Posted on 06/18/2004 8:00:23 PM PDT by KangarooJacqui
THE first extract from former president Bill Clinton's memoir will hit the American airwaves today as a carefully orchestrated publicity campaign shifts into gear ahead of the book's US release on Tuesday.
In a media frenzy dubbed "Clintonmania", Mr Clinton's latest revelations about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky have already hit the front pages of newspapers.
But there is much more to come.
Quotes from a yet-to-be broadcast interview that Mr Clinton has granted to American 60 Minutes were distributed far and wide yesterday as much was made of his self-described "morally indefensible" explanation for his infidelity: "Because I could."
The memoir, My Life, has so far been successfully kept under wraps, unlike the book by his wife, Hilary Clinton, that was leaked to the media before its official release last year.
With most of the major US television networks promoting their own piece of the Clinton publicity pie, Internet giant AOL and the 180-station Infinity radio network broadcast five 90-second extracts from the book, read by the author himself.
Those extracts start in the US today, with publisher Knopf ignoring the normal practice of selling exclusive print media rights to the highest bidder.
Time magazine has been granted the first print interview with Mr Clinton, whose book is topping bestseller lists based on advance orders.
Deliveries of the initial print run of 1.5 million copies are this weekend expected at US bookstores.
Some would-be readers already were cashing in on their pre-booked Tuesday tickets for an autographed copy of My Life, offering the signed title that will retail for $US35 ($51) for more than $US300 on eBay.
While the spotlight falls once again on the scandal-ridden second term of Mr Clinton's presidency, the woman at the centre of it all, Monica Lewinsky, has skipped out of her New York home this weekend to attend a wedding in her former lover's hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas.
She would not be drawn into any discussion about Mr Clinton's comments to 60 Minutes about their affair, with Miss Lewinsky's spokeswoman telling the New York Post: "She is not going to comment on a sound bite that has been released by 60 Minutes to promote their program."
CBS released the tantalising excerpts from Mr Clinton's interview this week, successfully picking the topic of his infidelity as the issue that was expected to interestthe widest audience.
He tells interviewer, CBS anchor Dan Rather, about being relegated to "the doghouse" by Hillary when the scandal broke.
The Clintons, including daughter Chelsea, used counselling to deal with the crisis – although psychiatrists warned yesterday that renewed public discussion about the White House sex scandal could wreak further family harm.
The media called Reagan the "Teflon President"; Clinton would be "Greased Teflon".
In your case, if you have The OJ Jury, nothing said or proven will matter, anyway.
Doncha' just wonder what's become of the obscene members of that jury? They are now known, worldwide, to be what they are. I wonder if they consider their individual participations to be "Badges of Honor."
By "psychological warfare" I meant that most everyone has been raised on the maxim that "One is innocent until proven guilty" and that we should not jump to conclusions without evidence of wrongdoing. Generally we as individuals do not want to sit in judgment of others (at least in an official capacity, such as juror)and are predisposed not to want to convict someone.
Now juries are, for the most part, normal people who understand that the Government must prove all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. However, jurors also do not want criminals let out of court to commit further crimes. Whenever the prosecution does something that allows the jury to pass its "guilt" of letting a guilty person off, it may very well do so, feeling comfortable that "the government did not prove its case". The prosecution could have had poor evidence or may have done something that the juries felt was "unfair", etc.
OJ's case falls into this category what with the "N" word controversy, the poorly handled evidence, the non-fitting glove, etc. There were many things done in the case that allowed the jury to pass the "guilt" they felt as individuals for letting someone they may have felt in their hearts was guilty of murder on to the prosecution because of the way the case was presented. In "Outrage" by Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor of Charlie Manson, he argues that a conviction could have been reached (even with the jury that was picked) had the prosecution put on even a "C" performance. He grades the prosecution as "F" IIRC.
My guess is that the people on the jury sleep well at night. They have comfortably "passed" any responsibility they may have otherwise felt for letting a killer go, by placing the "blame", if any, on the government.
Tapping into your expertise, I have some questions:
Did this jury work overtime to get him off? I recall a young lady who was, I believe harassed off of the jury. Overall, I felt that the jury had an agenda beyond justice.
In the "glove didn't fit" farce, why didn't the prosecutors explain the shrinkage, the plastic liner which OJ insisted on and the way in which OJ contorted his hand? All were so obvious!!
Thank you for the information. I understand now about the "sleeping at night" aspect of juries passing the responsibility.
IIRC the prosecution had a witnes on from Aris, the maker of the gloves.
I learned a valuable lesson from the OJ case. Shortly after the glove incident I was prosecuting a man for rape. One item of evidence was a white sock that was found at the scene. When the defense put the defendant on the stand to testify, in my cross examination of him I had him remove his shoes and I placed the sock up against his foot to show that it fit. I did not try to have him put it on. One thing they taught us in trial advocacy class was to never let a defendant handle the evidence. As anyone knows, you can flex muscles, etc., to get an article of clothing to not fit correctly.
OBTW the defendant was convicted and got 30 years for the rape.
It was an amazing case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.