August 1, 2001

Dear Mr. Powell:

I was intrigued by one paragraph in your story in the Style section of
yesterday's Post, "Bill Clinton, Homeboy."  (You must have loved that clever
headline, even if you didn't write it yourself.  What a knee-slapper.
That's how they talk, all right.)  This is the one:

"She [Toni Morrison] did not factor in certain other aspects of Clinton's
record, such as his 1992 decision to sanction the execution of a mentally
retarded black man during a hotly contested primary season, the better
to demonstrate he was tough on crime. But we digress."

It's not that I don't have other questions about your story -- for example,
has anyone ever said that you were like a black man in any way? -- but
I'd like to drag "us" back to your digression.  "We" all know that black
people think that black people shouldn't be punished for their crimes, right?
So it must be that Ms. Morrison isn't as well informed, or as politically
unbiased, about our former President as you are.  You imply that Mr.
Clinton is a hypocrite who put to death a helpless black man, primarily (or
would you say entirely?) for political advantage.  What surprises me was that
you neglected to mention the name of the man for whom you appear to feel
such sympathy, after all these years.  You didn't drop his name -- just
three little words -- into your story.  Why not?  It's not as if you exploited the
case to sling a little mud.  The way you described the situation provides no
more information than what's available at any right-wing web site (just
a coincidence, I know).  You care about the individual involved -- don't you?

We are thinking of the same gentleman, aren't we?  Are you familiar with the
crime(s) this man is alleged to have committed?  Do you know whether Mr.
Clinton's victim was "mentally retarded" at the time he committed the crime(s)
with which he was charged?  Do you mean to say that the man was so
profoundly retarded that he could not bear criminal responsibility?  If
so, how was he tried and convicted?  I'm aware of the pathetic anecdote
that indicates that this man went uncomprehendingly to his execution.  Was
his fate more horrible, do you think, than that of someone in full possession of
his faculties who was shot to death?  Of course, if you know no details
of the case, it's a little late now for you to brush up on the facts.

Or was there another black man whom Mr. Clinton murdered under color of law?
There are so many accusations lodged against Mr. Clinton -- of value about
equal to this one -- that it becomes confusing when you don't name names.
(The unrelenting onslaught of charges was another "factor" that Ms. Morrison
had in mind when assessing his "blackness," but I guess if you noticed
that, you dismissed it as too absurd to mention.)

I won't inquire into what you might have meant by Mr. Clinton's "sanction"
(acceptance?  refusal to commute? approval? enjoyment?) of the execution.
Mr. Clinton did not attempt to wash his hands of this "execution of a mentally
retarded black man" (perhaps "mentally disabled black man" would be
a better term for one to use, if one knew the facts).  Maybe Mr. Clinton
didn't want this man's name -- whatever it was -- changed to "Willie
Horton," or maybe Mr. Clinton is the type that has insufficient sympathy for
the plight of the orphan who killed his parents.  In any event, there was no
whining from Mr. Clinton about his being a mere governor, powerless to stop
any and all executions.  And I'm certain that if there were any reports that
Mr. Clinton had mocked this man before his execution, maybe using a funny
voice or accent to say, "I'll save my dessert for later," you would have been
courageous and hard-hitting enough to pass them along.  Thank God, we were
spared that much -- imagine such a man as the President of the United States!

And thank you for exposing such blatant hypocrisy.

Margaret Shemo