Bill Clinton Reportedly Will Soon Apologize At Black Churches (Super Tuesday Is Coming Up)

February 2nd, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Once again, former President Bill Clinton seems poised to be pitchforked into the headlines right on the eve of a crucial primary vote amid a report that he’s going to “repent” by going to some black churches. Almost on the EVE of the Super Tuesday primaries, Clinton will garner attention that could be focused on his wife Hillary Clinton:

Once again, Bill Clinton is ready to repent.

On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he’s expected to offer a mea culpa to those who “dearly loved him” when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says.

[UPDATE: The Clinton campaign has now denied that he will do a mea culpa. But is the door still ajar for a news-making apology? Read OUR LATEST POST HERE.]

This will get LOTS of media attention tomorrow. And it will be in the news cycle Monday.

So the stage is being set to give Bill Clinton a pass, because he is Bill Clinton. But lest we re-write recent history, Mr. Clinton had been accused of raising the race issue SEVERAL times, including blatantly right after Senator Barack Obama won South Carolina.

Because he is Bill Clinton (who just coincidentally will make the apology right before Super Tuesday) is he allowed to just apologize and pretend it never happened or that it some how just came out of his mouth like the aftermath of food poisoning? More from the Washington Post:

Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she’ll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in her district where she says he needs to “renew his relationship” with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama’s landslide victory to Jesse Jackson’s wins in 1984 and 1988.)

The four-term congresswoman said she asked Clinton to write a letter to each congregation they’ll visit on Sunday “explaining his commitment to civil rights and equal rights.” She says the letter “is in development” but that “he knows what needs to be in it: He needs to renew his relationship with the South Central community.”

Watson is among the half of the divided black caucus supporting Hillary Clinton instead of Obama for president. She remains loyal to the Clintons, she says, despite her own uneasy feelings over Bill injecting race into the primary campaign.

Some thoughts:

(1) Yes Bill Clinton has had an excellent record. But that legacy was soiled by the glimpse into his soul that many voters saw — one that indicated that political expediency trumped what he had long proclaimed were his ideals when it came to doing whatever he had to do to help his wife win. So the stage was set to raise the race issue. If the ideals were as strong as iron, even a fleeting idea of raising the race issue would not have come up.

(2) News reports of his repentance may help him in California but Bill Clinton is now becoming the equivalent of a nasty allergy. He simply will NOT go away.

You can easily see The Bill Clinton issue rallying the GOP if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination — and you can see how some independent voters and even Democrats who might otherwise favor Mrs. Clinton could vote against her in the primaries or general election to make sure that the allergy does go away.

It was notable during the recent Clinton-Obama debate that Bill Clinton was missing in action. News reports indicate his recent campaign appearances have been relatively pro-forma and sedate and that he has deep-sixed the increasingly pointed attacks on Obama.

However, Mr. Clinton decided to swipe at Senator Teddy Kennedy who endorsed Obama. If Kennedy had endorsed his wife you would probably would have not seen a story like this:

Former President Clinton said that if his wife is elected president she would radically change the “No Child Left Behind Act,” which he described as an education disaster initially supported not only by President Bush, but liberal icon Ted Kennedy.

Clinton’s association of Kennedy with the No Child Left Behind Act _ a federal education law unpopular with public school teachers, a key Democratic party constituency _ came just days after the Massachusetts senator passed over Hillary Rodham Clinton to endorse her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama.

“I want you to think about this, and I have to say, this was a train wreck that was not intended. No Child Left Behind was supported by George Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy and everybody in between. Why? Because they didn’t talk to enough teachers before they did that,” Clinton told more than 2,400 people in a speech Thursday night at Arizona State University.

The reaction of THIS independent voter?

–Hillary Clinton is more impressive each time she is on TV. She is the ONLY candidate in this race of either party who has truly grown as a campaigner both in stylistic terms and in terms of content. She could win over voters — if she is LEFT ALONE.

–She won New Hampshire not because of her husband but because she has shown enormous growth and depth as a candidate.

–He is ruining the focus on her and her own, genuine qualities as a politician and as a do-er. She doesn’t need her big, strong, red-faced tart-tongued husband running around the country fighting her battles for her and blasting his wife’s strongest competitor. The U.S. is in the Fred Flintstone age when it comes to women in high office. India’s Indira Gandhi and Great Britain’s Margaret Thatcher didn’t have their hubbies going after their opponents and trying to pit one part of the Indian and British electorates off against the other. They won on THEIR OWN qualities of ideas, competence, toughness, and shrewdness.

–Based on the way he has behaved in the campaign, if he had been an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and not her husband, yours truly would argue that he should be kept away from her administration and out of the White House if she wins. One gut-fighting Karl Rove in 10 years has been more than enough.

Once the race card has been taken out you CANNOT pretend it never came out and shove it back into the deck. And those who excuse and enable it therefore shouldn’t complain if Republicans do it, if they are not taking a zero tolerance stance now.

Or, if GOPers raise it, then they should accept any apologies the GOPers make later (after the card has been taken out of the deck and been displayed for all to see) to black churches.

If it’s “two or the price of one,” then when it comes to giving someone a pass on playing the race card, it should be “one size fits all.”

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Bigotry, Black/African-American, Primaries, Negative Campaigning, California, Super Tuesday, Dennis Kucinich, NASA, Race, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Politics. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Loosen That Tie, Mr Olmert: Political Disaster Narrowly Avoided »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.