Now, Foxman has returned the favor--by keeping his otherwise big mouth clamped shut about Bill Clinton's endorsement of Louis Farrakhan's march even as he bludgeons far less powerful blacks for their support of the former Louis Walcott's recently announced "Millions More March" on Washington, scheduled for this October to mark the 10 year anniversary of the last Farrakhan march for which the Nation of Islam leader schlepped all the way from Chicago so he could dazzle the crowds with his trenchant insights about Numerology.

The free-ride accorded Clinton contrasts sharply with the ADL leaders' loud and impassioned denunciations of far less influentional blacks for their support of the rally and should make any suggestions that he's guilty of racist double standards hard to refute.

Foxman, considered a shameless publicity monger by some fellow Jewish communal leaders, hit pay dirt when both the Forward and Washington Jewish Week reported his exchange of letters with rap mogul Russell Simmons, one of many prominent blacks who have endorsed the march. Now, Farrakhan has fired back with comments made during an exclusive interview with Amsterdam News editor Jamal Watson, insisting he?s no anti-Semite, contrary to accusations from the ADL, which he contends, hamper black progress. The Farrkahan broadside undoubtedly gives Foxman the opportunity for a reply with which he can pleasure himself immensely.

But it's the fight which Foxman is deliberately ignoring that raises discomfiting questions about his sensibility and priorities. His silence about the Bill Clinton endorsement in an interview with the Amsterdam News first reported in the was first reported in the mainstream media by Chimpstein.com and then picked up by the New York Sun, is quite pecuilar. And one of his his spokesmen even tried to downplay the significance of the endorsement in an interview with the New York Sun.

ADL mouthpiee Todd Gujtnick told the Sun that that Clitnon's comments were "a little disturbing."

A little?

The nation's most powerful and influential Democrat gives an unprecedented endorsement of Farrakhan, providing him just the mainstream credibility he craves, and all the ADL can muster is that it's "a little disturbing?"

When was the last time Foxman called anything just "a little disturbing."

Even this quote was qualified.

"However, Mr. Gutnick said he interpreted the former president's comments as primarily an endorsement of the idea behind the march and not necessarily the organizers."

Actually, Clinton made no such distinction. And the above formulation is precisely the distinction which Farrakhan's allies often make to justify their support for his marches.

Foxman, of course, doesn't tolerate such a distinction when made by blacks.

Why not? Is Foxman just a bully who goes after unpopular targets like Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan and Mel Gibson? But shies away from any kind of squabble with the first twice-elected Democrat since FDR?

It certainly seems this way.

The ADL has a history of bludgeoning Farrakhan but going easy on the far more influential and powerful Bill Clinton when he plays the Nation of Islam leader's enabler.

In the early 1990s, federal contracts for the Nation of Islam security guards to patrol public housing projects were the subject of much controversy, some of it sparked by my exclusive investigative opinion pieces for the Washington Times and the New York Post.

The ADL reserved most of its wrath for the Nation of Islam but treated the Clinton Administration, which for months stonewalled in the face of inquiries about the contracts, with kid gloves. They were eventually canceled after Senator Bob Dole alerted to the matter by the New York Post piece mentioned above made inquiries and Congressional hearings were finally held.

And during the current Contretemps, the ADL Washington office denounced DC Mayor Anthony Williams for endorsing the Farrakhan march, the Washington Jewish Week reporters, but, if database searches are correct, kept quiet about Bill Clinton. Foxman and his underlings did not respond to repeated phone calls for this article.

It's well to note that the ADL has a history of bludgeoning Farrakhan rather than take on the far more influential and powerful Bill Clinton when he plays the Nation of Islam leader's enabler.

In the early 1990s, federal contracts for the Nation of Islam security guards to patrol public housing projects were the subject of much controversy, some of it sparked by my exclusive investigative opinion pieces for the Washington Times and the New York Post.

The ADL reserved most of its wrath for the Nation of Islam but treated the Clinton Administration, which for months stonewalled in the face of inquiries about the contracts, with kid gloves. They were eventually canceled after Senator Bob Dole alerted to the matter by the New York Post piece mentioned above made inquiries and Congressional hearings were finally held.

And during the current Contretemps, the ADL Washington office denounced DC Mayor Anthony Williams for endorsing the Farrakhan march, the Washington Jewish Week reporters, but kept quiet about Bill Clinton.

It's also well to note that People for the American Way president Ralph Neas, who decries religious extremism on the right, has kept quiet about Clinton.

But Neas has the decent excuse that he's never claimed to be non-partisan.

Foxman does.

Regardless of the reason, Foxman's unwillingness to condemn Clinton for an endorsement of the Farrakhan march, which by virtue of his power and prestige, is far more inimical to Jewish interests than the cheerleading from special rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, is another reason to conclude that his priorities are quite skewed.

After all this is the Defender of the Jewish people who went undercover to sneak into the pre-release showing of pre-Vatican II Catholic Mel Gibson's cinematic ode to the Deicide charge, the Passion of Chirst?

But now he's too timid to show his face to Bill Clinton?