If you blinked, you missed it. The “Sister Souljah moment” that campaign watchers demand happened this week, but no one seems to have noticed.
In June 1992, Bill Clinton spoke to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH gathering. One of the speakers at the event was a rap artist named Sister Souljah who had made national headlines for saying, “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Though Clinton was anxious to generate support for his campaign in the African American community, he nevertheless criticized Souljah and questioned the group for even inviting her to address the conference.
The exchange became known as Clinton’s Sister Souljah moment, which political analysts now look for from all candidates as a sign of their independence. “Sister Souljah” has become synonymous with a candidate having the courage to publicly challenge his or her political base.
(I should note, these don’t always work out well. The biggest Sister Souljah moment of the 2000 campaign was John McCain speaking in Virginia Beach, home of the Christian Coalition, in February 2000. McCain compared TV preachers Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to “union bosses who have subordinated the interests of working families to their own ambitions.” He was right, of course, but the GOP base was not amused. It quickly destroyed his campaign.)
Almost exactly 12 years after Clinton angered Jesse Jackson, Kerry addressed the same conference. Reporters who waited to see if he’d follow in Clinton’s footsteps were left wanting. The New York Times, with a hint of disappointment, noted, “By contrast, Mr. Kerry said nothing to antagonize his hosts.”
As it turns out, reporters were focusing on the wrong speech.
The same day Kerry spoke to Rainbow/PUSH, he also addressed the National Council of La Raza and conducted an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo. By all accounts, Kerry’s remarks were well received and bolstered his support in the Latino community. That is, except for one small thing.
Democrat John Kerry said he opposes state laws that give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, a position that puts him at odds with the Hispanic activists he is courting in the presidential race.
[…]
Shortly after Kerry told the National Council of La Raza on Tuesday that he would make immigration reform a top priority to ease the path to citizenship for working immigrants, he took a tougher stance on the issue of driver’s licenses in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo.
“I think that driver’s licenses are part of the legality of being here and if you’ve been here a period of time we may work something out as part of that immigration process, but I wouldn’t give somebody who is automatically one year in here illegally all the rights and privileges of being here legally,” Kerry said in the interview.
“I think that’s wrong. That defeats the purposes of the law,” he said.
A common media criticism of Kerry is similar to that used against Gore four years ago — he’s afraid to anger key constituencies. But this is a clear example of Kerry telling a critically important group of voters the opposite of what they want to hear.
Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, said Wednesday that Kerry’s comments “somewhat undercut” his well-received speech before her organization.
“Let me take a deep breath here,” Munoz said after hearing about Kerry’s comments, then paused before continuing. “I guess what’s frustrating is that Senator Kerry was just at our conference making terrific proposals that would benefit the immigrant community. … This stand is going to be much less well received.”
Even under criticism, Kerry’s campaign hasn’t wavered. He’s willing to take a chance — he strongly supports a public policy agenda that will greatly benefit the Latino community. This one position may be an area of disagreement, but he’s prepared to argue that he agrees with Latino leaders far more than he disagrees.
It’s a model Sister Souljah moment.