If you haven’t seen the newly released recording of Hillary Clinton’s 9-minute face-off with a black activist who grills her on the subject of violence against blacks and “massive incarceration of blacks,” you really need to watch it.
It is an extremely interesting, political mini-drama, laden with tension, passive aggressiveness (on the part of Clinton’s interrogator) and unseen hand wringing from Clinton’s handlers, who almost beg her to turn and run.
There’s a lot I don’t like about Hillary, but this is Hillary at her rare, spontaneous best, giving cogent, respectful and insightful answers to a man who has meticulously planned his attack.
Showing that she can be very quick on her feet, she turned the tables on the young man — Julius Jones of Boston — and challenged him to help come up with a strategy to make sure that black Americans cease being undervalued as a group.
“That’s what I’m trying to put together,” Clinton tells Jones, “in a way that I can explain it, and I can sell it — because in politics, if you can’t explain it and you can’t sell it, it stays on the shelf.”
The exchange was taped taped Aug. 11 and took place after activists with the group Black Lives Matter tried to disrupt a Clinton event in New Hampshire. Clinton agreed to speak privately with the group’s representatives afterward, and someone recorded the event, which was released yesterday in two parts.
In the video, Jones is facing Clinton. A couple of other activists are standing off to the right, watching intently. Out of view, to the left, are several Clinton handlers.
Julius Jones questioning Hillary Clinton on Aug. 11
It takes Jones a full three minutes to ask his question, during which time Clinton listens quietly and nods frequently. You can almost see her mind working, trying to figure out how to handle this spontaneous burst of deeply felt, but almost passively presented, emotion.
Despite the even tone, the question contains broad and incendiary societal assessments, including Jones’ assertion that “America’s first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit” and “the mass incarceration (of blacks) system mirrors…the prison plantation system.”
When he finally concludes his question — essentially asking Clinton how she intends to change this unacceptable situation — the first thing the viewer hears is a voice off to the left, saying, “I apologize…We have…
All heads turn toward the voice, which is that of a nervous Clinton handler.
After just those first few words, Jones immediately understands the handler is offering his candidate a chance to bail. Jones interrupts and says forcefully: “I would really love to allow her to answer the questions. We’ve worked really hard and we’ve driven so many miles…”
The handler backs down, saying, “I’m not stopping you…just letting you know we’ve got a couple more minutes..We still have more people waiting…I just want to give you a heads up.”
During that exchange, Clinton looks quietly toward the handler. She fully realizes it’s too late to bail: The ball is bouncing and it’s in her court.
“Obviously, it a very thoughtful question that deserves a thoughtful answer,” she begins.
Then she launches into what I consider a very eloquent response, including the counter-challenge she lays at Jones’ feet. Her answer is even longer, at four minutes, than Jones’ question. But everything she says — again, in my view — is on subject and devoid of doublespeak or political gibberish.
The moment she winds up her answer, a handler — perhaps the same one — jumps in and says, “We really have to go!”
As Clinton moves to leave, however, Jones slides in another question/comment, in which he says, “If you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what you need to do.”
Clinton interrupts, saying, “I’m not telling…I’m just telling you to tell me.”
After Jones accuses her of “a form of victim-blaming” and alleges that the violence against blacks that needs to be remedied is a “white problem,” Clinton throws aside political correctness and replies, “Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with a very real problem.”
Then, she finds her strongest voice and goes on a minute-long roll where she puts Jones on the defensive and, like the seasoned politician she is, gradually brings the face-off down to a gentle denouement.
“I’m ready to do my part in any way I can,” she says, claiming the last word, as her handlers, now front and center in the video, usher her away.
One of those rare political moments where a blunt conversation is enjoined; would that all the candidates would respond thusly during their “debates.”
And, no, The Donald’s blustery braggadocio does not count.
(Sweet Jebus – have you by any chance read his foreign policy “position” paper? What a freaking mess…)
Thanks, Will…The New York Times story about the encounter drew more than 500 comments, many of which applauded, like you, the unscripted give-and-take between candidate and citizen on a difficult issue. One commenter from New Jersey wrote: “Please tell her handlers to let us see more of this! Lesser candidates than she would have found themselves out of the race after an exchange like this, but she shines in it.”
That got me thinking about which of the Republican candidates’ would not have fumbled and stumbled and made fools of themselves in that situation, and the only one I could think of who might be able to rise to the occasion — based on his answer to gay marriage in the Republican debate — was John Kasich. Many of the others would have melted like ice on hot coals. Trump, of course, would have waved off Jones a loser and left him in his wake.
…And, no, I haven’t read his foreign policy paper…maybe sometime for light entertainment.
P.S. You won’t find this story — which made A1 in The Times — in today’s KC Star or on its website. Doesn’t meet the “local, local, local” criterion.
Hi Jim — The trouble is, Hillary is dead wrong when she says “I don’t believe you change hearts. You change laws […etc.]”
When it comes to racial discrimination, the civil rights laws obviously don’t work that well. Government can’t impose morality.
Hillary comes out as merely naive. It’s like the simplistic idea of teaching “ethics” in business schools and law schools. If people don’t know right from wrong by the time they’re in their 20s, they won’t learn it from universities or the federal government.
–Don H
That’s an interesting point, Don. Maybe she should have said, “Changing hearts is difficult; it’s more practical to change laws and allocation of resources and the way systems operate.”
I still think it was a hell of an answer, considering the hemmed-in position she was in and the profundity of the issue.
It’s interesting that the Democrats created this monster out of whole cloth to whip black voters into line for 2016, but clearly they are out of control and have already made Sanders and O’Malley look like inept fools. Hillary did the best of the three, but she is nowhere as skilled as Bill would have been.
If anything they will put more votes in the Republican column as people envision 8 more years with these thugs running loose. That’s why Republicans will not fool with them. Security will take them out, or perhaps even the audience may administer a little street justice. At any rate the Republican that backs down from them is out.
As for Trump’s papers, they’re pap so he can say he has them. He has already contradicted his immigration paper (as well he should since it’s a joke). What was the phrase used during the Nixon years about statements still being “operable”, wasn’t that it? His papers remain operable until the next interview when he changes them to something else.
The good news though is on the local front where Milton Wolf is imploding as a result of his phony baloney “exoneration” and false allegations towards any and everyone who he can think of (currently Cap Journal journalist Justin Wingerter).
Clearly there will be no “Sista Soulja” moment with Hillary. The Democrats will pander to the black fringe that insists us white people conform to their twisted understanding of race and guilt. This is extremely destructive. This race obsession has brought racial relations to the lowest point I can remember since the 70’s.