At about 9:10 Eastern time on Saturday night on MSNBC, NBC's Tim Russert was discussing the Democratic race and the Nevada caucuses, and suggested that Bill Clinton could be seen as racially divisive, trying to drive apart blacks and whites, as signified by his 1992 campaign speech denouncing rapper Sister Souljah. It was famous enough that they started calling it a "Sister Souljah moment" when you spoke out against your own base.
It's tough to come to Bill Clinton's defense, but a little context was missing. If Clinton was seen as divisive by the Jesse Jacksons of the world (let's grant that), what on Earth was Sister Souljah? What was said? She said this in The Washington Post: "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Clinton picked up on that and shot back days later: "If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."
In everything that has followed, political writers have been more offensive than Clinton. For example, in 2000, when John McCain attacked Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance," he was hailed for a Sister Souljah moment. Was it fair to smear these ministers into being just as offensive as the "Let's have a week to kill whites" rapper?
Most other moments where candidates muster the courage (or foolishness or both) to denounce their own base of support are not very comparable to what Sister Souljah said in its oddball intensity. The Sister Souljah references should be either junked as too antique for today's voters or they ought to be re-explained so that people can gain some context in these remarks.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
One shining moment
January 20, 2008 - 00:27 ET by Cool ArrowPlaying a modified version of one of our favorite games (WIARHSI) Clinton enjoyed one shining moment.
Then he went off sniffing drain pipes and reciting the alphabet - Bob Dylan
I ♣ My Seal
One of those rare moments...
January 20, 2008 - 14:47 ET by august_west23...that I agree with Bubba. Being a liberal is like walking on glass or thin ice at all times. You always have to watch what you say, even if it makes complete sense and/or is logical. It always makes me chuckle when I see the party who always uses the "race card " use it on themselves...(Hillary and Obama)
"Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile"
Clinton turned a nobody,
January 20, 2008 - 00:58 ET by fitzfongClinton turned a nobody, Sister Souljah, into a household name with his lame populist attack. He could easily have found a litany of equally racist and offensive statements by the race hustling likes of Farrakhan, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but he took the coward's way instead...he picked on some obscure rapper no one had ever heard of. What a spineless bully.
Not a big fan of Bill
January 20, 2008 - 01:39 ET by mostlymoderateNot a big fan of Bill Clinton; however, that was definitely one of his great moments in history. He also nailed race-relations in this country on its head: the biggest racists are now a few black "leaders". Also, if David Duke is a racist then Al Sharpton is just the same.
That ship has sailed
January 20, 2008 - 03:26 ET by KC MulvilleThe Sister Souljah incident was a specific case where an extremist went too far, and Bill Clinton criticized Jackson for "enabling" it. It was a specific moment in an unusual situation, both because the extremist was so outrageous, and because the Democrats were so afraid of Jackson. But it really wasn't about race, and it's a distortion to paint it that way. Bill Clinton wasn't thinking of race when he slapped Jackson down. Clinton was angry because of the political problem Jackson was causing. When it comes to saving his political ass, Bill Clinton couldn't care less about race. That's a compliment, in a backhanded sort of way.
The Sister Souljah moment won't happen this election, however, at least not for Democrats. They all had a chance to challenge the extremists in their own party, but they all caved in. Remember the Yearly Kos convention? They all came a'runnin', didn't they? Hillary and Obama were both there, on their knees, begging for the nutroot seal of approval.
Democrats challenging the extremists in their party? Sorry. That ship has sailed.
Amen, KC. I agree
January 20, 2008 - 08:41 ET by motherbeltAmen, KC. I agree wholeheartedly with you. That was Bill Clinton's
"glory days" moment. But not because it was a racist attack; he was ticked off that he might lose the election because of some big-mouthed rapper. And, being the political animal that he is, his loyalties change on a dime, depending on what's advantageous for him.
I agree with mostlymoderate above that the biggest racists are the likes of the Righteous Revs, but the Democrat party is still racist, IMO. They are the ones who treat blacks like slaves, they take their votes for granted. Jackson and Sharpton said welfare reform would devestate the black community; Clinton signed it anyway, because his political life depended on it (another example of throwing his black constituency overboard); but they stayed on the plantation. Clinton fought relentlessly against school choice (which is favored by over 70% of black parents but opposed by the teachers' unions) and still the blacks stayed on the plantation. So the Clintons and their buddies think they are in their pockets forever (they think: what are they going to do...vote Republican? HAHAHA!) The two reverends don't really care about the black community at large, just about their power within it, and within politics.
That's why the Clintons feel secure in basically dissing blacks right now and stting their sights on the new power brokers: Eli Pariser, Markos "screw them" Moulitsas and their followers. Their plan may backfire, though, because this year blacks DO have somewhere else to go...Barack Obama.
Now they have to pander in two directions. But that's no big deal for the chameleons...I mean the Clintons.
(This post was edited at 0830 to add details.)
→ Hillary Goldwater
January 20, 2008 - 08:51 ET by Cool ArrowThis is Hillary 101. Remember she was a Goldwater Republican back in the day?
She's pulling a Goldwater. She can win the White House without the Black vote.
I ♣ My Seal
MB, don't forget that
January 20, 2008 - 09:02 ET by JerryMB, don't forget that Clinton twice vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion while most blacks are pro-life. Liberals support the radical gay agenda while most blacks oppose it. Someone please tell me again why 95% of the black community votes democrat?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
That's just one more
January 20, 2008 - 09:47 ET by motherbeltThat's just one more thing....why do they continue to idolize the Clintons???????
By any measure of whose policies benefit the black community the most (free enterprise, capitalism, tax cuts, color-blindness, school choice, pro-life) Republicans should be their ticket. But they continue to worship at the altar of the Democrats and the Clintons.
For the life of me, I can't figure it out.
A suggestion, motherbelt
January 20, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Jer"...the Democrat party is still racist...They are the ones who treat blacks like slaves..."
"the black community...continue(s) to worship at the altar of the Democrats and the Clintons."
"For the life of me, I can't figure it out."
Well, I suggest you crack open a history book...or heed the words of Newt Gingrich, a serious student of history, who has acknowledged Republican/conservative failures in the area of civil rights.
Perhaps you then won't be inclined to make statements like those quoted above, which are not only spectacularly inane, but absurd and insulting.
Dana Jacobson's anti-Christian comments [repeated on another thread] were clearly offensive, but they were spoken at a celebrity roast, where tasteless sarcasm is not unexpected. Plus, she was drunk. What's your excuse?
Jer
-
January 20, 2008 - 17:26 ET by dahliatraversOkay, I'm confused.
Where in Motherbelt's comment does she bring up "Dana Jacobson"?
Are you aware that civil rights reforms were passed in the 1960's very much because of the principled stance and legislative efforts of Republicans and very much against the best efforts of certain Democrats, including Al Gore's pappy?
The Democrat Party has championed welfare programs which have proven to be personally crippling to thousands of people for generations now, including a certain percentage of African-Americans. Motherbelt's comments, then, are pretty accurate. It is erroneous and puzzling that you would term them inane and insulting.
Finally, your remarks towards Motherbelt are so over the top confrontational that we are forced to ask, do you secretly have a crush on her but like a fifth grader, you cannot acknowledge it and must instead lash out at the object of your affection?
Whiner in Chief
January 20, 2008 - 10:51 ET by docbSad that he should come unhinged so publicly but to be predicted. The truth is the clintons have a history of fighting dirty-triangulation, smearing, theft, slander, add to that union busting and pandering to a low knowledge voter? base.
What this brings to light is that: HILLERY CAN NOT WIN ON HER OWN SHE MUST HAVE BILL.
TO BE PITIED AT THE VERY LEAST ...NOT THE VICTIM BUT THE VICTIMIZER.
Jerry,
January 20, 2008 - 19:28 ET by SlicksterIt's the handouts and pander, blacks like the politcal bling. Anyone who thinks the Clintons aren't racists are fools, ther weren't many uppity negroes serving in his administration, Obama should be playing that fact.