Actually, Jackson did not run in 1992. And even if he had, the claim makes no tactical sense at all: Even in the 1940s, no politician in New York would have dared to anger black voters. (That point drives the plot of His Girl Friday.)
What actually happened was this: Sister Souljah had made an explicitly racist -- even genocidal -- remark encouraging the mass murder of white people: "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Clinton quite properly called her on her BS, and the black community understood.
Under the Clinton Rules, Bill wasn’t just condemning a couple of racist statements, he was intentionally and cynically exploiting racial fears in order to distance himself from Jackson and the African American community. In the mind of Gwen Ifill, he was only condemning “reverse racism” (not racism) but in the mind of one self-appointed expert at finding racism he was putting black people “in their place.”I'd like to mention another example of CDS forcing a historical rewrite. Here and there on the net, you will encounter dolts who insist that the public finally got clued into "Slick Willie" and his machinations when he made that "meaning of 'is'" remark. The revisionists pretend that his popularity plummeted when he uttered those words. The mask had fallen and the monster stood revealed. There was even an anti-Clinton book titled "The Meaning of 'Is'."
The key to understanding the zombie lie aspect of the term “Sister Souljah moment” is that it implies duplicity and calculation.
In point of fact, Clinton had made the comment during his Grand Jury interrogation. When that video was broadcast, his approval ratings shot up and stayed up. Why? Because -- contrary to what the CDS-addled commentariat will tell you -- Bill Clinton, in his most difficult moment, spoke with clarity and did not make any attempt to excuse himself.
His meaning was clear in context. When he had been asked "Is there a sexual relationship between you and Ms. Lewinsky?" he had said no. Truthfully. He had broken it off. If someone had asked "Was there a relationship...?" he would have said yes. This is the way all lawyers train all clients to answer questions: If you are asked "Do you know who invented the light bulb?" you say "Yes," not "Edison."
When that video was broadcast, the whole line of questioning struck viewers as unfair and uncalled-for. The public had paid Ken Starr to look into Whitewater, not into infidelity. Public sympathy went to Bill Clinton.
6 comments:
Minor clarification - Morris made his comments back in January, predicting that Hillary was going to use race against Obama.
He made his comments two days before the New Hampshire primary, before the Obama campaign brought up the alleged "Bradley effect" or accused Bill of making racist statements.
BTW - The correct question would have been "Is there now or has there ever been a sexual relationship between you and Ms. Lewinsky?"
I've slightly rewritten.
As I recall, Clinton -- in that Grand Jury testimony -- was pretty forthright about the fact that he was damned glad that his questioner had offered him an out.
I just did another post regarding Morris' "prediction"
Another groaner: "In 1996, Clinton signed into law the single most pernicious piece of anti-gay federal legislation ever passed — the Defense of Marriage Act — with overwhelming Democratic support in the Congress."
Huh?
I don't defend DoMA but this phrase makes it sound as if Harry Truman and Eisenhower were signing anti-gay federal legislation and things got esp. eeeevil when that awful Bubba guy came to Washington.
Fact is, there was no gay liberation until 1969, and it didn't reach the point of being a matter of Federal Law until the Clinton years. It's a very polarizing issue. Clinton knew that the Dems were successfully portrayed by the radical right as the "gay party" so he had to posture in the other direction.
The gay lobby is totally analogous to the Zionist lobby. Lots of money, hysterical insistence on orthodoxy, and woe betide anyone who disagrees with them.
Did Edison really invent the light bulb? Or did he steal it from a guy down the street who later wrote DOS?
In point of fact, Clinton had made the comment during his Grand Jury interrogation. When that video was broadcast, his approval ratings shot up and stayed up. Why? Because -- contrary to what the CDS-addled commentariat will tell you -- Bill Clinton, in his most difficult moment, spoke with clarity and did not make any attempt to excuse himself.
His meaning was clear in context. When he had been asked "Is there a sexual relationship between you and Ms. Lewinsky?" he had said no. Truthfully. He had broken it off. If someone had asked "Was there a relationship...?" he would have said yes.
Well, no, it's fairly different from this characterization.
In fact, Clinton was NOT being asked about HIS prior comments in discovery depositions in the Jones case-- he was being asked about his ATTORNEY'S comments in that situation. And Bennett's remarks were hardly so anodyne, nor legally justified as correct but misleading, given the question he was (not) answering with this non-denial denial, depending upon what he knew and had been told about the history of the relationship.
Given the context of the question, Bennett's response was highly misleading, and most likely evidence that he had been misled by his client. His client cleverly turned the question of why he didn't correct his attorney (although he had no such obligation so far as I knew) into a question of the technical accuracy of his attorney's response.
Post a Comment