Join 3,428 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Bill Clinton responsible for the Genoa protestor's death?
July 23, 2001 9:51 AM   Subscribe

Bill Clinton responsible for the Genoa protestor's death? Yes, according to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. This makes me think that if Bill Clinton didn't exist, the right would have to invent him. (Think of all those fundraising letters...)
posted by Rastafari (21 comments total)

 
And before anyone says so, I know the protest has been discussed here before, but this is NOT a double post, at least I don't see it as one.
posted by Rastafari at 9:54 AM on July 23, 2001


Would that protestor be alive if Gore was president? I doubt it. This was not Clinton's fault, it was not Bush's, it was the fault of the guy who pulled the trigger, assisted by the guy who did whatever it was that caused the guy with the gun to think pulling the trigger was necessary.
posted by thirteen at 10:03 AM on July 23, 2001


Doesn't surprise me: the WSJ has always been a rag as far as I'm concerned: mouthpiece for the rich, champion of all that is rabidly right-wing.
posted by mapalm at 10:03 AM on July 23, 2001


You might want to re-read the editorial. Bill Clinton isn't blamed for the death, he's blamed for not making a "I feel your pain" response to the Seattle protests, rather than articulating his stance on the issues.
posted by revbrian at 10:04 AM on July 23, 2001


I read the editorial. Although the WSJ does not come out and say "Bill Clinton is responsible for this protestor's death," it is heavily implied.

Also note such rhetorical tricks as putting "antiglobalization" in scare quotes and invoking the "Slick Willy" epithet. The WSJ is simply not rational when it comes to Clinton. They will use any possible excuse to bash him, and they are nothing if not shameless.
posted by anapestic at 10:15 AM on July 23, 2001


Wait! It might not be Bill Clinton's fault, maybe it was the protestor's fault.
posted by icathing at 10:17 AM on July 23, 2001


[...maybe it was the protestor's fault.]

I don't think there's any other rational way of looking at it. In a perfect world the cop may have been able to wound instead of kill him. We don't live in a perfect world. Violence begets violence. Had he not crossed the police line, and not attempted to use a fire extinguisher as a weapon he would be alive today.
posted by revbrian at 10:26 AM on July 23, 2001


Wow, a right-wing columnist from the New York Post? Heaven portend! ;)
posted by solistrato at 10:29 AM on July 23, 2001


SHOT PROTESTER DESERVED WHAT HE GOT

They said the exact same thing at Kent State.
posted by jpoulos at 10:42 AM on July 23, 2001


Evidently, guns don't kill people - Bill Clinton does.
posted by stevis at 10:49 AM on July 23, 2001


I'm still not sure how Clinton 'legitimized' the Seattle protestors.

And what scres me most is that people are going to say "You know what? Slick Willy is responsible!"

ugh.
posted by rich at 11:01 AM on July 23, 2001


Again, an embarassingly strange WSJ editorial. I remember Clinton condeming violent protest and suggesting that the voices of the the peaceful protesters should be listened to. Not that he did much in that regard, the goof.

The right and the business community are doing a terrible job of selling their version of free trade.
posted by tranquileye at 11:07 AM on July 23, 2001


You know what? Slick Willy is responsible!

Yeah, right. His actions with regards to China, Gennifer Flowers, and the truth show "Slick Willy" to be about as responsible as your average 6 year-old child.

Oh, wait, you meant responsible for the deaths... Never mind.
posted by gd779 at 11:22 AM on July 23, 2001


Sorry about the above post. It was pointlessly off-topic and inflamatory, and probably had more to do with my current mood than anything else. I tried to cancel the post, but I was too late. Just ignore me.

I wish W. would buy me an espresso machine! Darn you, dong_resin!!! *sob*
posted by gd779 at 11:27 AM on July 23, 2001


What's particularly strange about the WSJ's editorial policy is that its leaders are unsigned, and yet members of its leader-writing team are happy to appear on the weekend political shows. Talk about power without accountability.
posted by holgate at 11:32 AM on July 23, 2001


This Clinton guy must have something to do with Chandra Levy's disappearance, too. What's his alibi?
posted by matteo at 11:42 AM on July 23, 2001


I certainly don't want to defend the WSJ, but it's standard practice in the US for editorials which are the position of the newspaper to be unsigned.

I'm not sure how much power comes from being on the weekend talk shows. I think that if most people know that someone's from the WSJ, they discount much of what is said. Or they believe it without question, but those who believe without question are already among the far-right faithful.
posted by anapestic at 11:44 AM on July 23, 2001


Anapestic: I'm not sure how much power comes from being on the weekend talk shows

Quite a bit of power, actually: Washington tends to be an echo chamber, so the varied op-ed and pundit folk talk to... each other, and watch... each other, and read... each other. They have little contact with an outside world, and have become a clique-y group which has developed its own language and shibboleths. This wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't have the singular ability to determine what news was reported, what was considered newsworthy, and what politicians thought were the pressing issues of the day.

This anti-democratic situation is covered well by the always- awesome Eric Alterman in his book "Sound & Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy", a great read to see in detail how the media has in the past 20 years come to not only dominate how discourse occurs, but in many cases actually make policy decisions through their unexceeded bully pulpit.
posted by hincandenza at 12:29 PM on July 23, 2001



Here's an interesting MSNBC opinion piece on the protest.
posted by revbrian at 12:50 PM on July 23, 2001


Bill Clinton electrocutes elephants.
posted by pracowity at 12:19 AM on July 24, 2001


The Wall Street Journal is responsible for the death of journalism....
posted by nofundy at 8:55 AM on July 24, 2001


« Older Edison electrocutes an elephant at Coney Island....  |  What do Windows XP and lingeri... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments