new information that impacts the dialogue in the race. This week he uncovered an exchange regarding federal funding for needle exchange between an HIV/AIDS activist and Senator Hillary Clinton that took place in April of this year.

In that exchange, Senator Clinton stated that she opposed funding for needle exchange programs because the political climate wasn't right. Both former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have supported needle exchange.

Now before proceeding, let’s be very clear about the importance of needle exchange programs. For those of us who have worked to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic over the last two decades, needle exchange is a basic component in any robust HIV/AIDS prevention program. By a wide margin, experts agree that providing clean needles to IV drug users will save lives.

In fact, dirty needles shared by HIV-infected drug users are significant drivers behind still alarming infection rates in the United States. Those working in prevention programs have fought long and hard to win federal support for live-saving exchange programs.

Even President Clinton's own administration, under HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, found that needle exchange programs were effective in slowing the spread of HIV after an extensive review of available data and scientific evidence.

The exchange between Senator Clinton and HIV/AIDS housing activist Charles King took place in April of this year at an event partially sponsored by a local SEIU chapter. Charles King is a man that many of us hold in great respect for his tireless work combating this epidemic. He is a passionate and committed activist.

When King asked Senator Clinton the question about federal funding for needle exchange, this was Clinton’s response according to Ben Smith:

"Clinton responded to King's question, after some prodding, by saying, ‘I want to look at the evidence on it’ to see whether needle exchange would prevent the spread of HIV without increasing drug abuse.

Shalala, King responded, had ‘certified’ the safety and effectiveness of the programs.

‘And then she refused to order it, as you remember,’ Clinton said.

King replied that had been her husband's decision.

‘Well, because we knew we couldn't maintain it politically,’ Clinton said, and went on to discuss the trade-offs in that dispute with Congress. ‘I wish life and politics were easier,’ she said.

King then referred back to Clinton's opening remarks.

‘You made a great comment earlier about how our next president needs to have some spine,’ he said.

‘We’ll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances,’ Clinton responded"

This is not a political game. It is a serious public health issue. One can easily compare Senator Clinton’s position to contrived positions around condom distribution or stem cell research, in which politics trump evidence-based science. The Senator, by taking this stand, once again proves that she is a Washington insider who plays it safe no matter what the consequence. We have seen it in her position on the war and we see it in needle exchange.