Sure, it's just a comment from a semi-anonymous "liberal", but it's also a peek into the wee little world of "liberalism" (washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2004_12/005273.php):

Some pundits say that a Democrat should seize a "Sister Souljah moment." But Clinton was very careful about launching his attack. Sister made a comment about killing white people and was later invited to speak at the Rainbow Coalition meeting. There was very little ambiguity that what she said was out of bounds.

Clinton felt free to scold her for what she said. He didn't say she was a bad person. He didn't say she didn't belong in the party. He only rebuked her for a single statement that she made. A few people were upset, but reasonable people knew he was right.

What were those people upset about? That he only rebuked her one statement, or that he rebuked her at all? I suspect the author means the latter.