Skip to main content

Yeah, she went there.

In her efforts to take a leak on the idea of hope--because it benefits Barack Obama--Hillary Clinton decided that she needed to minimize the role that Martin Luther King Jr., and by extension African-Americans, played in securing their own civil rights.

The audacity of her cynicism below the fold.

The context, of course, lies in Clinton's regrettable statement from last Saturday's debate:

"We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Obama, not being a stupid politician, pounced.

Obama challenged Clinton's claim in a weekend debate that he was raising "false hopes" about what he could deliver for the country. Obama told his audience that hope made President Kennedy aim to put a man on the moon and Martin Luther King Jr. to imagine the end of segregation.

"If anything crystallized what this campaign is about, it was that right there," Obama said of Clinton's comment in the debate. "Some are thinking in terms of our constraints, and some are thinking about our limitless possibilities."

Well, Clinton had her chance to respond, and oh boy did she deliver up a doozy:

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done.  The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

Just how awful is this, on so many levels?  "It took a President to get it done?"

NO.

It took a nation to get it done.  It took a mass uprising to get it done.  It took brave men and women to brave Bull Connor's thugs, firehoses, and dogs.  It took an overriding popular will to see it throught.  It took courage.  It took inspiration.  It took the the blood of martyrs and patriots.

It took a movement.

And the implication here is that African-Americans didn't make it happen, but rather that the nice white father figure in Washington got it done for them.

Get her off the national stage before she disgraces herself any further.

UPDATE:

The video from the interview is available here.

UPDATE 2:  African-American bloggers react, and they are not impressed:

Oliver Willis:

I don't like these internal fights. I detest them. I especially hate when someone I admire like Sen. Clinton says something as brazenly horrific as this in order to puff up her own political fortunes . . . .

It's not as if Lyndon Johnson couldn't wait to sign the Civil Rights Act. He was right to do it and it changed the country. But there is no civil rights movement, there is no America as we know it today without the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. How could she say this? In my eyes, and the eyes of millions of people of all races and sexes, Rev. King is the greatest American who ever lived. He was not just a talker, which is what Sen. Clinton's message seems to be here. MLK was the ultimate "doer". The sterling example of what it means in America to stand up for what's right by putting your life on the line.

How could she? How. Could. She.

Jack and Jill Politics:

Hillary: You Negroes Better Thank The White Man For Your Rights

I'm fascinated when white people say what they mean. . . .

That's right. It wasn't the courage of King and local Montgomery residents standing up to legalized white supremacy in their hometown that began to change America, it was the white man. It wasn't Rosa Parks who had enough and refused to sit in the back of the bus that got things started, it was the white man. It wasn't John Lewis and others facing down billy clubs and tear gas in Selma, it was the white man. It wasn't Fannie Lou Hamer telling the racist Democrats at the 1964 convention that black people were sick and tired of being sick and tired, it was the white man. Why credit the people who gave their lives for the struggle when all credit is due to the great white father, in his ultimate, eternal benevolence, for finally deciding to recognize black people as human beings? I wonder where he got that idea?

Johnson didn't change America. Johnson reacted to the changes in America. For that he deserves some credit, but never mistake the man in the suit for the soldiers on the street. The difference is obvious: Johnson isn't the one whose life was ended by a sniper's bullet.

This is the kind of revisionist history I expect from the most extreme white supremacist kooks.

You can kiss that black vote goodbye. Between this and Bill claiming Hillary is tougher than Nelson Mandela, you have pretty much solidified the image that whatever happened in the 90s, you are now some out of touch rich white folks.

As a side note, one of the worst campaign strategies I've ever heard of in my life is associating your opponent with Martin Luther King Jr. Clearly, Hillary wants to lose.

Originally posted to Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:24 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oy again. eom (231+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reef the dog, RichM, clonecone, ArchPundit, Mike, RobertInWisconsin, MichaelPH, wclathe, aisling, Terri, PLS, EMKennedyLucio, Chi, cassandra m, skyesNYC, askew, Dounia, Trendar, Better Days, Adam B, rhfactor, moon in the house of moe, JB in PA, houndcat, tiggers thotful spot, Gooserock, angrycalifornian, Yoshimi, LynChi, herodotus, kpardue, nevadadem, bellatrys, rhubarb, polecat, theran, SallyCat, object16, nightsweat, strengthANDwisdom, madhaus, jeepdad, PBCliberal, Dumbo, joynow, Dazy, SamSinister, understandinglife, DAVE DIAL, benheeha, brown girl in the ring, peace voter, RabidNation, AlyoshaKaramazov, Patricia Taylor, scimitar, otto, Bronxist, Shaniriver, mk, rioduran, dmsilev, SneakySnu, hhex65, oldjohnbrown, niteskolar, mcfly, kirari, arielle, grrr, Gator Keyfitz, bwintx, JohnGor0, WV Democrat, Redbug, ebbinflo, rapala, soros, paige, blueyedace2, Tonedevil, nyc175, bitter fruit, jhutson, citizenx, Sweet Georgia Peach, boofdah, Viceroy, IL dac, Mumphrey, concerned, jimreyn, aaraujo, John DE, Kayakbiker, lasky57, onanyes, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Gottayo, serrano, dem4evr, sodalis, Lisa Lockwood, Rogneid, LisainNYC, ZinZen, Matt in AA, orphanpower, coffeeinamrica, skywriter, Jennifer Clare, gwilson, Do Tell, Fistgrrl, Sagittarius, Albatross, merrinc, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, condoleaser, Data Pimp, Potus2020, Island Blue, Nedsdag, worldtrippers, DemocraticLuntz, Timothy J, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, zorthron, Miles in WesternWA, shaharazade, JayGR, jpfdeuce, phidda, Temmoku, Nulwee, GoldnI, khereva, jhecht, lordcopper, LV Pol Girl, ricsec7, atlliberal, 0wn, yoduuuh do or do not, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, Nespolo, profmom, HeartlandLiberal, greenchiledem, james risser, St Louis Woman, Democrat, malharden, Rex Manning, Practical Progressive, Misty Fowler, chicago jeff, ayawisgi, sqz23, madgranny, roycej, Empower Ink, extradish, kafkananda, RiverCityMadman, discocarp, SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia, TomY, NYContrarian, dotster, Kronos Blue, brklyngrl, MikePhoenix, RSA TX, canoeist, fromdabak, Fools on the Hill, ReEnergizer, brooklynbadboy, Fe Bongolan, Wes Opinion, Rick Winrod, Pegasus, Akonitum, Archangel, redding888, beltane, Happy Days, Mardish, royce, NMLib, Nick Blas, noddem, enarjay, dagnabbit, psericks, Drewid, Ocean Stater, jalenth, JedReport, LCA, luckylizard, joy sinha, MalachiConstant, gaiilonfong, GoracleFan, little liberal, WorkingMomInLA, TennesseeGurl, ryangoesboom, RedMask, Tom Enever, Bule Betawi, WhizKid331, cybrestrike, Fonsia, there will be blood, pwr2thepeople, Unseen majority, sustainable, snackdoodle, Mr Hegemony, rockwilder, rudy23, whitetiger, Mojo Jojo, Piggy Podges, strangled goose

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:24:45 PM PST

        •  This is Racial Code... HIllary is now a bigot (56+ / 0-)

          reaction from a post on politico

          I hate to say this, but I am agreeing with Dick Morris - and here's why: Morris said Clinton will start to play the race card against Obama - but in code. And today we saw the first example. By comparing Obama to King, Clinton has floated the idea that Obama has a 'race agenda' - something that could derail the campaign if it catches on. Once viewed in this light, he could be percieved to be unfit for president... hence the "I'm ready on day one" crying b.s. we saw earlier today. This is step one of some even more dirty, dirty politics by the Clinton camp. I'm not saying it will catch on... but it's still dirty, and uncalled for.

          If anyone can vote for her at this point, I am sorry for them really

          At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

          by kubla000 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

            •  The Clintons are a lot of things (106+ / 0-)

              but they are not by nature racists.  I agree - this was confusion and desperation.  They have almost as big a sense of entitlement as Mitt Romney, and are nauseous at the thought of losing in NH.

              But Obama is right on this.  You can't win an election by damping down expectations, by talking about what cannot be done.  LBJ deserves huge credit for the Civil Rights Act.  But you can't win a Democratic primary election by dumping on Martin Luther King.  

              In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

              by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •   Agreed, I think she believe her own words. (19+ / 0-)

                Its a poor line even for the "pragmatic" progressives. Anyone old enough to connect with what LBJ did -- and even those of us who weren't around then -- knows that martin, bobby, and john led the way.

                •  The irony here (85+ / 0-)

                  is that LBJ, a white southern man, passed the Civil Rights Act and forced the Republican Party to remake itself.  They ended up in an ugly place, but it was LBJ who forced them to remake themselves.

                  Now it seems to me that another Democrat - Obama - is having disproportionate influence on the Republicans.  Romney is desperately grasping onto Obama's message of change, and explicitly (comically?) tries to emulate it.  Obama may well suck the life out of McCain's attempt to win in NH by attracting independents.  I find it odd and inspiring that Obama is such a huge influence on the Republican Party right now.  

                  Hillary is not the one who forcing the Republicans to imitate her.  That tells you all you need to know about who the Republicans really fear next November.

                  In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

                  by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Good observation n/t (9+ / 0-)

                    (-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.

                    by autoegocrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Romney can "Post Up" against Obama... BIGOT #2 (4+ / 0-)

                      Seriously, did people suddenly find out Obama is a black man today?

                      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

                      Basketball analogy please Mr. Romney

                      "We better think about somebody who can stand up with a message and go toe to toe with [Obama]," Romney said, adding that he can "post up against" Obama.

                      At the end of the Day, you can't deny that Obama has the Biggest Upside Potential Obama/Richardson '08

                      by kubla000 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:52:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  To be absolutely fair to Romney... (6+ / 0-)

                        something I'm usually loathe to do, that may have been less about race and more about Obama's admitted love of the game of basketball.

                        I'm starting to see major panic in the GOP field. They were anticipating HRC, they were dreaming of it, now, because they were tone deaf and blind to the realities on the ground in Iowa, they may have to run against Obama. Normally, you might think they would like that better, but Obama has essentially been inoculated on his oppo research, by having to run against Hillary.

                        I think a February 5th fiewall is a losing proposition for both Hillary and Ghouliani. The big difference may be Nevada. If Hillary can pull any good news prior to SupeTues, it's there.

                  •  Oddly enough (13+ / 0-)

                    I believe Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act as a sort of homage to JFK.  He called in a lot of markers to do it (and he knew where all the bodies were buried).  He was able to accomplish something that JFK might not have been able to do.

                    (- 4.63, - 5.18) Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is. --Winston Churchill

                    by mkfarkus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Got it wrong... (26+ / 0-)

                      [LBJ] was able to accomplish something that JFK might not have been able to do.

                      It would be more appropriate to say LBJ as able to accomplish something that JFK was unwilling to do. Kennedy didn't want to piss off the South because he needed the racist Southerners' vote come 1964. LBJ, himself a Southerner, didn't exhibit that fear. He knew the South and knew they weren't going to change unless that change was forced upon them. The Civil War proved that. LBJ was responsible for the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1964 Act would have been dead without LBJ working behind the scenes. He manipulated people, politicized Kennedy's death, twisted arms and applied "the Treatment" as needed. He let Republican Everett Dirksen come out the hero of the cloture motion to secure the Act's passage trying to draw as many Republicans over to offset the Southern bloc and finally he signed the Act, a particularly brave act unto itself given only 1 of 22 Southern Senators voted for it. (The one was "Smilin' Ralph" Yarborough who like LBJ was a real Texan, not some Connecticut-born-Philips-Andover--"educated"-and-raised-Yale-and-Harvard-attending-dumbfuck-carpetba gger-"Texan" for all you Texas bashers out there.) LBJ signed the Act knowing he'd be turning the South over to the Republicans, destroying the Democratic Party's largest and strongest bloc... because it was the right thing to do signing the Civil Rights Act.

                      •  LBJ clearly understood the implications (15+ / 0-)

                        He said when he signed the Voting Rights Act that the Democrats would lose the South for a generation as a result.  He underestimated.  But read Taylor Branch, Doris Stearns Goodwin, LBJ was heroic in this effort.  But I still agree that Hillary's analogy was terrible and reflects so badly on her.  I would also say that she is no LBJ, except in voting for the war.

                        Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought-JFK

                        by obamamama on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:35:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  None of them are an LBJ (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          George, jxg, LynChi, jlb1972, Rick Winrod

                          or an FDR. And we sorely need that kind of person to preside over another transformative decade. This country has generally had longer periods of conservatism marked by little and excruciatingly slow social progress follow by short spurts of incredible progress such as the New Deal and Great Society. We are overdue for another one. Edwards comes closest with his progressive populist campaign, but still falls short IMO.

                          •  Hillary was just careless with words, that's all (18+ / 0-)

                            I would never question Hillary's heart or her dedication to people of all races. I don't think she meant to denigrate MLK or the civil rights movement here, and she's probably privately horrified that her words were taken to mean such a thing.

                            She was just trying to say, in a clumsy and ill-advised way, that dreamers like MLK and Obama are great at inspiring people and calling for change, but political operatives and insiders like LBJ and Clinton are good at getting it done inside Washington.  There is some logic and truth here (it's hard to imagine MLK twisting arms in a backroom to get Southern Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act), but the statement ultimately crumbles under any tough scrutiny.

                            For one thing, Obama has shown himself to be a shrewd political operative, both in Illinois and in the Senate. He can work across lines.  He can get things done.  Republican strategist Tony Blankley recently said that Obama could wind up being a mix between MLK and JFK; others (like Andrew Sullivan) have called him a liberal version of Reagan.  HIllary, on the other hand, is no LBJ.  She wasn't able to get her Health Care initiative passed in 1994 when Dems held a clear majority in Congress.  Since being elected to the Senate, she's been a reliable vote but not a leader.

                            I'm a hard core Obama supporter and I relish any news that helps his campaign, but this misstatement by Hillary is not evidence of racism, nor is it meant to be a slap in the face to civil rights leaders.  It's just a clumsy and stupid attempt to push her "hope vs. experience" meme.

                          •  It's not racist. Just stupid. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            randallt, 4thepeople, tethys, oldliberal

                            Oh, and did I mention callous?

                            I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

                            by gabbardd on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:42:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not evidence of racism - (6+ / 0-)

                            no, just stupid, and evidence once again that she is a lifelong establishment suck-up. It was instinctive for her to raise the politician over the activist.

                            Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

                            by jlb1972 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  HILLARY'S REMARK IS NOT BIGOTED, JUST STUPID (7+ / 0-)

                            Hillary's saying that presidents aren't prophets--they're pragmatists, every one (including JFK).  I've been Edwards/Obama from the get-go--I've dreaded a Hillary candidacy, and I'm happy to see Obama up so far in the polls, but I just don't think what she said was racist. . . just politically tone-deaf, especially since most folks under 22 haven't heard of LBJ and revere MLK.  And that's because, finally, prophets matter more than Presidents.  Pragmatists are disposable--they're merely in the right place at the right time.  Prophets are indisposable--they make the right place and the right time.

                            If Obama is elected President, we'll likely see the transformation of a prophet into a pragmatist.  Heck, his campaign is far more pragmatic than Edwards's, for instance.

                          •  Damn words. (5+ / 0-)

                            She will lose -- the general election if not the primary -- because she dismisses the power of words to motivate and direct.

                            Knowing your policy and working hard isn't enough; if it were, many of us would be good enough to be president.

                          •  This diary is as careless as Hillary. (0+ / 0-)

                            Certainly, Hillary's choice of words could be better. But it's equally careless to take her statement out of context and attribute to her a remark which disparages MLK and every other activist in the Civil Rights Movement.

                            Here's more of what Hillary said:

                            "I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

                            As Josh Marshall emphasizes:

                            It's an ambiguous statement. But her reference is to different presidents -- Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it's not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ...And you can read her realization of the dream point as putting a lot of focus on legislation and sort of discounting activism. But when I look at the actual words in this statement it just doesn't match up with the line that's circulating -- that she was saying Obama's King and she's LBJ.

                            If Hillary was disparaging either MLK or any other civil rights activist, then she should be excoriated. But it's far from obvious that this was the case. Out of respect for the seriousness of the accusation, people need to slow down and make sure they're aiming at the right target.

                            "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

                            by machopicasso on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:59:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I truly believe that Edwards can be an FDR (0+ / 0-)

                            His left-of-center populist narrative could transform politics just as Reagan's rightist one did.

                            The nation started moving rightward-- well, actually after Civil Rights, but it took Reagan to solidify the move rightward.  Reagan tranformed the rightward move into a narrative in which big business was not the enemy but the "welfare queens" and the like were.

                            I truly think Edwards could sell the narrative that the very wealthy are the enemy, and that the rest of us are having trouble due to having to fight over what scraps they leave for us.

                            Make the big corporations and the super-rich the new "welfare queens" in a new narrative, and politics can be transformed.

                            The nation is ready to move left, just as it was primed in 1980 to move right.  Neither HRC nor Obama are anti-corporate enough to change the narrative in this way and take advantage of this movement, but I believe Edwards is.

                            Economic -3.50/Social -2.41

                            by CenterLeft on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:03:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I Truly Believe (0+ / 0-)

                            that I want some of what you're smoking....

                          •  I truly believe (0+ / 0-)

                            That probably somewhere in January, 1980 as public dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter was so high, one Repug said to another, "You know, I truly believe if we nominate Reagan and he wins, he can change the political landscape and narrative in our direction as much as FDR did for the Democrats.  The poor can be the 'enemy,' not big corporations.  Populism can be anti-poor, not anti-wealthy."  The other Repug replied, "I want some of what you're smoking."

                            Obviously, in this (imagined, but in all the conversations that occurred I bet one like it happened) scenario, the first Repug was right.

                            Let's elect Edwards and see what happens (okay, easier said than done).

                            Economic -3.50/Social -2.41

                            by CenterLeft on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:11:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I Think Obama Makes That Happen (0+ / 0-)

                            I also think Edwards sharpens the battle and strengthens Obama's spine and resolve....

                        •  What we can say (6+ / 0-)

                          I think we can all agree on this:  MLK led, LBJ saw reality, and he acted with uncommon courage and principle.  Without MLK the civil rights movement would not have triumphed, and without LBJ's courage and skill, the movement would have turned more violent and a lot more people would have suffered. We'd be in a much worse place today.  I think Geekesque has it about right, as do the commenters, when they criticize Hillary for her statement.  But that does not diminish my respect for either MLK or LBJ.  They were both great men and the interplay between them moved the country forward.  

                          In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

                          by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  LBJ Himself Would Tell You (0+ / 0-)

                          that what he was able to do legislatively (which was incredible!) would have been totally impossible or even unthinkable w/o the incredible courage and leadership of Dr. King.  LBJ twisted the arms of the Old Southern Bulls,  but it was because of the critical mass of pressure created by King that he was able to prevail.  

                      •  If it wasn't for Vietnam ... (12+ / 0-)

                        LBJ would be listed as a great president .. a continuation of FDR

                      •  course he also got killed... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Drewid

                        midway through his first term. That might could've had something to do with it.

                        Undecided Democratic Voter...okay?

                        by kredwyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:09:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually, no (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LeftistDragonfly

                          JFK had the pretty words, the charisma, the popularity with the media. But he was not the awe-inspiring hero in life as he was in death and his subsequent legend.

                          Before his death, he was actually considered a mediocre president, likely to be a one-termer.

                          Even during his presidency, he had tasked VP LBJ with researching civil rights, an especially thankless job at that time. Had JFK not been assassinated, it's likely he, as president, would have taken the credit for LBJ's behind-the-scenes work. It was Johnson who had been working all along to make Kennedy's campaign promises a reality.

                    •  I was too young to remember much about Johnson. (0+ / 0-)

                      as POTUS except that I do vaguely recall shoutin' at the ol' black & white when I saw him pick his beagle dog up by the ears.

                      But, I digress...

                      Wasn't the so-named "Great Society" (which was a sorta-like-extension of FDR's "New Deal") on LBJ's agenda? And, wasn't the "Civil Rights Act" a part of that greater agenda?

                      •  Johnson wasn't charismatic (0+ / 0-)

                        but he knew where the levers of power were and was willing to pull them even if it was unpopular.

                        (- 4.63, - 5.18) Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is. --Winston Churchill

                        by mkfarkus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  LBJ also forced chane in Democratic Party (14+ / 0-)

                    which was at the time was and had been for 100 years-- the Party of Racism.

                    LBJ was a good politician on domestic issues but he was a politician.

                    Change comes from actions by the people, and I guarantee, there was electric activity throughout the United States in those years.


                  •  good comment n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    "The only thing necessary for the triumph is evil is for people to mistake writing angry diaries on political blogs for doing something in the face of evil."

                    by Buffalo Girl on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Ghouliani. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Happy Days

                    Question is, what is Ghouliani going to do now?

                    After 9/11 his next favorite word is "Hillarycare."

                    When Hillary is gone, he will have to extend his vocabulary.

                •  bullshit (18+ / 0-)

                  JFK and RFK resisted the Civil Rights movement until they, and later, LBJ, were forced to act by the mass movements in the streets.

                  It is a terrific distortion of history to pretend that the great white fathers in Washington gave a shit about segregation or civil rights until they were forced.

                  Similarly, it is gross error to pretend that the Warren Court did the right thing thanks to any kindness in their own hearts. The struggle for Civil Rights was in full swing in the late 1940s and early 1950s and activities in the streets and at lunch counter, and most importantly, the demands by returning veterans that they were NOT going back from fighting fascism in Europe to face frightful levels of racism here in the US, including lynching of WW I and II veterans.

                  LBJ knew he had no choice-- and that is why he pushed through Civil Rights. Let's not distort history.

                  Please.


                  •  Not true. (18+ / 0-)

                    JFK and LBJ both took risks to do what they did. They could have chosen not to take those risks, and they may have required some convincing to do so - but they did what was right.

                    Now, they could have done more, and could have done better. But the risks they took were risks - JFK was eventually shot in the Southern state, and you better believe his stance on Civil Rights made him quite hated. As for LBJ, he correctly predicted that the Civil Rights bills would lose the South to the Democrats for  a generation. Yet he signed it anyway, and later chose not to run again.

                    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                    by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Um, he "chose" (6+ / 0-)

                      not to run again because of Vietnam.  And because if he had not made that "choice," he was looking at an embarrassing defeat in the Democratic primary.

                    •  jbeach-- (0+ / 0-)

                      JFK was shot in Dallas by someone not a southerner so your argument fails on that level.

                      To claim that either JFK or RFK were shot for civil rights, or anything close to it, is such a gross distortion that I wonder where your get your information.

                      What exactly do you think JFK and RFK did to further the cause of Civil Rights and to destroy desegregation?

                      Please be specific.

                      Thanks.


                      •  We're gonna get into nitpicking here? OK. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        grrr, merrinc, sustainable

                        JFK being so hated in the South definitely didn't help his security situation, IMHO. And more than ditto for RFK. You seem to think that their position on Civil Rights was nil, and therefore racists did not resent the Kennedys for it - I find that position pretty hard to back up.

                        But I do agree it's clear that other factors than their civil rights records were involved in their deaths - some of which we may never fully know.

                        But as for what JFK and RFK did for Civil Rights, it's pretty clear that they did a lot more than nothing.

                        For a pretty even-handed and even skeptical review of JFK's Civil Rights record, try here:

                        http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

                        [JFK] put pressure on federal government organisations to employ more African Americans in America’s equivalent of Britain’s Civil Service...Kennedy did more than any president before him to have more African Americans appointed to federal government posts. In total, he appointed 40 to senior federal positions including five as federal judges.

                        Kennedy appointed his brother (Robert) as Attorney General which put him at the head of the Justice Department. Their tactic was to use the law courts as a way of enforcing already passed civil rights legislation....The Justice Department brought 57 law suits against local officials for obstructing African Americans who wished to register their right to vote. Local officials from Louisiana were threatened with prison for contempt when they refused to hand over money to newly desegregated schools. Such a threat prompted others in Atlanta, Memphis and New Orleans to hand over finance without too many problems...

                        Alabama was the last state to have desegregated universities. Kennedy sent in federal troops and federalised the National Guard to enforce the law.

                        Kennedy was a politician and he was acutely aware that Democrats were less than happy with a disproportionate amount of time being spent on civil rights issues when the Cold War was in full flight with Vietnam flaring up and the world settling down after the problems poised by Cuba.

                        Kennedy was also aware that southern Democrats were still powerful in the party and their wishes could not be totally ignored if the party was not to be split apart - or if Kennedy was not to get the party’s nomination for the 1964 election. However, there is no doubt that the violence that occurred in the South during his presidency horrified and angered him.

                        Now, you'll notice on the same page a lot of other possible (and even probable) reasons given for these actions, and actions not taken by JFK, and similar info. That's true too.

                        But it's undeniable that JFK and RFK both took political risks they did not need to take.

                        ...Kennedy had to tread a very fine line in the South. His popularity by September 1963 showed that his support had dropped to 44% in the South. It had been 60% in March 1963. At this time, the South was a traditional stronghold of the Democrats. Now in 2001, it is all but Republican to a state - and the move started in the presidency of Kennedy and grew from it almost certainly as a rejection of the stance taken by a Democrat president.

                        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                        by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:03:53 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Forced by street struggle, LBJ did civil rights (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          serrano

                          The accuracy of Malcolm X's caustic description of the march on Washington (1963) is corroborated in the description from the other side--from the Establishment, by White House adviser Arethur Schlesinger, in his book A Thousand Days. He ells how Kennedy met with the civil rights leaders and said the march would "create an atmosphere of intimidation" just when Congress was considering civil rights bills. A. Philip Randolph replied: "The Negroes are already in the streets. It is very likely impossible to get them off..." Schlesinger says, "The conference with the President did persuade the civil rights leaders that they should not lay siege to Capitol Hill." Schlesinger describes the Washington march admiringly and then concludes: "So in 1963 Kennedy moved to incorporate the Negro revolution into the democratic coalition..."

                          But it did not work. The blacks could not be easily brought into "the new democratic coalition" when bombs kept exploding in churches, when new "civil rights" laws did not change the root condition of black people. In the spring of 1963, the rate of unemployment for whites ws 4.8 percent. For nonwhites it was 12.1 percent. According to government estimates, one-fifth of the white population was below the poverty line. The civil rights bills emphasized voting, but voting was not a fundamental solution to racism or poverty. In Harlem, black who had voted for years still lived in rat-infested slums."

                          In precisely those years when civil rights legislation coming out of Congress reached its peak, 1964 and 1965, there were black outbreaks in every part of the country: in Florida, set off by the killing of a Negro woman and a bomb threat against a Negro high school; inn Cleveland, set off by the killing of a white minister who sat in the path of a bulldozer to protest discrimination against blacks in construction work; in New York, set off by the fatal shooting of a fifteen-year-old Negro boy during a fight with an off-duty policeman. There were riots also in Rochester, Jersey City, Chicago, Philadelphia.

                          In August 1965, just as Lyndon Johnson was signing into law the strong Voting Rights Act, providing for federal registration of black voters to ensure their protection, the black ghetto in Watts, Los Angeles, erupted in the most violent urb an outbreak since World War II. It was provoked by the forcible arrest of a young Negro driver, the clubbing of a bystander by police, the seizure off a young black woman falsely accused of spitting on the police. There was rioting in the streets ad firebombing of stores. Police and National Guardsmen were called in; they used their guns. Thirty-four people were killed, most of them black, hundreds injured, four thousand arrested. Robert Conot, a West Coast journalist, wrote of the riot (Rivers of Blood, Years of Darkness: Inn Los Angeles the Negro was goig on record that he would no longer turn the other cheek. That frustrated and goaded, he would strike back, whether the response o'f violence was an appropriate one or no.  

                          pp 458-9 A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

                          •  So agree LBJ did Civil Rights, then (0+ / 0-)

                            You prove my point.

                            Now we can speculate until the end of eternity as to why. And I've already agreed both JFK and LBJ could have done more, and could have done better.

                            But they both took risks to do what they did, and they did 'em, and the South hated them both for it.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:34:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No need for speculation. Historians wrote it down (0+ / 0-)

                            Aldon D. Morris, of the African American Studies Department at University of Michigan, wrote a classic on this period: The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change Everyone should read it and it should be the defining history text for this period in high schools throughout the US.

                            An excerpt from pp 234-6, which is heavily footnoted but that I am not including the FNs here. Notice the reference to James Farmer, considered by many to be one of the greatest among Civil Rights leaders.

                            SNCC had very little money when it began organizing these controversial direct action projects in 1961. SNCC activists risked their lives daily while receiving only $10 subsistence wages per week. SNCC's financial situation im;roved in the summer of 1962, when it received some funds from the Taconic Foundation, the Field Foundation, and the Stern Family Fund. Those foundations worked in close conjunction with the Kennedy Administration and shared the Administration's view that black activists should channel their energies into efforts aimed at acquiring the vote for Southern blacks. With these funds and money raised by SNCC itself the organization expanded its direct action projects in the South during 1962 and 1963.

                            Following the tumultuous Freedom Rides, the Kennedy Administration made overt attempts to funnel the efforts of all the civil rights organizations into voter registration activities rather than disruptive protest movements. Indeed, the Kennedy administration was adamant in opposing wides-scale civil disobedience. President Kennedy thought that low-key voting activities would result in peaceful change and provide additional votes for the Democratic party.

                            James Farmer, who at that time was in jail for the Freedom Rides, explained how the Kennedy Administration attempted to "cool out" the demonstrations:
                            "I was in jail in Mississippi. Bobby Kennedy called a meeting of CORE and SNCC, in his office. I could not be there, of course. I was in the clink. But several people from CORE went. And several people from SNCC went, just those two because these were the activist groups in the Freedom Rides. This was in the summer of '61. And at that meeting, said to them according to the reports, he said, what Bobby said was,  "Why don't you guys cut out all that shit, Freedom Riding and sitting-in shit, and concentrate on voter education," Says, "If you do that I'll get you a tax exemption." That cold-blooded, This was Bobby Kennedy, Says, "Cut out this sitting-in and Freedom Riding shit and work on voter registration. If you do that I'll get you tax exemption."

                            Farmer's account continued:
                            "The SNCC guy almost hit him (Bobby Kennedy.) One of the SNCC guys and Bobby Kennedy were standing in the middle of the floor, , in the middle of the office, they tell me, forehead to forehead, shouting at each other. It looked like they were going to start throwing punches some time. And one of the CORE people stepped in between them, had to pull them apart. SNCC was outraged, you know, "Tell us that we concentrate on voter registration when we're fighting a tiger down there in Mississippi and Alabama. You're trying to buy us off.

                            Bevel adds that Robert Kennedy promised the activists money and exemption from the draft if they turned to voter registration.

                            Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. makes it clear that the Kennedy Administration attempted "to keep the turbulence of Civil Rights in the ordere channels of due process," and President Kennedy's means of doing so was to give first priority to voting rights.
                            Schlesinger further shows Kennedy's pursuit of the electoral strategy to be a desperate effort to satisfy Southern whites as best he could:

                            "Negro voting did not incite social and sexual anxieties; and white Southerners could not argue against suffrage for their Negro fellow citizens with quite the same moral fervor they applied to the mingling of races in schools. Concentration on the right to vote, in short, seemed the best available means of carrying the mind of the white South."

                            Robert Kennedy, in accord with the President's wishes,moved to shift the power and disruption of the civil rights movement onto the "safe" electoral ground:

                            In a behind-the-scenes effort reminiscent of the campaign to save the Bay of Pigs prisoners, the administration, with helpful assistance from the Taconic Foundation and collaboration fron the Southern Regional Council, persuaded the leading Negro organizations to undertake the drive which in 1963 registered a considerable number of Negros across the South.

                            While the Attorney Gneral attempted to contain the movement, his brother continued appointing Southern racist federal judges, who used their power to impede the movement.

                            William Kunstler, who as a lawyer dealt with these judges, wrote:
                            It is tragically ironic that Kennedy's Judicial appointments in the deep South included so many outright racists. The political necessity of clearing appointments to the federal ench with such Democratic stalwarts as Eastland, Russell, and Byrd has resulted in a surfeit of district judges devoted to the continuation of segregation.

                            Time and again these judges issued injunctions, set high bail bond, and ordered jail sentences to help the movement's opposition toward victory in conflict situations.

                            So, I ask you again, jbeach, what the hell did RFK and JFK do during the JFK administration, which coincided with the Freedom Rides, to side with the just demands of the protesters?


                          •  So all those speculations are certainties? (0+ / 0-)

                            Perhaps in your mind. Perhaps in their mind. But:

                            a) unless we're God, we can't guess what was in people's minds, we can only observe their actions

                            b) why is irrelevant to what - in this case, it's fact they did things for civil rights, and it's fact that it cost them politically with key US demographics to do so.

                            And just to show speculation, here's just one contrary opinion:

                            http://www.historynet.com/...

                            When other civil rights leaders at the meeting explained that the August 28 march would occur regardless of White House support, the Kennedys tried to ensure its success. Worried about an all-black demonstration, which would encourage assertions that whites had no serious interest in a comprehensive reform law, Kennedy asked Walter Reuther, head of the United Automobile Workers, to arrange substantial white participation by church and labor union members. Kennedy also worried that a small turnout would defeat march purposes, but black and white organizers answered this concern by mobilizing more than 250,000 demonstrators. To ensure that as little as possible went wrong, Bobby directed his Civil Rights Division assistant attorney general to work full time for five weeks guarding against potential mishaps such as insufficient food and toilet facilities, or the presence of police dogs, which would draw comparisons to the Birmingham demonstrations. Moreover, winning agreement for a route running from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial precluded the demonstration at the Capitol that the president feared would antagonize Congress.

                            Now we can play this speculation game all night. But in the world of facts, which are not in dispute, RFK JFK and LBJ all took actions towards civil rights.

                            Again, they could have done more and they could have done better. But for you to assert that no risks were involved in JFK, RFK and LBJ's support of civil rights, and that they did not strongly promote the advancement of civil rights, is ridiculous.

                            And for you to assert that they had no choice but to take strong action, is also ridiculous - they could have taken weak action; they could have found symbolic but useless compromises ala Clinton and gays in the military; they could have let violence occur and use that as a reason not to get involved; they could have shirked their responsibilities in any of a number of other ways which politicians do all the time.

                            Instead they put the might of the US government behind their will, and in support of civil rights.

                            As for what the hell else JFK and RFK did - I refer you to the other FIVE examples I've posted, as response to your other comments.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:40:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You reference an unsigned UK site (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FishOutofWater

                            somebody's opinion who didn't bother to sign a name.

                            I quoted from one of the great histories of the Civil Rights era, and from James Farmer, legendary participant and leader in the Civil Rights struggle. You might call that speculation and I would say you don't grasp the meaning of the term.

                            Here's a summary of another assessment of JFK. Oh, it happens to differ with your view, and it contains troublesome things, called facts.

                            A new book argues that JFK sat on the sidelines in the fight for civil rights.

                            By Jonathan Yardley
                            Sunday, July 2, 2006; BW02

                            THE BYSTANDER
                            John F. Kennedy and the Struggle for Black Equality
                            By Nick Bryant
                            Basic. 545 pp. $29.95

                            The legend of John Fitzgerald Kennedy has risen and fallen over the years, in part due to constant reinterpretation of the known facts about his thousand-day presidency by historians and others, and in part due to the political mood of any given moment. One aspect of that legend, though, has remained remarkably consistent over the years: that at the hour of his assassination in November 1963 he was widely admired and loved, especially by Democratic liberals.

                            Nothing could be further from the truth. ...

                            In this atmosphere of deepening crisis, Kennedy had done . . . not much. In June 1963, angered by "threats and defiant statements" by Gov. George Wallace over desegregation of the University of Alabama, Kennedy gave a powerful television address in which he called civil rights "a moral issue . . . as old as the scriptures and . . . as clear as the American Constitution" and then proposed significant federal civil rights legislation affecting public accommodations and related matters. But Congress had shown little interest in acting on the bill, and Kennedy had shown little interest in pressing it to do so. His focus was on the 1964 election. He wanted (and expected) a clear victory, and he did not want to give undue offense to those Southern voters who had, arguably, given him his narrow victory in 1960, a cliffhanger that still haunted him three years later.

                            So in the fall of 1963, a great many people who had strongly supported Kennedy in 1960 were angry with him. They felt that he had given little more than lip service to the great political, social and moral issue of the day, that he was at best ineffective in his dealings with a balky Congress still under the thumb of a bigoted Southern minority, and that there was too little substance behind that handsome, photogenic exterior. At the instant of his assassination, all that changed and was quickly forgotten, but it is a historical truth that needs to be brought back to light.

                            This is one of the many things that Nick Bryant, a BBC correspondent, does in The Bystander , an exhaustive (and, yes, exhausting) examination of Kennedy's record on civil rights from his first race for Congress in 1948 to his death 15 years later. It is a complicated story with as many ups and downs as Kennedy's reputation, but overall it does him little credit. The subject of African American rights produced "a bewildering range of possibilities" in him: "At times, he was capable of genuine acts of compassion and thoughtfulness. On other occasions, he was cold, disparaging, and notoriously unresponsive -- and never more so than when blacks criticized the inadequacy of his policies. Even at moments of great crisis, he could display a numbing indifference to violence and bloodshed." He "tended to be cold and calculating when organized civil rights protesters tried to pressure him into taking a political stand. He was much more sympathetic to individuals who had suffered directly from the violent outrages of segregation."

                            Now, more than four decades later, it is easy to forget just how violent those outrages could be. It was during Kennedy's presidency that James Meredith's attempt to enroll in the University of Mississippi met with mob violence abetted by state and local law-enforcement officers; that Bull Connor's cops turned high-powered fire hoses on black protesters (many of them children) in Birmingham; that four schoolgirls were killed when the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in that same city was bombed. Yet it was all too characteristic that after this last outrage, Kennedy said nothing -- nothing -- in public. This was three months after Kennedy had called civil rights "a moral issue," yet about the deaths of those four girls in what was transparently an attack motivated solely by bigotry, he had nothing to say.

                            This, Bryant argues, is further evidence that Kennedy "still did not fully comprehend what blacks were up against in pockets of fierce segregationist resistance, like Birmingham." Doubtless this is true, and doubtless it reflects certain obvious realities: the isolating effect of the wealth and privilege Kennedy had enjoyed all his life and the additional isolating effect of the Oval Office. The only black American with whom Kennedy spent much time was George Thomas; they had a mutually friendly relationship, but Thomas's "job each morning was to lay out the president's clothes." Beyond that, he simply wasn't very interested in domestic issues except as they affected his political standing; he believed that the first job of the president was foreign affairs, and during his term many things happened -- the Berlin Wall, the missile crisis, Vietnam -- that obviously confirmed him in that belief.

                            It is also true, as Bryant emphasizes, that "temperamentally and ideologically, Kennedy was a gradualist." He did not have an ounce of the zealot in him. Even with regard to the Cold War, about which he had strong feelings, he was clinical and detached. Indeed, the effect of American racism on the Cold War mattered more to him than its effect on America and its black citizens; he knew that instances of bigotry and segregation gave the Soviet Union a powerful propaganda weapon against the United States, and he wanted to neutralize it as much as possible.

                            He was essentially passive on the moral issues raised by segregation and manipulative on the political ones, yet his record as president was far from bleak. He and members of his administration did many things that had powerful symbolic effect, from appointing a number of blacks to visible positions to boycotting the Metropolitan Club, "where the only blacks allowed into the dining room were stewards with napkins folded over their arms," to staging festivities at the White House where blacks were prominent as guests and performers. This may seem tame today, but in the early 1960s it bordered on the revolutionary, and "the very gestures that black leaders and liberals derided as token were, in fact, highly effective in terms of sustaining widespread black support."

                            Yet it was also Kennedy who appointed several outright segregationists to the federal bench -- most notoriously William Harold Cox, a buddy of Mississippi's racist senator James O. Eastland -- and who repeatedly equivocated as the sit-ins spread and as black demands became more insistent. As a young congressman, he had "battled hard for new civil rights legislation and fought tenaciously on behalf of black residents in the District of Columbia," but once he entered the White House in 1961, he made a "decision to back away from civil rights." He stuck with that decision until May 1963, when events in the South convinced him "that further equivocation could engender further violence." Yet only four months later, he kept his silence on Birmingham.

                            Bryant understands that Kennedy's instincts were decent but that he was ruled by innate caution and a keen sense of political realities, at least as he understood them. Bryant also believes that the nation was far more ready for vigorous action on civil rights and that by failing to seize the moment, Kennedy may have contributed, however unwittingly, to white resentment and resistance. Bryant, who studied American history and politics at Cambridge and Oxford, is that genuine rarity: a Brit who actually understands the United States. The Bystander does retrace too much familiar ground in too great detail, but it is solid, knowledgeable and perceptive. ...

                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                          •  Oh, man! (0+ / 0-)

                            So what about where the speculation comes from?? My entire point is, anyone can have speculations!

                            Woo.

                            Here's how it is:

                            - we know what JFK, RFK and LBJ did. - we know it cost them politically. - we know they could have done less.

                            You are attempting to say that:

                            - JFK and RFK didn't do anything for civil rights - which I've already refuted, and which you have refused to acknowledge.

                            You remember when you asked for one thing either of them did, and I gave you five? You know, those troublesome things called "facts" you referred to? You're ignoring them.

                            - this involved no risk on their part, or on LBJ's part (also already refuted)

                            Rather than engage on those two points, you are now switching to a different argument - that, because JFK, RFK and LBJ were partly influenced by political considerations, this negates anything they did. Your quoted speculations are in support of this argument - which is a separate point from what we know in history that JFK, RFK and LBJ did.

                            To sum up: one can speculate as to the reasons why anyone does anything, and find evidence to support it. That, though, remains only speculation.

                            All we can know, to the extent that we can know anything, is what people have done in the real world, with matter, space and time.

                            JFK, RFK and LBJ did real things to advance civil rights in space and time.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:15:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A bit more from James Farmer himself on JFK (0+ / 0-)

                            Lay Bare The Heart: An Autobiography of the Civil Rights Movement
                            by James Farmer (Arbor House: 1985)

                            ...
                            I was aware, also, that Stephen Currier was friendly with the Kennedys, and I suspected that the joint fund-raising plan was a more sophisticated Kennedy ploy to achieve the same results as the cruder Bobby Kennedy proposal had intended to accomplish.

                            But no matter, voter registration was of great importance; it could change the face of the South in a decade. CORE could do both—the short range and the long range. I had the staff and the volunteers and the energy, and with joint fund raising, we might have the money to take on voter registration with the fervor that was our trademark.

                            And so I smiled and agreed to the plan. Currier looked relieved.

                            Although Wilkins, King, Young, and Currier were close to the Kennedys, I was not. I was considered uncontrollable, since I would not halt the Freedom Ride when asked to.

                            John F. Kennedy decided to meet with each civil rights leader. My meeting with the president in 1962 turned out to be the most insulting session I've ever had with a government official. I was ushered into the Oval Office on schedule. The president came in five minutes later with a sheaf of papers in his hand. He shook my hand limply without looking at me, and took a seat. He proceeded to look through the papers before him,making notations on some, initialing others. Still, he did not look at me; I might as well not have been there. I began talking, trying to break through the seemingly impenetrable barrier. I did not succeed. Occasionally, he would nod in agreement; otherwise, there was no acknowledgement of the fact that I was speaking.

                            Suddenly, I stopped talking, and there still was no change in the president's demeanor as he worked on his papers. Finally, I said, "Mr. President, if you're too busy for this meeting,I'm sure it can be rescheduled for a time more convenient to you."

                            "No, no," he said, looking up for a second or two, "go right ahead." Then, he resumed work on the papers before him.

                            When the allotted time of half an hour had passed, I said, "Mr. President, I see that my time is up,. I won't impose further on your schedule. Thank you for seeing me."

                            JFK nodded, stood, shook my hand, and without a word went back to his work.

                            I asked Wilkins, Young, and King if they had a similar experience of insolence with Kennedy,and they had not. They had found him warm and friendly and most attentive.

                            190A short while later, an experience with the attorney general confirmed my suspicion about the Kennedys' attitude toward me. In the summer of 1962, I moderated a two-week seminar for corporation executives at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in Colorado. Upon completion of the seminar, Joe Slater, director of the Aspen Institute, asked me if I would remain in Aspen for another two weeks to help Bobby Kennedy answer questions from a group of foreign students about America, since surely many of the queries would deal with the racial scene and the civil rights movement. After checking with my office to clear the calendar, I agreed to do it.

                            The next day, Slater informed me that he was embarrassed because he would have to withdraw his invitation to me. The attorney general had said that he would not come "if that sonofabitch Farmer is there." Bobby Kennedy further stated that if Slater would cancel me, he would bring Thurgood Marshall, by then a federal judge, to help field questions.

                            I was embarrassed and hurt, but Lula, who loved Aspen, was more disappointed than I that our working vacation in the Colorado mountains could not be extended.

                            Though the Kennedys despised me in those days, I found the vice-president, Lyndon Johnson, more than cordial. But then, vice-presidents need friends; presidents have them.

                            LBJ greeted me with his Texas rancher's hand shake that nearly jerked my arm out of itssocket. He leaned toward me as we talked, gripping my eyes with his.

                            As vice-president, he was chairman of the President's Commission on Equal EmploymentOpportunity. It was that capacity of his that led me to request a meeting.

                            Statistics showed that the median average income of blacks was stalled at less than  60 percent that of whites. Worse, the gap was widening. I was convinced that the simple colorblindness of antidiscrimination codes had taken us about as far as it could. The FairEmployment Practices (FEP) laws triggered by the executive order that Randolph hadextracted from Roosevelt in 1941 had become obsolete. Something more advanced wasnow needed.

                            Johnson closed his jaws tightly, knotted his brows, and continued boring into my eyes. Then he spoke: "What d'you suggest? What could be more advanced than antidiscrimination?""What I'm proposing," I replied, "is that as a matter of policy in employment we replacecolor blindness with color consciousness aimed at eliminating inequities based on color."

                            The vice-president's eyes narrowed more, and his lower lip pushed harder against the upper one.

                            I continued: "What I am suggesting is that we no longer tell employers to be oblivious to the color of applicants, but to look at their color to see if the minority applicants are too fewor nonexistent. They should then consider the possibility that they are not advertising in andrecruiting from the right places. I'm proposing further that if two applicants are equallyqualified, the fact that there are too few minority persons employed there should weigh infavor of the minority applicant. In a word, what I'm proposing is a policy of 'compensatorypreferential treatment' similar to that used with veterans."

                            Johnson considered what I had said for several seconds and reacted with enthusiasm. "I think you're right. I agree with you. We have to give minorities an extra push to help themcatch up. It's not fair to ask a man to run a race when the other fellow is halfway aroundthe track. But don't call it compensatory—what was that?"I repeated the phrase.

                            "Oh, that's a terrible name. We can't call it that. Let's see, what can we call it? We have tomove the nation forward, act positively, affirmatively. That's it: affirmative action."

                            191When I related that conversation to the Big Six at a CUCRL meeting in the spring of 1963,Whitney Young remarked that he'd been talking about the same thing. Wilkins, however,expressed misgivings about the idea....

                            from around p. 186

                          •  Are you even reading my responses? (0+ / 0-)

                            Please read my response, above yours, re: speculation as to reasons vs. known facts. It renders your comment "in reply" irrelevant.

                            Then, please address the fact that you asked for ONE thing that JFK an RFK did to support civil rights, and I gave you FIVE.

                            Then please either refute that those FIVE historical incidents I mentioned took place, or acknowledge that I answered and refuted your point.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:23:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  While we're here, let's look at what you quoted: (0+ / 0-)

                            Johnson considered what I had said for several seconds and reacted with enthusiasm. "I think you're right. I agree with you. We have to give minorities an extra push to help themcatch up. It's not fair to ask a man to run a race when the other fellow is halfway around the track. But don't call it compensatory—what was that?"I repeated the phrase.

                            "Oh, that's a terrible name. We can't call it that. Let's see, what can we call it? We have tomove the nation forward, act positively, affirmatively. That's it: affirmative action."

                            You realize that shows Johnson having a conscience, a notion of fairness, and deciding to support civil rights, correct?

                            Thank you for introducing evidence that Johnson did the right thing for the right reason. Johnson's motivations weren't even my argument, they were yours; but this disproves your argument also.

                            As for how rude JFK and RFK were, I don't doubt it. That's entirely irrelevant to what they did for civil rights - which again is what you originally disputed, and which is a subject you are now avoiding.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  White House is always motivated by political (0+ / 0-)

                            It is the nature of the job.

                            My point was that, on the whole, JFK did not play a progressive role vis a vis the Civil Rights movement. He tried to hold it back. I provided you with examples of how he did that.

                            The LBJ anecdote by James Farmer offers a bit of insight into LBJ. Of the two, JFK and LBJ, LBJ did much more to aid the movement. JFK did as little as he possibly could, civil lrights was not his interest though he gave a couple of decent speeches about it.

                            JFK was a great orator but he was only in office for three years. Maybe he would have done better later. We don't know. we will never know.

                            But for the time that he did rule, he was more a hindrande to Civil Rights than a help. Think about this. We kick Bush's ass day and night for appointing reactionary judges. JFK appointed racist judges to make life miserable for people struggling for their civil rights. I don't admire that.

                            Actually, I think it sucks, every bit as much when JFK did it as when Bush did it.


                          •  Well, I think it's clear that JFK moved forward (0+ / 0-)

                            If you want to argue it was only when he was forced, then that was a separate argument.

                            But he could have moved backwards, could have stalled entirely, could have done nothing and claimed "his hands were tied" - as other politicians, including Bill Clinton (who I otherwise like) have done.

                            I just think that saying JFK, RFK and LBJ did nothing, is ignoring the record.

                            I guess at this point we can agree to disagree.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You ignore the central point... (0+ / 0-)

                            that JFK appointed racist judges to deal with people struggling for civil rights. Do you acknowledge that was disgusting and racist of JFK, that he was no friend of the Civil Rights movement in the area where he had the most power? That he failed to use his power to appoint progressive judges and to push their nominations through in the same way the Bush administration very successfully uses its power to put a reactionary stranglehold on the judiciary for the next few generations.

                            So JFK didn't want a Birmingham type showdown in DC so he provided toilets etc.

                            Big effing deal.

                            What did JFK do to address the marchers' concerns-- such as 11 percent unemployment among black men-- that's more relevant than keeping order in your town and not wanting to be embarrassed in front of the whole wide world.

                          •  what you present is indeed speculation (0+ / 0-)

                            there are no citations. we don't know that it wasn't invented by a spin meister.

                            where there were witnesses to an event, and the chain of evidence can be shown, that seems to me to have more credibility.

                          •  This anecdote is utterly unsourced (0+ / 0-)

                            In the citations I provided you, every detail was traceable. In this one, none of it is traceable. It could have been made up out of whole cloth. I always like to know who is telling the story so as to know what kind of axes are being ground.

                            The other thing that strikes me is that JFK and RFK took no risks here. Even assuming for a moment that this spin is true, what is it -- the people are supposed to be happy that water hoses weren't turned on them?

                            You forget, my friend, that Washington belongs to the people. Those who are there now, they are all temps.


                    •  And yes, absolutely LBJ quit over VN (0+ / 0-)

                      His declining to seek office for a second full term had everything to do with his pursuit and escalation of the war in Southeast Asia.

                      It was a shocker and considered a victory for the anti-war movement. A short-lived victory.

                      LBJ recognized that his legacy lay with pushing Civil Rights legislation through Congress and he certainly had the skill to do it. He knew future generations would respect his doing it though Confederates and other like-minded would not.

                      He knew also that his foreign policy was a disaster.

                      Two chants from 1968:

                      Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?

                      LBJ, withdraw just like your father should have


                      •  So you think LBJ's civil rights didn't hurt him? (0+ / 0-)

                        Seriously? And you think his support of Civil Rights wasn't at all risky or difficult at that time?

                        Is that really your position?

                        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                        by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:08:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  jbeach-- (0+ / 0-)

                      what risks did JFK take for civil rights?

                      Can you name one or two or three?

                      Just one will do. I'm calling bullshit.


                      •  I just named 4, and I'm calling bullshit on you. (0+ / 0-)

                        Now if we're done with the shit-flinging, perhaps we can get back to making this country better.

                        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                        by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:06:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Here's 1 more for you,that's right to heart of it (0+ / 0-)

                        From the same page as earlier quoted:

                        Kennedy only became voluntarily active when James Meredith forced his hand. In September 1962, James Meredith applied to a white-only college (the University of Mississippi) to do a doctorate. He was turned down. Here was a man who had served in the US Air Force for 10 years being rejected because of his colour. Meredith got legal add from the  NAACP and fought his case. The Supreme Court found in his favour. When he went to enrol, Bobby Kennedy sent 500 marshals to ensure that law and order was maintained. It was not. Nearly 200 of the marshals were injured and two were shot by those who were adamant that Meredith would not go to college.  To maintain law and order, something the state government could not do, John Kennedy federalised the Mississippi National Guard and sent federal troops to the university. Meredith did enroll to the university.

                        This was a big deal. Now, to say JFK was reacting to a situation, is a valid criticism - that's why I bolded it. But the bottome line is, JFK could have just backed down and found some side way out of the matter. Such as Bill Clinton (unfortunately) did, when Clinton attempted to force the conservative US military to not discriminate against gays - and we ended up with the "don't ask, don't tell" travesty. (I like Bill Clinton as a President, but he had his flaws and screwups, and this was definitely one.)

                        Instead of backing down or finding a sideways "compromise", JFK sent troops there to force his will. Now, that's a big deal any way you slice it.

                        Now we can speculate as to what would have happened otherwise, as they do on the very same website:

                        But would Kennedy have done anything if Meredith had not taken out legal action against the university? If Meredith had simply accepted his rejection - as illegal as it was - would Kennedy have taken such drastic action ? If Meredith had not existed, would Kennedy have hunted out those educational establishments that were blatantly breaking the law ?

                        But that's speculation. What we know is, what he did.

                        As I've said before, both LBJ and JFK could have done more, and done better. But they did things no Presidents before them had done, and they took great risks to do so.

                        So I can understand being dissatisfied with their actions and wanting more - but to say they did nothing is, historically, simply wrong.

                        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                        by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:32:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  W R O N G (0+ / 0-)

                      JFK didn't even publicly address the nation on civil rights until after Mefgar Evars was assassinated in 1963.

                      If what you say is correct, Jbeach, then how is it that the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until 1964 or the Civil Rights Act not until 1965?

                      Civil Rights was not a priority in the Kennedy Administration. PERIOD. That is history.

                      The public outrage and outcry was so overwhelming, and the amount of white Southern resistance and violence so ridiculous, they had to be put in check, because the Supreme Court's rulings and the Civil Rights Act of 1957 had to be enforced and respected.

                      A Republican President would've probably done the same thing.

                      God and Nature first made us what we are, and then out of our own created genius we make ourselves what we want to be. -Garvey

                      by LeftistDragonfly on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:55:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  re:Um (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Maddie05

                    I think you're full of shit on this.  

                  •  And I'll Raise You a Bullshit (6+ / 0-)

                    Let's not distort history.

                    Why not drop the "great white fathers" nonsense - particularly when talking about JFK, RFK and LBJ?

                    The civil rights movement had millions of heroes who all played different roles.  And I don't believe anybody ever forced Harry Truman to integrate the armed forces when he did.

                    •  It was a cheap shot. (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      George, jxg, mrblifil, jbeach, zephron

                      But hey, geek has to play that race card or lose it. Or something like that.

                      I'm not surprised--the Obamabots were smug even before their guy was winning. Get yer waders on folks, it's gonna get deep.

                      Your life begins when you are born, but your life story begins at that moment when you discover that you are in the wrong family. (Phillip Pullman)

                      by homogenius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:28:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Harry Trumna was forced by the struggles... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sagittarius, LeftistDragonfly

                      of returning African American veterans who faced segregation and lynching here in these racially divided United States.

                      Truman was also forced by the embarrassment of segregation that the Soviet Union forcefully pointed out, at every opportunity.

                      Read W.E.B.DuBois. Read the story of Paul Robeson, and Harry Moore, the NAACP leader who was blown up during a campaign to stop thee hundreds of lynchings then taking place in Florida.

                      •  Harry told you that was why himself, did he? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        brentmack

                        If he was racist, why would he care how many African American veterans got killed? If he was jsut doing it to save face, why would he desegregate with an executive order that didn't need Congress' approval, rather than let it go to Congress and be defeated?

                        And how many Republicans would be moved by the Soviet Union pointing out the same thing, do you think?

                        Once again, this is all speculation. All we know is what was done - which was the right thing.

                        It's possible that Harry Truman was moved to do the right thing, you know. Not that he didn't have tons of his own warts, including undeniably racist attitudes.  So has every President in US history before him, going back to Jefferson.

                        But just because there was some bad in there, doesn't mean there wasn't any good. And it does us no benefit to recognize the good in history, as well as the bad.

                        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                        by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:48:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ahem - edit last line - preview is my friend (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          brentmack

                          It does us benefit to recognize the good in history, as well as the bad.

                          "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                          by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:50:29 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  The difference between you and I is this (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LeftistDragonfly

                          You see history from the top down, which is a traditional way of looking at it, suggesting that 'great men' (for better or worse) moved mountains.

                          I suggest to you that great change occurs as a result of struggle at the bottom where the pressures of an unjust society are felt most oppressively... people rising up.

                          I can only hope that you consider that there is another way of looking at history.

                          For the record, here's another history of the movement from the bottom up. amazon has it beginning this way:

                          Local People: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi (Blacks in the New World) (Paperback)
                          by John Dittmer (Author) "On July 2, 1946, Medgar Wylie Evers celebrated his twenty-first birthday by leading a group of Word War II veterans, including his brother Charles, Through..."

                          http://www.amazon.com/...

                          And we all do remember what happened to Medgar Evers, hmmm?

                          You might like this book. It received five star review from all reviewers.

                          Bonne nuit

                          •  As can perhaps be predicted, I disagree :) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            brentmack

                            I think I see history warts and all. I don't at all think change only occurs from the top down; but I do think that people at the top can sometimes do positive things for justice within their society.

                            I think all Presidents of the US have had racist attitudes, up to and perhaps even including Bill Clinton. But I also look at the record and see leaders rising above their own prejudices to do good things, even if they could have done more and done better; and even if their actions were sparked by events outside their control.

                            And I'm for social justice and positive change in race and class and other issues, which I am sure we can both agree on.

                            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:36:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, That's Local News (0+ / 0-)

                        Harry Moore, the NAACP leader who was blown up during a campaign to stop thee hundreds of lynchings then taking place in Florida.

                        And it's got nothing to do with Truman desegregating the armed forces in 1948.

                        Moore and his wife were killed in 1951 in Brevard County, Florida - which is where I live.  I'm also about 5 minutes from a courthouse that's named after him.

                •  Earlier LBJ (15+ / 0-)

                  Let us remember, as well, that LBJ helped push an earlier civil rights law through Congress when he was Senate minority leader.  This was in 1957.  Eisenhower signed the law.

                  The famous story is told that during the Summer recess LBJ and family returned to their home in Texas.  While there, they purhcased a new car, which they proceeded to drive back to Washington, DC.

                  At a fuel stop in, I believe, Arkansas, everyone went to use the facilities.  Mrs. Johnson's maid, who was Black and had been with the family forever, was not allowed to use the segregated facilities.  There were no rest rooms for Blacks at all.

                  LBJ used the incident to argue for the bill.  He told opponents that therew as no good reason that an employee of the majority leader of the United States Senate should have to "pee in the bushes" because she was Black.

                  •  Nice, use classism (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nowhere Man

                    to argue against racism.

                    Like they say, if all issues that divide mankind (color, sex, religion, etc) were removed one morning, by lunch there'd be another set of prejudices well underway . . .

                    •  Uhhh, no. Just no. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jxg, labradog, mrblifil, missreporter

                      I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the sign at that gas station didn't say "no maids", it said "no coloreds".

                      Your life begins when you are born, but your life story begins at that moment when you discover that you are in the wrong family. (Phillip Pullman)

                      by homogenius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, I realize that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nowhere Man

                        my point was the LBJ apparently used the fact that he was a rich/powerful person to generate outrage that his traveling companion/maid could not use the facilities.

                        Would it not have been any less outrageous if this woman had been traveling with you or me?

                        (well, me at least, perhaps you belong to the overlord class . . . if you do, I for one welcome our new homogenius overlords . . .)

                      •  "Whites only" (0+ / 0-)

                        That's what many signs said in those days.

                        LBJ never claimed to be particularly classy and I don't think he was bringing class to bear on the issue.

                        My take on that story has always been that even though she worked for someone who was fairly important she was still relegated to the bushes because of her race.

                        LBJ grew up dirt poor and he never forgot it.  He remembered when they got electricity.  At age 59, I remember a wooden phone that hung on the wall.  (It was a party line, too.)

                        LBJ knew what it was to be humiliated because of one's station in life.  He did not like to see it done to someone he knew and liked.

              •  Even LBJ got this done as JFK's legacy. (13+ / 0-)

                That was part of the movement that JFK not be in vain and Texas not be blamed.  I lived in Texas at the time, I went to LBJ's alma mater at the time, Bill Clinton knows better than this.  

                Better for Hillary to develope laryngitis and take a break for two days and chill.

                I do not and never have wanted her to be the nominee but I do not want her to fail in such an appalling way.

              •  Sorry, they have shown themselves (0+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:
                labradog

                It's easy to "not be racists," when you're in power and it means meeting with black leaders. But when presented with the challenge of running against a viable black candidate the Clintons have done the following: had staffers start a lie in Insight Magazine that said Obama was a racist and kept it up through a shitty mass e-mail campaign; described Obama in code as "overly ambitious;" had their New Hampshire chair allege that Obama was a drug dealer without a shred of proof--trying to conjure up the image of a black kid on the street corner (definitely not Obama, who had a pretty privileged up bringing); Bill Clinton's code filled appearance on Charlie Rose.

                Sorry, when presented with a challenge, they chose to be racists. They chose to run the old politics of hate, fear, and division. They chose to try to keep the black guy "in his place." Bill and Hillary Clinton are both racists that should be expelled from our party!

              •  praising lbj isnt dumping on mlk (0+ / 0-)
              •  It is a racist appeal (0+ / 0-)

                I don't think that the Clintons are racists.

                I do think they are trying to use racism against Obama, and I agree with the scholars who say that when such attacks are called out for what they are, it makes them backfire, as we all have unconscious racism but consciously we abhor that aspect of ourselves.

                Obama (and Edwards) should call out Hillary for using racist appeals and say that she is behaving like a Repuglican racist (without directly saying she is a racist-- just say she's using their tactics).  This can be slammed back in her face.

                Economic -3.50/Social -2.41

                by CenterLeft on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:52:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Bush isn't this dumb (0+ / 0-)

                Hill doens't have the political sensibilities of even Geoirge Bush who likely isn't even stupid enough to make this argument.  Moaning over  the hard job of the President in war time he never compared his great contribution to that of a soldier.  MLK like other mostly soon murdered souls  decided to raise his eyes above shoe level and risk lynching when he was a young man in Dixie.  Clinton nor any of her bretheren in the oval office ever made that kind of sacrifice based on a dream that they might by their own quiotic and usualy fatal uppity selves make life better.  Who but a fool would make that sort of comparison.  is this the kind of stuff we might be saddled with for 4 years?  Time to end this bad dream.  We don't need someone with less sensibilities than Bush in the office pretending to represent Democratic ideals.

                There are two Clinton's. They are not, apparently, both black.

                Conventional wisdom is most usualy an oxymoron.

                by SmithsLastWord on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:12:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  You're right, she's sinkin' like a stone and... (0+ / 0-)

              her advisors (re: Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe) are throwing her a deflated flotation device.

              Oh, and Bill handed it to them -- to give to her.

              Truth is, I don't think HRC is a racist. Panic's setting in because -- she just doesn't know how to lose -- let alone lose graciously.

              Give HRC a while to recover. Hmm, perhaps a rehab center would help her adjust. Then, after a lonnnngg rest, she can go back to being the junior senator from NY.

          •  Dick Morris works for Huckabee (10+ / 0-)

            This comment by Hillary isn't about race.  She's talking about the history of getting it done.  People are just too literal here.  LBJ knew something on everybody in congress.  He had them all by the balls.  That's how he got things done.

            Winning without Delay.

            by ljm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Next, "Obama released Willie Horton" (7+ / 0-)

            Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
            Court certified Marijuana Expert

            by ben masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:51:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary has always shown respect (16+ / 0-)

            and concern for African-Americans, according to Carl Bernstein's book. Additionally. he writes that she cried and was visibly shaken when she heard of King's assassination.  If true, this just shows how much of herself she is willing to give up in order to win.

            •  That is what I don't understand (5+ / 0-)

              she does have a pretty good record on civil rights.  I would have to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that it was a very poorly worded statement. I think she was trying to say that the laws need to be changed by the political leaders, not the activists.  The activists are the ones that light the fire that forces the leaders to change. You need both the activists and the leadership to accomplish change.  I would rather see Edwards or Obama as the next nominee, but I can't believe that Clinton would intentionally denigrate MLK.

          •  Hello, it's a Democratic primary they're in... (5+ / 0-)

            ...and not likely anyone would be using "racial code" in one.  You're confusing this with the general election, complete with casting Senator Clinton as the hated Republican trying to steal the dream.

            Someday, the fever here will break.  Hey, maybe THAT'S "code" for something...call the mob, call the mob!!

          •  No Hillary's ego got the best of her (6+ / 0-)

            No rational politician would compare herself to someone with a national holiday named after them. No rational politician would compare herself to someone with a bigger than life sized monument on the DC mall.

            Hillary has completely lost perspective because her dreams have been shattered by the rejection in Iowa.

            "It's the planet, stupid."

            by FishOutofWater on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  This TR worthy (5+ / 0-)

            Calling Sen. Clinton a bigot is beneath you.

            "We've done the impossible and that makes us mighty."

            by Dissento on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:26:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No. Here's the deal: stupid statement, that's it. (13+ / 0-)

            If she was actually trying to play the race card, she'd do a much better job of it. She's calling herself LBJ, then she'd cast someone much less revered than MLK for Obama.

            Such as say Malcom X, or the Black Panthers.

            She's trying to say practical skills outweighs idealism, and she's made a terrible argument - but to say this is bigotry is to put a story on it that just isn't there, IMHO.

            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

            by jbeach on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't go that far (0+ / 0-)

            just a stupid response from a camp that is going down in flames.

          •  re:Hell! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dunkerque, ZinZen, jlb1972

            If Hillary wants to offer herself as LBJ to Obama's MLK, I say let her!  It's offensive to be sure, and the bizarre nature of this line of attack illustrates the constraints Hillary is operating under.  She's in a corner.

            But she isn't a bigot.  It's just a poorly conceived attempt to strain her "who can actually get things done" shtick.  It's sad, really, because yes indeed Johnson played a huge part in the civil rights movement.  (We should know; he lost the South for Democratic presidential candidates for a looooong generation.)  Put to pit Johnson against King in this manner is perverse and pathetic.

          •  That's a stretch... (7+ / 0-)

            Comparing Obama to MLK is...  well tremendously complimentary frankly.  I've compared him to MLK in my mind many times, not because of race but because of elements of speaking style and themes that they both touch on.  

            She's trying to distinguish herself as a doer and Obama as a talker, and I think, in this case, she went a touch off script and screwed up big time.  I doubt if you really followed up with her that she'd go out of her way to defend it.  I guarantee she knew as soon as she said it that she'd screwed up.  

            The thing is this really demonstrates why Obama is successful right now.  He's being himself.  He's a candidate who found his message and it happens to be resonating with people at this time and place.  Hillary is trying to win the presidency and shaping a message to fit the people.  Honestly there's nothing wrong with that, we should all want politicians who represent our interests.  The difficulty she faces though is that it's not wired into the fiber of her being and so she can't speak to it like Obama does.

            --- It's always easier to tear down other people's dreams than to build them

            by sterno on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i agree sterno (0+ / 0-)

              when i heard her "it takes a president" comment I thought, well, that's why Obama is running for president!

              O's speaking cadences in the final days of Iowa reminded me a great deal of MLK as well.

              for Hillary to say something like this just days before the MLK birthday holiday is either deliberate or tone deaf.  either one is going to hurt her with the African American base that was so strongly with her at first.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
              IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:34:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It's the second part of her argument that fails (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldliberal

            As an Obama supporter, I don't think Hillary is a racist at all. And I think her point about a president being able to seize on a movement and turn it into real legislative results isn't a bad one.

            What I object to is the second half of her argument--The implied idea that she is one who can get real change passed in congress. Everything I see tells me that Barack Obama will be more effective in snatching enough wavering republicans to get key bills passed on energy, education and health care.

          •  This woman (0+ / 0-)

            Hillary is getting fucking desperate. She is going to ruin her reputation if she keeps this up

          •  Agreeing with Dick Morris..God help you all (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maddie05

            You will believe anything, it seems, if it serves what is turning out to be your sordid Daily-Kos-based campaign. Your own campaign for Obama here at this website is gaining a life all its own by his supporters...and it doesn't look like you're the hopeful and kind group of people your candidate is expecting you to be.

            It's getting really ugly.

            Perhaps you should regroup and make a better plan.

          •  comparing Obama to King (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi

            will only heighten his appeal for some people.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
            IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  god you people are deranged (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maddie05

            no wonder all the gore haters from mo dowd to arianna to matthews to frank rich to sullivan and on and on - are with you!!!!!!!

            YUCK!!!!!!

          •  I'm sitting here watching THE GREAT DEBATERS (0+ / 0-)

            directed and starring Denzel Washington.

            http://www.imdb.com/...

            The movie is a stark reminder of the horrors of racism in the 30s when the movie is set. Is Morris is right?  People often say that Bill is the most gifted politician of his time. If politics is about winning, then what does the most gifted politician do? What he has to. Which given Hillary's weakening position, could get downright ugly.

            Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

            by moon in the house of moe on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:17:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Very Bad day for Clinton Campaign. (24+ / 0-)

          Did she say that today?
          That is horrible-her team needs to be fired.
          Morning Joe played a very odd clip of Hillary at a NH press conference telling Chris Matthews that "I don't know what to do with men that are obsessed with me" after which she hugged Chris, he pinched her cheek and she patted his cheek. Very,very weird.
          Then she choked up this afternoon.
          I think the Hillary Clinton Campaign is is done as of 1/7/08.

        •  im confused by you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Maddie05

          how is praising the work of LBJ, who I respect above all presidents in modern times in his concern for the poor, insults MLK and makes hillary....a racist?

          --------

          ""Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done.  The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

          ---------

          sorry, sounds exactly clear and right to me.  of course, the movements speeches, rallies, movements made the moment possible.  But, it was the executive and legislative actions of LBJ, civil rights act, voting act, fair housing that made ACTUAL CHANGE.

          You folks will say or distort anything wont you?  Have you no shame, no sense of decency?

          oh yeah - i forgot- you frigging HATE HILLARY and everything must be spun to fulfill your irrational hate.

          nevermind, now its clear.

      •  Stupid Attacks Don't Work On Talented Campaigners (7+ / 0-)

        She's going to end up farther behind than if they all shut up and disappeared till tomorrow night.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and they don't work on a candidate that (5+ / 0-)

          so many voters have fallen in love with, as some have described it.  I just saw the CNN reporter say that there is a fervor at Obama events that she has never seen in all her years of covering politics.  She said it's not just the huge numbers at his events---and she added that people are willing to stand in line for hours to get in to see him----but there is something BIG going on between him and the public.  

    •  Already diaried (7+ / 0-)

      Already diaried here:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I find it just as disgusting in both diaries.

    •  It seems to be lost on Clinton.... (41+ / 0-)

      that LBJ did not want to pass the Civil Rights act.  Bill Moyers has discussed this fact quite a bit and he was part of the Johnson administration at the time.

      The Civil Rights Act was passed because of pressure from ordinary citizens who took to the streets when the politicians, as usual, failed to grasp the will of the people.

      "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

      by cometman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:40:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're not supposed (16+ / 0-)

        to pay attention to the actual history. Just accept her analogy at face value and smile.

      •  can you give me some sources on that?? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dunkerque, Tonedevil, philboy1

        no matter whether he wanted to or not (that does sound like Lincoln, doesn't it?)

        It surely took a lot of courage to get it passed -- that and a lot of steel boots.

        http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/8/31/113553/137/4#c4 Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

        by RisingTide on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:53:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, I couldn't find.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV

          any concrete links right away, and I'm at work.

          But maybe you remember LBJ saying 'We've lost the South for a generation'.  That was in response to the passage of the Civil rights Act.

          LBJ deserves credit for doing the right thing helping to get it passed, but he was a pretty reluctant supporter.

          "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

          by cometman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  pull me some when you get home? *hopeful* n/t (0+ / 0-)

            http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/8/31/113553/137/4#c4 Sorry, is my sense of humor showing?

            by RisingTide on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, thanks for asking.... (0+ / 0-)

              I just searched a bunch but couldn't come up with exactly what I was looking for.  LBJ did push for the passage of the Civil Rights Act after Kennedy's assassination in order to continue Kennedy's legacy, and the quote I mentioned about losing the South was made to Bill Moyers.

              I'm going on memory with the claim that LBJ was a reluctant supporter.  I watch Bill Moyers quite a bit and know he's discussed it before but for the life of me I can't find anything on the tubes with Moyers discussing LBJ thoughts on the Civil Rights Act.  Maybe I'm not so hot with the google.

              I've got pool league after work.  No more politics for today, just some smoking and drinking.

              Maybe someone else can prove or disprove my first comment in this thread, but I'm almost positive that Moyers has said LBJ was quite reluctant in private to support the Act because of the political ramifications. And he should know, having been LBJ's speechwriter at the time.

              "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

              by cometman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  see my comment below yours (0+ / 0-)

                you will not find any definitive sources on the subject because his record is mixed and subject to varying interpretations.  I do thank you for your comment - just because there is not a clear answer doesn't mean it's not a valuable thing to look at.

                "New World Orders" is the exciting new novel of global warming and conspiracy by Ed Parrot and Jason Derrig. Visit www.edwardgtalbot.com for more information.

                by eparrot on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:51:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  sources won't tell you much (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greeseyparrot, Sagittarius

              The truth is somewhere in between the people who say LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming and those who say he was a leader.  The facts to some extent support either argument.

              On the down side, he privately referred to African Americans using the n word until well into the fifties.   He opposed several civil rights kind of things - for example  the 1956 civil rights bill, bills banning lynchings, and Truman's civil rights measures.

              On the other hand, he began his career teaching at a segregated school.  He supported Brown in 1954.  He supported a civil right bill in 1957 (although some argue that Johnson's amendments gutted the bill).  And of course, he did push for the passage of the civil rights act.

              These are all pretty much accepted facts - there are others of course.  One could never say of Johnson that he was a dyed-in-the-wool never change Southern racist.  Nor could they say he was committed to standing up for civil rights his whole career, regardless of the opinion of his fellow southerners.  But you could make an argument for just about anything in between and not be totally wrong.

              FWIW, I personally think he was an opportunist who did not have strong feelings one way or the other on the issue other than the politics of it.

              "New World Orders" is the exciting new novel of global warming and conspiracy by Ed Parrot and Jason Derrig. Visit www.edwardgtalbot.com for more information.

              by eparrot on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:46:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  He refused to meet with MLK, until (9+ / 0-)

        he read about the reception Malcolm X was getting in the black community. That scared him.

        Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
        Court certified Marijuana Expert

        by ben masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget LBJ got us into Vietnam big time (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, Patricia Taylor, Shaniriver

          while MLK opposed the war. Look at the full record - without MLK's assasination & the urban riots that followed it, the Civil Rights legislation would not have passed in Congress. LBJ merely forced it on Congress as an palliative to an increasingly angry black community. In fact, Hillary is distorting history by giving very little credit to the leaders of the Civil Rights movement in the late 50s and early 60s.

          The difference is this: Hillary thinks of herself as a willful agent of change, while Obama considers himself as an inspirational catalyst for change. In other words, she is self-centered and egotistical, while Obama tends to think more inclusively in terms of collective action on the part of many.  

          Remember how Hillary botched potential health-care reform legislation in Bill Clinton's first term by shutting out everyone at the drafting stage. I can't imagine such an elite approach carried out by an Obama presidency...  

          "The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds. It was a small part of the pantomime." Wallace Stevens

          by mobiusein on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can also blame Vietnam on Goldwater and (0+ / 0-)

            Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon too. It was always largely about domestic politics and the Republicans playing the "soft-on-communism" card from "Who Lost China?" on. After 1932, they had nothing else to run on (save the one-time Eisenhower) until Nixon poised himself as the establishment anti-LBJ with the Southern Strategy.

            Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

            by jlb1972 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:03:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Or, as he called it informally (10+ / 0-)

        "The N----- Bill." Though a cynic, LBJ understood power well enough to know that it does actually derive from the people, and being out in front on this issue would help him consolidate his own power.

        The reason it became expedient for LBJ to push civil rights was because the mind of the public was changing. King and others changed the rules, LBJ changed along with them.

        The same thing is happening for us, by the way. As we the people break more progressive, people like Dean and Edwards and Obama (and, frankly, even Paul and Huckabee) start to succeed as a result of that consciousness shift.

        Which is good news for us Edwards guys; our boy won't be the last red-meat progessive we see. In fact, we'll see more and more candidates talking like this in coming years.

        (And yes, I love Obama too. It's an embarrassment of riches.)

        A pain in the ass wrapped in a headache surrounded by a nightmare

        by Blank Frank on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, just wow... (7+ / 0-)

      There are no adequate words for my disgust at the level of disrespect and idiocy of that statement. No words...

      Hillary, what the hell, can you stoop any lower???

      Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
      ~ Einstein

      by GoracleFan on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:42:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed, Johnson doesn't deserve (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TennesseeGurl

      a lick of credit.

    •  Well, CONGRESS and LBJ deserve SOME credit... (7+ / 0-)

      ...even if they were reacting to and indeed empowered by a massive movement of millions of everyday heros DEMANDING civil rights for all Americans.  But the idea that a President Clinton would act on such issues in a way that a President Obama would not is... uh... silly.

    •  Your point is generally correct, but I need (19+ / 0-)

      to ask if you were alive then.  I was, although only 10 years old.  On what do you base your  historical knowledge?

      You said this:

      It took an overriding popular will to see it throught

      If by that you mean a majority, that is historically incorrect.  Many white people hated MLK while he was alive and the civil rights laws were quite disputed in the 60s.

      I was fortunate not to grow up in a racist home, but many white people did and had to struggle past their upbringings.  

      JFK was very weak on civil rights.  He did the minimum.

      LBJ actually did a lot.  After the assassination of Kennedy, he got all the legislation passed.  That does not in any way dimish the martyrs, who's blood and effort made it possible.

      History and real life are more complex than the caracatures you present.

      I understand your ideological reason for calling it the "nice white father figure in Washington got it done for them," but I will not falsify history.  

      It took years of effort by many to achive the civil rights gains of the 60s.  

      No, it was not "given" by a great white father.  Without many like MLK and many oridianry people it would not have happened.  Yes, African Americans created their own liberation.  They were the primary movers.  I agree it is very important to recognize that.

      Just as it is important to recognize the role African Americans had throughout American history as actors, not the acted upon.  For example, the role of African Ameircans in precipitating the civil war with rebellions like Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner in the 1830s.  It is important to understand those who fought oppression in 1900, as segregation and Jim Crow laws came across part of America. WEB Dubois' works still have much relavance. So, too, does Marcus Garvey, although he is much criticized by some.  

      The martyrs and fighters (it was not only as cictims that African Americans acted in history) of the 40s led to the gains and stuggles of the 50s when MLK came to the fore.

      Without the active struggles of African Americans, sometimes overt, sometiems ocvert, as for example, social banditry or othe rmeans of resistance, noen of it would have happened.  

      It was the pressure that freedom riders and the civil rights marches, sit ins, etc., that caused white public opinion to move.  And it was essential that white public opinion moved because African Americans were systematicall, and in soem cases by laws, excluded form power.  Indeed, I believe that the deaths of Cheney and Schwirmer (I can't remember the other one's name, I apologize) and the Bull Conner incidents helped move white public opinion to support of some civil rights legislation.  

      Black folks knew al about racism, but white folks needed a moral awakening.  That was MLK's strategy, and it was brilliant.  But it was not just MLK.  It was 1000s of people.

      I believe the Birmingham church was blown up while JFK was president and we got no laws.  JFK was always slow to protect civil rights marchers.  

      With the exception of Vietnam, LBJ was the last progressive democratic president.  He did far more than JFK.  But without theose who fought year in, year out, in various ways, for a century after slavery, there would have been nothing.

      Frankly, I think you misinterpret Clinton's statement.  Her point as I see it is that it took power to change the laws.  That's all.

      Hillary Clinton is a lot of things, but she is no racist.  I do not understand why you must demonize her. Barack Obama does not do that.

      Now you can flame me all you want, call me a racist or whatever, but I know what I have done in my life and I am no racist.  I see people throw that word around without any real understanding often here.  I've probably done more activism in the African American community than you, with African American activists.

      Ask Meteor Blades about the 60s.  He was with the freedom riders in the 60s.  He can tell you about history.  I was a child then, but aware and have studied the era.
         

      "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

      by TomP on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:13:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great post Tom. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, indybend, grrr, j1j2j3j4, oldliberal

        I don't think she's a racist, but this statement is really tone deaf to the implications it raises.

        By popular will, I meant a will in the general population that would not be denied--not necessarily a majority.

        Cheers.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:20:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, good. (0+ / 0-)

          Then we are on the same page.

          I'm glad.

          Take care, Geek.

          "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

          by TomP on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:38:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with the tone-deaf piece (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, jlb1972

          I cannot believe that Hillary is a racist either. But...Hillary is an incrementalist and a pragmatist. She has made REPEATED compromises in her political life  ...and (I'm guessing)...in her personal life with Bill...That does not make her evil or racist, but it does make her , in my opinion, unsuited for leadership in times when we NEED leaders who are willing to take up a fight.

          By the way (and I know you disagree, Geekesque)... I am not convinced at all that Obama will lead a fight: his insistence on bipartisanship with the crazed party that calls themselves Republicans is frightening to me: we assume he doesn't really mean triangulation, but I'm not convinced.

          Obama is an amazing symbol of unity, a brilliant orator who happens to be biracial and lived outside the US for a while.  Will he take risks and stick his neck out to stand up for principle?

          I think Edwards will. I don't know about Obama.  

      •  Links For JFK Being, "Weak On Civil Rights?" (0+ / 0-)

        Cause, all evidence leads to the fact that LBJ implemented JFK's plans on Civil Rights. LBJ did not, just come up with that legislation in the vacuum of JFK's tragic assassination.  Like your comment Tom.  But the JFK reference, as "weak," should be corrected!

        •  Malcom X on JFK (8+ / 0-)

          MALCOLM X: Kennedy Fiddles While Birmingham is Burning

          "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

          by TomP on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  John Kennedy and Civil Rights (5+ / 0-)

          Regardless of his promises, in 1961 Kennedy did nothing to help and push forward the civil rights issue. Why? International factors meant that the president could never focus attention on domestic issues in that year.

          He also knew that there was no great public support for such legislation. Opinion polls indicated that in 1960 and 1961, civil rights was at the bottom of the list when people were asked "what needs to be done in America to advance society ?" Kennedy was also concentrating his domestic attention on improving health care and helping the lowest wage earners. Civil rights issues would only cloud the issue and disrupt progress in these areas. Kennedy also argued that improving health care and wages for the poor would effectively be civil rights legislation as they would benefit the most from these two.

          What did Kennedy do to advance the cause of civil rights?

          he put pressure on federal government organisations to employ more African Americans in America’s equivalent of Britain’s Civil Service. Any who were employed were usually in the lowest paid posts and in jobs that had little prospect of professional progress. The FBI only employed 48 African Americans out of a total of 13,649 and these 48 were nearly all chauffeurs. Kennedy did more than any president before him to have more African Americans appointed to federal government posts. In total, he appointed 40 to senior federal positions including five as federal judges.

          Kennedy appointed his brother (Robert) as Attorney General which put him at the head of the Justice Department. Their tactic was to use the law courts as a way of enforcing already passed civil rights legislation. No southern court could really argue against laws that were already in print - though they were very good at interpreting the law in a cavalier way !! The Justice Department brought 57 law suits against local officials for obstructing African Americans who wished to register their right to vote. Local officials from Louisiana were threatened with prison for contempt when they refused to hand over money to newly desegregated schools. Such a threat prompted others in Atlanta, Memphis and New Orleans to hand over finance without too many problems - few if any were willing to experience the American penal system which had a policy of punishment then as opposed to reforming prisoners.

          Kennedy was very good at what would appear to be small gestures. In American football, the Washington Redskins were the last of the big teams to refuse to sign African Americans. Their stadium was federally funded and Kennedy ordered that they were no longer allowed to use the stadium and would have to find a new one. The team very quickly signed up African American players.

          Kennedy created the CEEO (Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity). Its job was to ensure that all people employed with the federal government had equal employment opportunities; it also required all those firms that had contracts with the federal government to do the same if they were to win further federal contracts. However, the CEEO was only concerned with those already employed (though it did encourage firms to employ African Americans) and it did nothing to actively get employment opportunities for African Americans. The CEEO was concerned with those in employment within the federal government.......not the unemployed.

          John Kennedy and Civil Rights

          It's a mixed bag.  Many felt at the time, many that is, who were siuffering, especialy in the South, that JFK did too little.

          He did propose the Civil Rights Act, but it took JFK's assassination and LBJ to pass it.

          I think JFK's heart was in the right place, but he did too little.  

          "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

          by TomP on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Take Back What I Said, I'm The One Corrected! (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks again!

            •  No problem. (5+ / 0-)

              There are many ways of looking at JFK's record.  He was not bad; it's just that many wished he could have done more.  The defense is that he did what could be done.  Pragmatism v. idealism.

              It's hard for people to imagine how life was.  The first black sitcom star was in Julie in 1966 or afterward.

              Imagine this:

              In 1968, Belafonte appeared on a Petula Clark primetime television special on NBC. In the middle of a song, Clark smiled and briefly touched Belafonte's arm, which made the show's sponsor, Plymouth Motors, nervous. Plymouth wanted to cut out the segment, but Clark, who had ownership of the special, told NBC that the performance would be shown intact or she would not allow the special to be aired at all. American newspapers published articles reporting the controversy and, when the special aired, it grabbed high viewing figures. Clark's gesture marked the first time in which two people of different races made friendly bodily contact on U.S. television.

              That is 5 years after Kennedy's death.  

              So, JFK was not perfect, but he did try.  Maybe he could have done more, but he was afraid to lose southern Democrats. At least he sent in federal marshalls at times.  I would be very interested in hearing Meteor Blades' views on this.  

              "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

              by TomP on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:59:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  More on JFK (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amberglow, grrr, jlb1972, leonard145b

          The 1960 Election

          Civil rights thus emerged as a major issue during the 1960 presidential campaign. JFK decided to phone Coretta Scott King after her husband had been arrested for leading civil rights protests in Georgia. Kennedy's offer to help secure Dr. King's safe release led to a public endorsement by Martin Luther King, Sr., influential father of the civil rights leader. The black vote went solidly for Kennedy across the nation (over 70%), providing the winning edge in several key states.

          When Kennedy took office in January 1961, black Americans had high expectations for the new administration. But, because of his narrow election victory, small working margin in Congress and reluctance to loose southern support for legislation (such as housing, which would help minorities and the poor), Kennedy decided not to seek civil rights legislation. Instead, relying on executive authority, he appointed unprecedented numbers of blacks to high‑level positions in the administration and strengthened the Civil Rights Commission. He spoke out in favor of school desegregation, praised a number of cities for integrating their schools and put Vice President Lyndon Johnson in charge of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Attorney General Robert Kennedy turned his attention to voting rights, initiating five times the number of suits brought during the previous administration.

          The Freedom Rides
          President Kennedy may have been reluctant to push ahead with civil rights legislation, but millions of black Americans and the civil rights movement would not wait, and eventually the administration would be compelled to act. In May 1961, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), led by James Farmer, organized integrated "Freedom Rides" to defy segregation in interstate transportation (seating on buses and waiting rooms, rest rooms, and restaurants in bus stations). Freedom Riders were arrested in North Carolina and there were beatings in South Carolina. But, in Alabama a bus was burned and the riders attacked with baseball bats and tire irons. Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent 400 federal marshals to protect the freedom riders and urged the Interstate Commerce Commission to order the desegregation of interstate travel (which became effective in September.)

          John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum:  JFK in History:Civil Rights Context in the Early 1960s

          "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

          by TomP on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for being so concrete about this very real (0+ / 0-)

            history, Tom. I was 10 and living in Atlanta when JFK won in 1960, and I remember both how he was hated for not repressing the civil rights movement (Eisenhower was too) and how relatively little he actually did.

            Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

            by jlb1972 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:09:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  ^ Comment of the day ^ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi

        LBJ does deserve real credit for civil rights laws getting through the Congress.

        But HRC doesn't get it.  (1) She fails to give credit to MLK or the civil rights movement outside the Beltway, and (2) What's her point -- LBJ effected real change, both she and Obama are running for president, so... what?  If she is trying to imply that she is best-suited to be brutally ruthless and kinda scary like LBJ, I don't think she wants to go there, either.

        So, back to the point of this diary, WTF is going on in her campaign?  Have they switched their brains off?

        So this is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause.

        by MJB on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:02:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just for the record, I was way too young ... (0+ / 0-)

        ...in 1961 and the wrong race to be a Freedom Rider, all of whom were African American. Although Seminole, I could always "pass white." I was almost too young to participate in Freedom Summer (1964) because they wanted everybody to be at least 18 and I was only 17.

        "Just remember, boys, this is America. Just because you get more votes doesn't mean you win." - Special Agent Fox Mulder

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:31:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps the stupidest diary ever. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigDog04, Maddie05, andgarden

      Hillary is 100% correct that it took a President to make the Civil Rights Act law.  Movements don't matter unless you can at the end of the day enact a meaningful law that will fundamentally change lives for the better across the board.  Lyndon Johnson did that.  Hillary will be that kind of President.  She will take action.  She will get things done.

      But idiotic bloggers are so swept up in Hillary hate and Obamamania that they can't understand the forest for the trees.

      Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

      by khyber900 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Constitution (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, RenMin

        You seem to be forgetting my little friend Congress. You know, the people who write the laws? I know they're easy to forget about these days, but at one time they actually had something to do with the running of the country. Nobody knew that better than LBJ.

        I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

        by darrelplant on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LBJ blackmailed and armtwisted everyone in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amberglow

          Congress to line up for the bill.  He moved Congress like no other because of his skills as Senate Majority Leader.  Experience and effectiveness matter in DC.  LBJ had it.  So does Hillary.

          Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

          by khyber900 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:47:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maxlongstreet, Gator Keyfitz, jlb1972

            LBJ served as the Senate Majority Leader. Hillary never had a leadership position in Congress.

            I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

            by darrelplant on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:58:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right on one, wrong on another (0+ / 0-)

              LBJ did armtwist, blackmail, threaten and whatever to get civil rights passed. It was the best thing he ever did--All his nasty guile used for good ends. However, I see no evidence that Hillary Clinton is the master of the senate that LBJ was.

              •  Twisting (0+ / 0-)

                It wasn't a one-man-band. My point above was that there were members of Congress when LBJ was president who were involved in the process of crafting and passing the 1964 and 1965 civil rights legislation. They needed LBJ's help -- which was considerable -- but it wasn't all him, there were people who were behind it before he was.

                I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

                by darrelplant on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  like Edwards will-- (0+ / 0-)

            --LBJ was a fighter and was willing to have people hate him if it accomplished good things.

      •  "It takes a village" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, malharden

        She should have stuck with her original thesis.  On civil rights as on every issue, it takes a village.

        In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. H.L. Mencken

        by hockeyrules on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:07:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gator Keyfitz

          she has taken the inclusive 'it takes a village' and has converted into 'it takes a President' - the implication that people are incapable of motivating change and only the powerful know best meme turns my stomach.

          Anti-populism; Hillary found it.

          And it's going to sink her campaign once this gets out nationally.

          "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
          If you want to go far, go together.
          We have to go far, quickly."

          by shpilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:30:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the vid... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldliberal

      ...Geek.  I thought this would not be for real, but dayum.  Hopefully the MSM gets hold of it.  But everything's about the tears right now, so we'll see.

      "It's better to vote for what you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it." Eugene Debs, 1912.

      by cybrestrike on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The War On MLK Day (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Nowhere Man

      I've been doing this since 2005 when the "War on Christmas" got cranked up. Just can't see myself doing it for LBJ Day...

      I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

      by darrelplant on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Silly diary. She's right, and that's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maddie05, andgarden

      no disrespect to MLK.

    •  Obama was asked about LBJ at Ykos!!! (10+ / 0-)

      At the Obama breakout session, a Kossak asked Obama if he had "an LBJ side" to him.  Funny question, and everyone laughed.  Obama paused for a moment, and then said, "Welcome to Chicago".  Everyone CHEERED, then he continued, "20 years ago I came to Chicago, and didn't know a soul.  Now I am a U.S. Senator representing Illinois, and running for president.  Chicago ain't no beanbag."

      Oh my God.  That was such an awesome answer that I still remember it.  We laughed, and were impressed at the same time.

      I guess what that answer proves is that Obama can deliver hope AND get it done in the WH like ... LBJ did.

      P.S. -- the Obama campaign should scare up that Q & A from YearlyKos.  There were press there, so maybe someone has video.  It takes the argument even further than your excellent firing shot, Geek.

    •  Well... (11+ / 0-)

      I'm not usually one to be sympathetic to Hillary - I'm VERY happy that her campaign is going up in flames - but I think the story is more complicated than this.

      We historians continue to debate the question of the Civil Rights Movement and just what the role of the federal government was in it. Clearly African Americans needed federal help to make change happen, in the South and nationwide. And it's really hard to see who, aside from LBJ, would have gotten the 1964 Civil Rights Act AND the 1965 Voting Rights Act through Congress.

      At the same time, none of this would have happened without Dr King, Malcolm X, Ralph Abernathy, E.D. Dixon, Ella Baker, Bob Moses, and millions more people whose names I am regrettably not calling to mind at the moment. The federal role was important, but without African American activism, it doesn't happen at all.

      And of course, LBJ undermined the Great Society with his idiotic war in Vietnam, and still did not provide the kind of transformative change that King and others persisted in demanding.

      There's a great book about this that I assign whenever I teach 20th century US history - Debating the Civil Rights Movement by Steven Lawson and Charles Payne, that goes into great detail about this issue.

      I think I understand what Hillary was trying to say - that politics and the federal government have always been indispensible to civil rights. But she clearly said it poorly, it's going to make her look worse.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:33:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oy indeed! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle, oldliberal

      So, ala Hillary's analogy:

      Obama = MLK
      Hillary = LBJ

      Holy crap! When I think LBJ, I think Vietnam. (Echoing into the present as Iraq -- any Hillary links there?)

      This is the most ass-backwards, insane analogy I've seen outside of GOPland.  What in the world was she thinking?  I'll be spending all of my upcoming LBJ Day holiday wondering...

      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else. Yogi Berra

      by Twin Planets on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:57:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary shows her true colors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      Why doesn't this surprise me.
      Because Hillary is pro African American
      Pro Gay
      Progressive

      when it is convenient for her.
      She will throw ANYONE under the bus to get elected

      DOMA
      DONT ASK DONT TELL

      She is a disgrace!

      CondiLiar Rice, enabler and war criminal

      by gaiilonfong on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:50:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good lord. Maybe Mark Penn does work for... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SmithsLastWord

      ...Barack Obama after all!

      What an implosion!

    •  It's a Shame... (0+ / 0-)

      that she never said this.

      Sorry, but it's not what she said. The diary linked above has what she really said.

    •  I think this is what (0+ / 0-)

      people might call a gaffe. My puter speakers are broke, I wish I could watch the video, but this doesn't come across very well in text.

      Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

      by Drewid on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:11:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She never did like (0+ / 0-)

      protest movements!

      "I was rooted in a political approach that understood that you can’t just take to the streets and make change in America," Mrs. Clinton said in an interview.

  •  I don't know about Clinton... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, JohnGor0

    I only know that Obama's claims so far areo only most jeopardized by needing so much political will.

    We truly are in the age where we'll have to travel far, quickly.

    Considering how much the people who've spent time with Obama like him, I don't think we have to worry about the voters supporting him.  Some of the other candidates? Not so much...

    Benazir Bhutto was the real Hugo Chavez.

    by Nulwee on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM PST

  •  It takes a President? (35+ / 0-)

    Someone didn't pay attention in ConLaw.

    Too bad Hillary didn't attend the U of C during the years Barack Obama taught there.

    We got 212,000 voters, they got 115,000. HUGE HUGE WIN for all of us.

    by Bill White on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM PST

    •  I thought the big blow was when (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, wystler, JohnGor0, Bill White, TexasLiz

      the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  Of course, that has been reversed now.

      "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

      by Boston Boomer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:29:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress, the Prez, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, Boston Boomer

        Damn near every politician was thrilled when the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education. The same goes for when the Court ruled that all the other laws regarding segregation were unconstitutional. The politicians knew the end of legal segregation was coming. But even a lot of the "liberal" politicians back then were afraid to vote for civil rights laws and against segregation. They were so grateful when the Court took the decision into it's own hands so the politicians did not have to deal with it. It's too bad what has happened to the Court now.

        ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

        by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:34:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That opened the door a crack (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boston Boomer, jlb1972

        And gave crucial legal precedent - but it took on the ground activism to make it and its promises real (and its promises, of course, were 100-year old promises made in the 14th Amendment during Reconstruction).

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:37:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, you're right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boston Boomer

          I was just trying to point out that the politicians were chickenshit for the most part, so even those railed about the decision were actually glad about the ruling(s) because they knew the laws regarding segregation were going to fall and the Court saved them from having to take action for a while. The Court saw the writing on the wall also. Stiil, it would have been easy for them to pass the ball.

          ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Of course it did. (0+ / 0-)

          I seriously doubt that Dr. King would claim that he accomplished everything by himself.  And I doubt if he would support the kind of slime that is being thrown around here about Hillary.  I don't support her and I didn't like her husband that much, but I'm embarrassed at what Daily Kos has become lately.

          "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

          by Boston Boomer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hell, someone didn't pay attention (7+ / 0-)

      to her own effin' book.  "It takes a village" at least would have been an improvement.

      "Your heart must have the courage for the changing of the guard" -- Bob Dylan

      by houndcat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  we don't have a holiday for LBJ (19+ / 0-)

    and that's not meant to undermine LBJ's greatest accomplishment.

    "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered" -Hillary Clinton, NH Debate, 1/05/2008

    by nevadadem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM PST

  •  "false hope" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JohnGor0, TennesseeGurl

    is better than no hope.  Ugh.

  •  Lots of diaries on the topic, but this one is the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bornadem, JohnGor0

    best. Thanks.

  •  Actually, she has a point (19+ / 0-)

    Is there anyone who thinks that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts wouldn't have passed without LBJ's arm-twisting and general dominance of Congress?

  •  re (15+ / 0-)

    It takes a President™

    Her new book from Doubleday.

    "Steve Holt thinks Mark Penn is doing a GREAT job so far." - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM PST

  •  Just mortifying. (23+ / 0-)

    This is what happens when candidates don't even entertain the possibility that they might lose.

    I'll get you, my pretty.....and your little dog too.

    by chicago minx on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM PST

  •  She just ended her presidential campaign. (24+ / 0-)

    There is no way she survives this quote.

    Rabindranath Tagore-"We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us."

    by joy sinha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM PST

  •  Obama & Diane Sawyer interview (38+ / 0-)

    A brilliant take-down:

       In the interview, Sawyer asked Obama what he thought of how Clinton has been conducting her campaign:

       Sawyer: "Do you get angry at her?"

       Obama: "Not really. I find the manner in which they've been running their campaign sort of depressing, lately. It was interesting in the debate, Sen. Clinton saying 'don't feed the American people false hopes. Get a reality check, you know?' I mean, you can picture JFK saying, 'we can't go to the moon, it's a false hope. Let's get a reality check.' It's not, sort of, I think, what our tradition has been."

    And to think this has all been planned since kindergarten.

    Amazing! Simply amazing . . .

    We got 212,000 voters, they got 115,000. HUGE HUGE WIN for all of us.

    by Bill White on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM PST

  •  The politics of self destruction. (6+ / 0-)

    Bet this made your day Geek.

    The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. -Benjamin Franklin

    by HairyTrueMan on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM PST

  •  Is she playing the race card? (13+ / 0-)

    I will confess that my antennae were raised Saturday night when she stressed that only "very hard work" created change, as though Barack Obama were somehow lazy ... but friends cautioned me not to read any kind of coded language into that.

    Now, though?

  •  She now officially wants to be a dream killer. (11+ / 0-)

    Ain't gonna happen. Please step aside.

    "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM PST

  •  Yeah, this is the best written one of the (5+ / 0-)

    diaries discussing this, so you get my tips.

  •  I've got a pool going for tomorrow (5+ / 0-)

    on what topic the diarist is next going to twist Hillary's words into the opposite of what she said.

    •  What did she actually say? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wystler, Pompatus, mcfly, damn furriner

      Rabindranath Tagore-"We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us."

      by joy sinha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  she was giving LBJ credit (8+ / 0-)

        for helping realize MLK's dream. She's pointing out how important the Presidency is. And, naturally, this diarist lies and says she was belittling MLK's efforts. A completely ridiculous distortion of the truth.

        Unless Geekesque can quote Hillary saying "MLK was not the real hero", then this diary is an utter disgrace.

        •  Geekesque hates Hillary (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sanuk, heineken1717

          But really loves pie.

          Winning without Delay.

          by ljm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't just a dream. It was actions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros

          It was boycotts, sit-ins, arrests, beatings, deaths. I'm sure it wasn't her intention, but her words minimize King's and others efforts.

        •  You did NOT answer the question. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros

          So don't talk about twisting words unless you are able to answer the question clearly.

          As stated in the Diary:

          "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done.  The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

          I interpret this as saying that Dr. King was a Dreamer and that it takes a President to actually get anything done.  You might interpret it any way you want - but when you accuse the Diarist of twisting words, then someone asks you a simple question -- don't go on and twist words just to try and make an argument.

          Flowers Bloom for my Ex - though Honeybees are pretty cool too.

          by Yoshi En Son on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:26:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is so patronizing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          howardpark

          to not just MLK but anyone who has ever worked in the grassroots to organize for change.

          Hope and Vision make change. Machine politicians only follow. MLK made his own dream come true.

          This shows me something about Hillary. I don't trust someone who either a) has that vision about politics, or b) would even pretend to spread that view in order to win an election.

    •  Care to enlighten us with the actual quote? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wystler
      •  well sure (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, bevenro, tmendoza, Sanuk

        "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."

        Hmmm. OK, so no, Hillary didn't say "MLK is not the real hero." She's praising LBJ for helping realize MLK's dream. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. To say that she's belittling MLK is an outrageous lie. This diary should be deleted.

        •  Is that the whole quote??? (0+ / 0-)
          •  there's also this (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            damn furriner, Sanuk

            "The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president" capable of action, Clinton said."

            It's all in the politico article linked by Geekesque, which he intentionally misinterpreted. Hillary's point, obviously, was that the Presidency is crucial to getting things done. This diary is a hitjob and nothing more.

            •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gator Keyfitz

              you are misinterpreting Ms. Clinton's statement.  She reduces the work of MLK (and that of all who stood up to the tyranny of the powerful racists in the South) to simply a "Dream."  MLK just sat on his a$$ and "dreamed" of improving Civil Rights.  LBJ was the man of "action."

              Your exegesis comes up short.  Way short.

              Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.-- Blaise Pascal

              by Pandemoniac on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Because MLK wasn't running for President. (5+ / 0-)

          Duh. She is comparing MLK the political activist to Obama the Presidential candidate, which is idiotic, since Obama, as President, would be LBJ and MLK combined. There's no other way to read her comment other than either total idiocy or racial condescension.

          Hope + action = change.

          Resistance is the secret of joy. - Alice Walker

          by benheeha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:03:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, the dream began to be realized in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jennybravo

          1956 in Montgomery. Much of what the Civil Rights Act codified had been accomplished in the succeeding seven years.

          •  Mr. Crabby (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't see your post before I started writing mine, but I am glad to see someone else remembers and acknowledges that much, maybe even most of the advancements in civil rights was accomplished by the Black community before the white politicians stepped in.

            ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

            by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I can't remember specifics (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros

          except for the  Montgomery bus boycott, but MLK Jr. and those who worked with him,  DIRECTLY ended segregation in the bus system in Alabama. The sit-ins at the lunch counters  and other non-violent actions led to desegration of dozens of 'lunch counters", parks, transportation systems, etc. in 1960 or so, before any federal legislation was passed. It was MLK Jr. and the Black community that accomplished this without Kennedy, LBJ, or anyone else. They did it themselves. That is what people get forgetting.

          ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:57:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  she shouldn't have run (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indybend, boofdah, Yoshi En Son

      after the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush, this was soooooo predictable.

      dems don't like this dynasty.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:51:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Amen - I support Edwards, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      heineken1717

      This diary is intellectually dishonest to the core.  I can't believe that it is recommended.

      A Mere Detour: Where Politics, Law, & Gardening Awkwardly Coexist

      by Garden Neighbor on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:55:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It took the struggle you described... (12+ / 0-)

    ...to force a president who was reluctant to sign civil rights legislation to actually sign it.

    LBJ had to be pushed into doing the right thing.

    •  Martin Luther King (20+ / 0-)

      I said this in an earlier diary about this.

      Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."

      It took Dr. Martin Luther King, and all his followers, to MAKE President Johnson "get it done." Hillary doesn't know diddly about history or Liberal movements.

      Instead of working to keep us safe, Rudy Giuliani just used 9/11 to get laid.

      by William Domingo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the worst kind of revisionism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmendoza

      LBJ went against his background and his constituents and his upbringing, knowing that supporting civil rights would kill the Dems in the south "for a generation" (it's really been two), because he knew it was the right thing to do.  Even Robert Caro, the biographer who is none too fond of LBJ, admits that he was sincere about civil rights.

      •  Revisionism. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, Yoshimi

        That's cute.

        Robert Caro is a weak historian if he came to that conclusion.

        When the civil rights movement was really gaining momentum and having a lot of influence in the nation, Lyndon's friend and next door neighbor, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was running an illegal operation called COINTELPRO who's sole purpose, at the time, was to destroy the civil rights movement.

        Hoover was a rabid, anti-black racist who hated King and used illegal means to try to ruin his reputation and destroy his movement.

        Hoover did the same to SNCC, the American Indian movement and the Black Panthers.

        Lyndon didn't seem to mind. If Lyndon had been "enthusiastic" about civil rights he would have fired that creepy little weirdo. Instead he looked the other way while Hoover ran his dirty tricks operation.

        Revisionist? Nope. I just scratch a little deeper than many so called "historians" do.

        •  Oh please... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jlb1972

          Just about everyone hated Hoover with a passion. But he had been FBI director for so long and had so much dirt on everyone that there was no way they could fire him without him burning down Washington in retaliation. He was going to die at that job, which he did.

          •  I don't believe that... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but I'll accept that you believe it.

            Why didn't he just order Hoover to stop the COINTELPRO operation then? Lyndon could have done that, no?

            •  You didn't tell Hoover what to do... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jlb1972

              He basically did whatever he wanted because he could blackmail anyone who tried to stop him. He had phone books of stuff on everyone in Washington and any major figure in the US. Opposing Hoover was a good way to find your dirty laundry aired in the front pages of the newspapers.

              •  Yeah. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jxg

                So Lyndon was so afraid of Hoover smearing him that he let the little freak run wild with his, often murderous, COINTELPRO operation.

                That means Lyndon was a weak little bastard so afraid of bad publicity that he let Hoover run his own private Gestapo.

                If that's true then LBJ was the punk I said he was.

  •  I'm afraid this will not be covered at all (6+ / 0-)

    the media is just focusing on the tears incident. This is getting no play. How do you make them cover this? I just... it's unbelievable.

  •  Outside of Vietnam (10+ / 0-)

    Lyndon Johnson was one of the great presidents, he deserves credit for his part in getting solid legislation, but it would never have happened without Dr. King and the entire movement behind it. I don't care that she wants to give Johnson credit, but she should NEVER forget that Dr. King not only fought hard for civil rights, he died for it.

  •  I am not insulted by (13+ / 0-)

    what she said because I know what point she was trying to make. However, she's no LBJ because she hasn't been elected president yet. The other thing is she's really reaching into the bag of political tricks here. Her new message is she's a doer and Obama's not. Well, she has me fooled. Here is a guy who came from nowhere and is poised to beat the most inevitable candidate we've ever had run for president. That in itself is proof Obama is a doer.

    You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

    by tazz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM PST

  •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmendoza, Sanuk

    Your Hillary hater interpretation is laughable.

    Do you people really believe your spin?

    Oh lord if this is what we are going to get when the right-wing spin machine goes after Obama we will lose even worse than I think.

    I admired Howard Dean. I believed in Howard Dean. You, John Edwards, are NO Howard Dean (no matter how hard Joe Trippi makes you over).

    by GregNYC on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM PST

    •  What can they go after Obam with? (0+ / 0-)

      He's never done anything.  He's a cipher.  He doesn't take positions.  He repeats abstractions.  Apparently thats what this country wants:  a man who knows how to say the word 'hope.'

      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

      by tmendoza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You know what I think? (5+ / 0-)

    If Obama had said this, you'd all be in agreement. The power of a president to GET. THINGS. DONE. and follow through on the dream.

    The title of this diary is extremely dishonest.

  •  Man (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, boofdah, leonard145b

    She is turning into the queen of missed oportunities.

    All she seems to know how to do is blow up her own good will everytime she gets a little going.

    Strange days indeed.

    "Why on earth would we expect the corporate powers and their lobbyists.....to just give up their power because we ask them nicely?" John Edwards

    by ayawisgi on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM PST

  •  what a stupid comment (19+ / 0-)

    Martin Luther King Jr. was leading on civil rights long before LBJ introduced any legislation.  Without MLK and his hope and leadership, there would not have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    I am shocked she would make such a huge mistake.  She just cost herself a couple of million more votes that she won't be able to recover from.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM PST

    •  Not a fan but . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CA Libertarian, RenMin

      I am not a supporter of Hillary but I would give her partial credit for the statement - say 30%.

      MLK clearly was the leader, with others, who risked (or lost) their lives in an effort to bring about civil rights for Blacks.

      LBJ did show a lot of courage to counter many in his own party to force through legislation. If you recall most of the political opponents back then were southern Democrats (now republicans) who were vehemently opposed to civil rights.

      But in the course of a political debate to try and make that case is a stretch.

      •  The problem was (4+ / 0-)

        that she implicitly downplayed the central role of MLK and the whole movement. LBJ deserves some credit for his political insider acumen to help pass legislation. But it was not a wise comment to make.  This one will bite her in SC, and to some extent in NH. She has really had a horrible day today - the LBJ/MLK comment, crying (I give her a pass on that, but not everybody will), and trying to take the mantle of Thatcher.

  •  Not a Hillary Fan, (8+ / 0-)

    but she is not totally misinformed about this.  In 1964, if LBJ had not grabbed the throats of a number of Democratic Senators and threatened them with bad things, the bill would never have passed.  Not saying this is right, just saying that in 1964 things were not quite as clear as they are now.

    •  Unlike most people blogging on DKos (5+ / 0-)

      I remember 1964, Lyndon Johnson and MLK, jr.  So does Hillary. We were all busting our chops back then working for civil rights.  My father worked for fair housing.  The lawyer down the street from us who worked on civil rights issues had bombs left on his front porch.  I can remember in the 1950s being at religious school and having someone leave a bomb, because they wanted to blow up Jewish children as was going on at Synagogues and Temples around the south.  What exactly can you remember?

      Winning without Delay.

      by ljm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  She is obviously melting down (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Pompatus, bwintx

    now that she isn't inevitable - it is sort of sad to watch really.

    But it does show how poor a candidate (and president) she could be.

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. - Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

    by tiponeill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM PST

  •  Did HRV actually say that, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    i.e.,

    "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."

    If so, I take back my statement that I've never been Anti Hilary. Sign me up, I'm ready to go to the front lines now in support of Obama, ala the CHANGE Meister of 2008.  

    The longer the party goes on in everything, the bigger the potential correction in something will be.

    by brjzn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM PST

  •  Yikes (6+ / 0-)

    I think I see the point she was trying to make, but wow, what a way to mangle it. I'll be interested to look at the transcript of a fuller quote, with its context, because if this is accurate and not helped by context, it's a pretty damned bad gaffe.

  •  y'all are freaks (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ljm, moira977, ScanDroid, rserven, Sanuk, rigso, RenMin

    the twisting u guys do to turn everything she says into something nasty is really frightening. I see a mob at a witch burning. irrational hatred and misogyny.

    Better the occasional fault of a gov't that lives in a spirit of charity than one that remains frozen in the ice of its own indifference. FDR

    by scoutt on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:45:58 PM PST

  •  Oh God, you guys are stretching it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, andgarden, Sanuk, RenMin

    And the implication here is that African-Americans didn't make it happen, but rather that the nice white father figure in Washington got it done for them.

    Ride the win, this is not helping anyone at this point.  Hillary's last stand will be Feb5th, but Obama is likely nominee, just celebrate and stop baselessly smearing her.

  •  Big changes take coalitions of all kinds (6+ / 0-)

    of people. Obama knows how to build those. Clinton clearly doesn't get it.

    I'm a hopemonger.

    by Elise on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:46:30 PM PST

  •  This is really sad to see this happening. (6+ / 0-)

    She is completely losing her mind. She needs to stop and take a real breather.

    "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

    by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:46:42 PM PST

  •  The wheels are coming off (7+ / 0-)

    What a sad spectacle.

    Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

    by brainwave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM PST

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b

    She really put her foot in her her mouth...

    Lets see how the mainstream media reports, or chooses not to report, this statement...

    •  They're not reporting it at all (0+ / 0-)

      they're dealing with the choke up.

      You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

      by tazz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:05:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Anyone Is Wondering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nomes

      If South Carolina will reject Clinton. If the poll numbers don't convince you.......

      this will.

      "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done.  The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

      She just killed her little bit of reputation among African Americans. That is the last straw !

      "We, as a Congress, have to stand up to a president who acts like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on Sept 11..." - Sen.Russ Feingold

      by WeBetterWinThisTime on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:37:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I could see HRC as LBJ, presiding over deaths... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Inland

    ...in Iraq for years to come.

    [RED/GLARE]

    For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.

    --Mark Twain

    by redglare on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM PST

    •  I'm wondering about that, too. (0+ / 0-)

      MLK wasn't just a civil rights leader, but against the Vietnam war....

      "They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed. They say, `We need to boil all the hope out of him -- like us -- and then he'll be ready.'"

      by Inland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, no. That was extremely tone deaf of her. (14+ / 0-)

    Even though I don't think she meant it the way it came out.

    I can take no pleasure in this. She's a good person and has worked hard for liberal causes her whole life. I feel for her, I really do. I just want to look away.

  •  Clinton met and admired King. His death was (5+ / 0-)

    one of the reason's she left the party. It's sad that you have to twist her words like this. Would the Civil rights movement have been successful without LBJ to push the legislation?

    Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

    by tigercourse on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM PST

    •  Yes. (6+ / 0-)

      It would have been successfully because it was the right thing to do, no matter who was president.

      The American People changed this country. It didnt start with a president. It started with the people.

      "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

      by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:05:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure wouldn't have happened as soon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sanuk

        Or as effectively.

      •  Whoa! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg

        It would have been successfully because it was the right thing to do, no matter who was president.

        I so wish that was true - unfortunately it isn't.

      •  Then why (0+ / 0-)

        aren't we seeing employment non-discrimination for LGBT folks? And marriage rights? Those are the right things to do, too, after all.

        They aren't happening because of the people who have political power.

        HRC's comment certainly could have been phrased better, and is odd in almost any context, but LBJ was a civil rights hero as well, and things would have happened much more slowly if it weren't for him. That, I think, is the point she was actually trying to make. It's just a little odd given that Obama is, you know, running for president, so he's kind of going to have the same power as, well, a president.

        "I do not equate my oppression with the oppression of blacks and Latinos. You can't. It is not the same struggle, but it is one struggle." Bob Kohler

        by dedmonds on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yeh But - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, RenMin

    It really did take LBJ to make it happen. LBJ lost the sout for the Democrats for a Generation - to Pay for it!!!

  •  This doesn't get my ire up. (10+ / 0-)

    Sorry, it doesn't.

    I'm officially in Camp Obama right now, and I think it's kind of stupid and silly to rip down Sen. Clinton for this remark.

    Examine exactly what she said:

    "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."

    Emphasis is mine.

    Notice she didn't say that LBJ made the dream happen.  Far from it.  She said it "began" to be realized with the Civil Rights Act.  That statement itself implies that King's dream has yet to be fully realized.

    Moreover, what's not true about taking a President to get it done? I know a lot of people are saying the Civil Rights Movement forced Johnson's hand, but that ignores history and the fact the LBJ, as a Southerner and a Texan had to wrangle many, many votes out of Congress to move that piece of legislation forward...and he spent a TON of political capital to do so, when he easily could have played Dixiecrat and done nothing.

    So let's not go crazy here.  This is starting to amount to piling on at this point, and it makes no sense...not with this statement, and not in this context.

    We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

    by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:54:00 PM PST

    •  You might be right, but (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, bawbie, Magster, Nespolo

      regardless it was a poor tactical decesion on her part.  She seems tone deaf in general these days, her campaign is flailing, her insticts seem off and everything just sort of misses it's mark and makes matters worse for her.  I never wanted her to win, not that she isn't capable but I just thought she was the wrong person for the times.  But I didn't want her to embarass herself.  

      I have Clinton fatigue already

      by hollywood politcaljunkie on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't dispute the tone-deafness of the remark. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bawbie, Sanuk, RenMin

        But we always knew that was one of her problems -- tone-deafness, that is.

        I don't like seeing that somehow, as the diary title implies, that Clinton said that LBJ is the REAL civil rights hero and MLK is not.

        That's just shamelessly over the top.

        Put in context with what she said, I don't find it terribly embarassing.  Just tone-deaf. Big whoop.

        We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

        by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agree. In a campaign... (0+ / 0-)

        ...do you want to be likened to MLK or LBJ?

    •  I totally agree with you (0+ / 0-)

      Most politicians would have played it safe, Dixiecrat style.

      Find out what firefighters really think of Rudy Giuliani

      by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand the demonization of LBJ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        desmoinesdem, Sanuk, RenMin

        going on in this thread, either.

        We could use a few more LBJs in Congress these days.

        Politicians with courage to move legislation through, not cower in a corner worrying about the polls and such.

        We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

        by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:16:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The point isn't to demonize LBJ. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yoshimi, soros

          To put it a different way, if Andy Pettite pitches 8 innings and Mariano Rivera pitches the 9th, who 'got it done?'

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You missed my point. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            desmoinesdem, Sanuk, RenMin

            See above.

            Just like I said, without LBJ wrangling votes, even in the face of the Civil Rights Movement, it would not have been done.

            Again, LBJ could have easily played Dixiecrat on this one.  Not done a damn thing.  The bill was bottled up in the Rules Committee in the House in late 1963 when he took over as President.

            LBJ moved it.  And pushed the votes through to defeat the filibuster.

            Your baseball analogy doesn't work unless your willing to admit LBJ was more than a closer...he provided solid middle relief, to say the least.

            We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

            by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The urgency to act was created by the civil (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sagittarius

              rights movement.

              Had they not sacrificed their own time, safety, and lives, there certainly would have been no such legislation.

              Her statement is a bit like crediting Clement Attlee for the freeing of India.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And did Clinton dispute that? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sanuk, dedmonds, RenMin

                No, she didn't.

                What she said was in order to get the law passed, it took a President to act.

                Think it would have gotten through with Goldwater? Nixon?

                Nope.

                Really, I'm on your side here and want to see Obama win. But this is getting a little bit out of hand.

                And your title is a wee bit dishonest. Sorry. It's not what she said.

                We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

                by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Two different versions of the civil rights (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pat bunny, wmtriallawyer, Sagittarius

              movement.

              In version 1, African Americans led by MLK rise up and demand their liberation. Eventually, the country, including its politicians, has to agree, owing to the basic rightness of their cause.

              In version 2, civil rights are a gift from LBJ and probably some other old white dudes.

              That's what makes the comment tone-deaf. And I say that as someone who thinks she probably just misspoke, and really does not believe that at all. But to say it wouldn't have happened without LBJ, well I just don't believe that. At all. And that's not to take away from what he did. Aren't we supposed to be all about people-powered movements around her?

              •  I agree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                brklyngrl

                As I said above, the comment was incredibly tone-deaf.

                But I do not believe, as is being portrayed in this diary, that Clinton is crediting LBJ with the Civil Rights movement. What she is giving credit to him for was passing a law -- i.e., his job as the politician on the receiving end of the recognition of the people-powered movement.

                I also don't think that she said that LBJ is a bigger civil rights hero than MLK. As the diary title implies.  That is downright dishonest.

                I think those are real wilfull distortions, and are unnecessary distortions at this point.

                We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

                by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm. I dunno. I think she misspoke, (0+ / 0-)

                  but technically does say that LBJ delivered the real changes of the civil rights movement to people's lives. But almost undoubtably doesn't mean it,  so you and I are pretty close in position.

                  I think we could get into a level of parsing here that is probably a bit much, when I already agree that in all likeliness she doesn't mean it like it sounded (to me). On the other hand, if she does mean that, I find it a bit alarming, just in terms of a theory of social change.

                  I would consider the diary overwrought hyperbole rather than out and out distortion (Sorry, Geek!! You've written lots of diaries I absolutely loved!), but I guess its always a fine line between those two.  

                •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                  with the premise that the passing of the Civil Rights Act was everything to the Civil Rights movement. I have pointed out that many of the gains in Civil Rights and desegregation had already occured by then. MLK. Jr. and the Black community had already accomplished desegregation in many areas of the South by around 1960 through the sit-ins and boycotts. These actions weren't just to get attention. They were plans devised to break these segregated business economically and they worked. The bus boycott was breaking the transportation system FINANCIALLY. The sit-ins were causing FINANCIAL losses to these businesses. King and other leaders of the civil rights movement knew this. They knew if they got these segregated businesses in the pocketbooks, change would come. The real world changes were happening long before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. King and the Black community were forcing these changes long before the Civil Rights act was passed. He wasn't just dreaming and trying to get attention. He was getting things done. That is what pisses me off about this. He was not just a speaker. He was getting things done BEFORE any politicians stepped in.

                  ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

                  by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pat bunny, wmtriallawyer, RenMin

      It was stupid and tone deaf and a completely irrelevant response to Obama's comment, but I don't see it as an attack on MLK at all.  

      "Fired Up!" "Ready To Go!" Obama '08

      by bawbie on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "It Takes a White Village" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, boofdah, bigchin

    by Hillary Rodham Clinton

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM PST

  •  Your hate is getting the best of you (6+ / 0-)

    But what else is new?

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, BigDog04, Kickemout, RenMin

    This diary is another example of why I will never cast a vote for Obama for anything. Silly? Maybe, but you would think Clinton was the Rebublican candidate from the vitriol spewed at her here. I guess every word she utters now has some sinister meaning that only Obama supporters can decode. Sad.

    •  Sadly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin

      It comes from supporters of Obama and Clinton.  I've seen plenty of vitriol spewed at anti-Obama posts, as well.    There was a "Pro-Hillary" diary today listing about 25 Right wing talking points against Obama.  Doesn't help our cause. (Our being DEMOCRATS).  Hillary's comments are up for discussion, but I would not call her a racist.  She just needs a better explanation.  Being an Obama supporter, I won't be jumping down her throat over these comments, but would like a more detailed explanation on what she means and that it wasn't a jab at MLK for not being a man of action, because that's what it sounds like.  

      "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by djbender on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:21:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fear (3+ / 0-)

    Hillary is so much better than this.  It makes me think about what Michelle Obama said about fear taking away the ability to make rational decisions.  Hillary is afraid of loosing and she is making really bad decisions.

    We really need to move forward in a whole new way.

    Hope not Fear

    •  If she were "better than this" (0+ / 0-)

      then she wouldn't have said what she said.

    •  So if she does this during a political campaign.. (0+ / 0-)

      what would she do during a real crisis where people's lives were on the line?  

      I can see her standing there like Alexander Haig, stating "I'm in charge!".  To put that in context for the younger set, he was Reagan's Secretary of State when Reagan was shot.  He ran around Washington saying "I'm in charge"!.

      I feel sorry for her too.  It's not pleasant watching someone self-destruct.  It usually involves a mental health professional.

  •  Ok her comments are pretty bad... (4+ / 0-)

    Look: No one is taking anything away from LBJ; it took courage for him to move the country as a whole forward by getting that legislation passed when he did. But to say it took a President to get it done is frankly paying a disservice to all of the men and women who worked so diligently as part of the Civil Rights Movement.

    Bear in mind, if it hadn't been for all of the hard work of so many liberal minded folks (yeah I used the "L" word!), then who knows where this country would be? So while LBJ is definitely favorably remembered for the vision he showed by getting civil rights legislation passed, it is also important to remember that it took the sacrifices of a great many people to force this issue into Congress in order to get anything done about.

    It sort of reminds me of Jackie Robinson - yeah he was the first black player in the majors, but he stood on the shoulders of giants like Satchel Paige and others, who made white baseball owners see just how good black players were overall in order to give Robinson a shot at Major League Baseball.

  •  She's Basically Right (11+ / 0-)

    It may be tone deaf and not a smart move politically, but as I understand her point, it's that you needed a President who knew how to cajole/persuade/manipulate Congress into passing the Civil Rights Act, or all the heroism of Dr. King and the civil rights marchers would have gone for naught.

    As a point of historical fact, that is correct.  Read about the struggles Johnson undertook to kill the Senate filibuster and get the bill passed.

    None of this is to diss Dr. King or his followers, or the majority of decent folks who supported civil rights.  I think Martin Luther King is the greatest American of the second half of the twentieth century, and maybe of the entire century.  But the point is that it takes a combination of factors to accomplish such societal change, including political inside dealmaking.

    Disclaimer:  This doesn't mean that I buy the implied argument that HRC is comparable to LBJ in the ability to get things done.  She's not.  No one around today is.  If only we had an LBJ (strategy and legislative know-how, not political views) leading the Senate instead of Harry Reid, the last year would have been much much better.

    •  I will respectfully disagree... (4+ / 0-)

      ...and here's why: Was the dream really realized with the passage of the leglislation? Or was it because MLK Jr. and other members of the Civil Rights Movement got a so many Americans to realize inequality was wrong, and to actually get up and demand that the laws in society reflect the actual thoughts and feelings of the nation? Sorry but the dream was realized when the thoughts and minds of American citizens got up and demanded change. LBJ's actions were basically one of the final parts of that dream's realizaion, not the entirety of it.

    •  LBJ is to Harry Reid (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bawbie, craigkg, RenMin

      As Jackie Robinson is to Jose Lopez.

  •  Breaking New Poll UNH 0 39 C 30% (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, cookiesandmilk, theran, boofdah

    Poll after poll keeps showing Obama +9-10.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:02:51 PM PST

  •  What is going ON??? (7+ / 0-)

    LBJ--A president? What are you talking about Hillary Clinton?  Without the American people, without African-Americans, whites, everyone fighting for freedom, there would be no civil rights.

    People like MLK fought hard every single day, organizing, preaching, dying for millions--how could she say this?

    JM

    The American people are not the problem in this country; they are the answer--Sen. Barack Obama

    by FuPrez on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM PST

  •  Her advisors should read their history books (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigDog04, Sagittarius, RenMin

    A great analogy would have been how Franklin Roosevelt took the ideas of the Progressives of the early 20th century, for example, social security, and turned them into programs that transformed this country.  Arthur Schlesinger's book, the "Crisis of the Old Order" sets this out very nicely in about 200 pages of easy reading.  

    Too bad she couldn't have channelled that, instead of LBJ.

  •  Well I guess Clinton really is writing off SC. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Sagittarius, leonard145b

    Politically, this is a stupid move.  The kneejerk reaction to this is bad.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM PST

  •  OT, but Geekesque (0+ / 0-)

    have you heard anything about that diary last night?  I posted to an open thread and emailed the same front pager to whom manfromiddletown complained about us, but have heard nothing.  The diary is still up and as far as I can tell, the diarist has not been banned.  I need to know that there were not quiet assurances to the diarist and his supporters despite the egregious nature of that diary.

    Has there been any kind of resolution that you know of?

    •  I don't care if the diarist was banned. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, brklyngrl

      I'm more interested in people not expressing outrage over righteous outrage.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do, so I guess (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sqz23

        I'll try more emails to others.  Last night's diary was equivalent to "I shos don't think no bad bout Obama" to me.

        This is not okay with me.  There was an instant frontpager response to ManfromMiddletown's complaint of commenter "abusiveness."  

        Under some kind of deliberation seems to be the fact that a diary posted here claimed that the Democratic primary winner cheated to win the caucus.  No word so far about the just blatant racism in that diary and several commenters' insistence that the diarist deserved more respect than the recipients of his attacks.

        I need to know right now if this site is going to continue to tolerate these kinds of attacks on Obama.

      •  yeah, you're too busy manufacturing outrage (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GregNYC, aigeanta

        to outrage everyone else.

        "I will sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection..." Thomas Jefferson

        by tony the American Mutt on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, and I'm sure everyone else (0+ / 0-)

          in that diary were just manufacturing their outrage too.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:28:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think this one is manufactured (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hlinko, GregNYC

            Clearly, she was asked about hope. She called Kennedy the hopeful one, not MLK. She was comparing Kennedy and  LBJ.

            This would be the obvious comparison because Hillary and Obama are not vying to be MLK's heirs. They are running for President. She compared one hopeful President against a practical one.

            If anything, it speaks to the mindset of people that they would assume she was comparing Obama to MLK. Why did people jump to that conclusion?

            Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

            by upstate NY on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:03:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree, "racism" charges = WAY unfair to Clinton (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aigeanta

              Look, I'm an Obama supporter, and have been since the fall of '06, with DraftObama.org.  And I'm looking forward to an Obama landslide tomorrow in NH.

              BUT... all the blog comments tonight accusing Hillary of being a racist are a heaving pile of crap.  

              Look, maybe it wasn't the best expressed of points.  Of COURSE MLK was critical in this effort. Of COURSE the legions of civil rights protesters and workers were.

              Her whole point was simply that laws ultimately need to be enacted by elected officials, including the president.  She didn't say MLK wasn't a hero, just that LBJ was ultimately needed as well to enact the law.

              Should she have phrased it more carefully and sensitively?  Perhaps.  But is she a racist?  For God's sake, people, get real.

              •  I'm like you, I'm voting Obama over Hillary but.. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hlinko, GregNYC, aigeanta

                I really fair how this sort of accusation would go over in a general election.

                It would backfire bigtime on Obama supporters.

                Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

                by upstate NY on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  fair=fear (0+ / 0-)

                  sheesh, it's like I can't right the word now that Hillary is warning me to be "afaird" of terrorists.

                  Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

                  by upstate NY on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry to disappoint, but.... (0+ / 0-)

              The quote is not manufactured, and Hillary was not comparing LBJ to JFK.  She was minimizing MLK's work for civil rights.  The direct quote:  

              "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done.  The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

              I'd desperately like it to have been manufactured--at least that way we could offer up some sort of comfort to her.  But sadly, no:  She actually said it.  Ain't nothing to do but accept it and hope that the freepers aren't able to sweep all Dems up with their indignation on this one.

              •  You're taking the quote out of context. (0+ / 0-)

                Read the whole quote.

                She was asked a question about Obama's comment on "Hope." The only pointed reference to hope that she made in her answer was to "the hopeful JFK." She did not mention MLK's hope.

                Knowing the real context, I read the little snippet above like so:

                [Because JFK was ineffectual in getting civil rights legislation passed] Dr. King's dream began to be realized when LBJ passed the civil rights act. This was because we had a president capable of action.

                This is so unfortunate that certain people are taking her out of context and accusing her of being a racist, because this sort of jumping to conclusions will be VERY harmful in a general election.

                It reminds me of what happened to John  Kerry at the Grand Canyon. It was an exactly similar siutation in which Kerry was asked to comment on a quote from Bush made on Air Force One that morning to the effect of, "Knowing what we know now, would Kerry have voted for the Iraq authorization." The reporter asked Kerry to accept the President's challenge on whether he stood by his vote. Kerry answered the question the way he had a hundred times, "It was the right authority for the president to have." Never did he say "Knowing what I know now." Reporter's took his statement out of context and conflated it with Kerry's actual answer. Kerry's answer would have made no sense at all in the context the media reported it. It was even the right tense, because he was using the past tense. For instance, "Knowing now that there were no WMDs in Iraq, yes I would have voted for the authorization." That doesn't even make grammatical sense.

                I hated this when the Republicans did it to Kerry, and I hate it even more now when Democrats are using it against Clinton.

                By the way, I am not a Clinton supporter, and I will vote Obama over Clinton.

                Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

                by upstate NY on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  shoulda kept her mouth shut (6+ / 0-)

    I don't understand why she felt the need to even mention MLK. This makes no sense ... well, it doesn't make sense to me. I have to wonder just what was Hillary thinking.

    Damn.

    -7.38, -5.23 One day we ALL will know the truth about the 2000 presidential election. God help us all.

    by CocoaLove on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:09:53 PM PST

  •  Willful distortion of her words. (7+ / 0-)

    Clinton is not my candidate, but this 'kill the beast' mentality at work here is discomfiting to say the least.

    All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss ~ Douglas Adams

    by moira977 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM PST

  •  Is this what Hillary's like when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, leonard145b, roycej

    she's not filtering everything she says through focus groups?

    How disgraceful.

    "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered" -Hillary Clinton, NH Debate, 1/05/2008

    by Marc in CA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM PST

  •  An intellectually dishonest diary, idiotic. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, BigDog04, Turkana, Rich in PA, RenMin

    Hillary is absolutely 100% correct and accurate that the Civil Rights Act could not and would not have become law but for the efforts of Lyndon Johnson.  You don't elect a President to start a movement.  You create a movement to elect a President who has the skills to translate the movement's aims into meaningful legislation that will fundamentally change people's lives for the better.

    That is exactly what Lyndon Johnson did.  Let me remind you of something.  In 1960, Lyndon Johnson was the best candidate on civil rights, not JFK.  JFK was often criticized for being too passive on the issue.  As VP, Lyndon Johnson added civil rights to his portfolio and found creative ways to make the Federal Government more proactive on the issue.  Kennedy was very cautious and often checked Johnson because he was concerned that because of his narrow margin of victory in the 1960 election that he might not carry the South in 1964.  

    After Kennedy was assassinated, Lyndon Johnson took it upon himself to make civil rights a key item of his election agenda and he made it law. That's the kind of President Hillary will be.  She will get things done.  She will make laws that fundamentally change America for the better.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:14:47 PM PST

    •  And all of that would have happened (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sagittarius, roycej

      without the preceding decade of marches, sit ins, Freedom Rides, and the amazing speeches by Dr. King?

      Ceiling cat watches over whey of teh rhytchus, whey of wickid getz pwnt.

      by arielle on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, but... (0+ / 0-)

        ...it also wouldn't have happened as early as it did if it weren't for LBJ. That's not to diminish MLK of the oft forgotten guys that started the fight in the 30's and 40's at the NAACP LDF: Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall. They set the stage for MLK.

    •  I agree with all but (0+ / 0-)

      your last three sentences.

      Where is Hillary's "leadership" on gay rights? She, like Obama, Edwards and Richardson, is a segregationist. She supports a separate, but "equal" institution in lieu of full equality and does not support the fundamental human right to marriage for all people despite the right being recognized as fundamental under our Constitution. She supports part of law, signed into law by her husband, that makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to have their relationships validated across state lines and had the audacity to say that gays should be "thankful" that her husband dumped that load of crap on us. And despite her claims to support hate-crime and employment non-discrimination legislation, she isn't a sponsor or co-sponsor of any such legislation in the Senate except for Senator Akaka's bill to clarify the protection of federal employees from employment discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

      Please don't take this as a Hillary bashing hit piece, since Obama is just as bad, if not worse given his kumbaya with Donnie McClurkin. Edwards and Richardson aren't much better either. None of these candidates exhibits anywhere near the leadership of MLK or LBJ on Civil Rights so long as they cling to their Segregationist position.

    •  Thank god someone here has some actual.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...knowledge of history and basic common sense.  

      "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

      by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:26:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How Low Can She Go (8+ / 0-)

    doing the Hillary limbo?

    Is this what she means when she says she's "tough?" - That she's willing to distort and destroy the historical relevancy of a moral leader like Martin Luther King in order to point out that her rival, Barack Obama, is African American and, therefore, in her mind, inherently as ineffective as the great Martin Luther King?

    Well, King had a dream.  He also had his feet on the street with hundreds of thousands of Americans as they marched on American cities to wake up political leadership to their responsibilities to legislate desegregation, one hundred years after another president, Abe Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

    It took one hundred years and Martin Luther King on the street with hundreds of thousands of Americans, black and white, getting tear-gassed, beaten, shot at, arrested, and killed, before old LBJ signed on board.

    You want tough?  Martin Luther King was truly tough.  He put his life on the line for what he believed.  He went to jail for what he believed, which was that all human beings were created equal.

    Give me King's kind of tough over Hillary's any day.

  •  OMG! I'm just going to assume (0+ / 0-)

    you're one of those loony Obama worshippers just making up stuff or taking it wildly out of context. I cannot imagine that even Hillary could be so stupid.

    Please tell me my assumption is correct. Please.

    Otherwise, it is clear that she is not only 'overly emotional' (a little hyperbolic I admit, sexist too maybe but hey), but she has lost her fool mind.

  •  The mob is mighty sensitive today... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Turkana, RenMin

    Something about Monday's prior to a primary.  I smell Hari-Kari at the very first loss.

  •  Oh shit. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, alba

    I've been pretty vicious on Clinton here recently, but I feel too offended to make a joke right now, even if it's about her.  That's so shitty.  I could see where she's coming from at first. She had to go off on him about false hopes because she was able to accomplish so little in the past, and she's too bought out to accomplish anything now.  But then, she questionably attacked Obama's "hope" thing by attacking hope itself.  Which is completely dumb.  Dumber than Mike Huckabee dumb.  But I'm completely baffled by this.  Bringing up a white war criminal from Texas, civil-rights hero that he was, to try and downplay King?  Why even go down that road anyway?  Obama mentioned Kennedy so why even bring up the need for a President to get things done?  What a complete fucktard.  Baffled!

  •  There was... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin

    An interesting discussion about Penn on TPM today.  Josh talked about how close Penn is to the Clinton family.  He also talked about how Penn has never been tested in a close election.  The final analysis is that Penn seems to fit his polling to the framing he wants to project for his client - without really revealing his polling or methods.  This would be very typical of a PR firm that has to support some on unsavory businesses, which he has.  And then Josh makes the connection that this is very close to what Rummy did at the Pentagon before the Iraq war.  An astute reader went a bit further.  He stated that like Rummy, Penn and the Clintons seem to have no 'plan B'.  Loosing Iowa is always a distinct possibility, no matter how 'inevitable' everyone says you are.  The seem to have caught them completely off guard.  And so too the media.

  •  VERY revealing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fisheye, leonard145b

    As Edwards said about the Natalie's parents incident, Hillary thinks this is all about HER.

    Funny/sad coming from the author of "It Takes a Village"!

    "We are building a political movement -- not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." --De

    by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:19:09 PM PST

    •  JRE said that about her? (0+ / 0-)

      what did HRC say about the case? oops, nobody cares since everyone has made up their minds about what she 'really means' and you guys are real busy with the 'some say' diaries.

      "I will sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection..." Thomas Jefferson

      by tony the American Mutt on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:28:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  what did she say? (0+ / 0-)

        in the debate, she said since edward;s patient's right's bill didn't get passed becaue bush killed it.. that edwards was responsible for natalie's death

      •  She trotted out one of her "spokesmen" (0+ / 0-)

        to say Edwards was exploiting Natalie's death when in fact it was Natalie's mother who called the Edwards campaign and said she wanted to campaign with him because of his willingness to take on the Murder by Spreadsheet industry.

        "We are building a political movement -- not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." --De

        by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Happens to be true. LBJ got the laws passed. (6+ / 0-)

    MLK brought the dream to the public. LBJ, the consumate pol, got the laws passed against tremendous opposition.
    It took both of them.

    I remember.

    Just a red meat eating Democratic dawg...frontpaging at The Democratic Daily

    by BigDog04 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM PST

  •  MLK won the Nobel, Johnson had political skill (6+ / 0-)

    Let's put this in perspective.

    MLK won the Nobel Prize.  He literally gave his life for the civil rights movement.

    This is one of a number of projects that Johnson did in office - probably his finest but just one thing that he spent a bunch of time working votes on.

    But Johnson also escalated the Vietnam war, which MLK detested from a Christian/humanitarian point of view.

    When MLK publicly withdrew his support for Johnson, Johnson released the FBI files linking MLK to communists.

    That really clarifies the character of these two men.

    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. - Ayn Rand

    by CA Libertarian on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:21:31 PM PST

  •  Obama up 20 in South Carolina (6+ / 0-)

    Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

    by poblano on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM PST

    •  20 points is nothing. He's polling at 50% in SC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      That's huge. Huge, I tell ya.

      We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. -- Barbara Jordan

      by wmtriallawyer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi

      Just Wow.

      That has Obama winning the black vote 69-23 and the women vote 47-33.

      I'm beginning to hope that the results in NH are closer than I expect, because I want this to continue well into Feb.  The more people who stand up and vote for Obama when it matters in the primary the better.

      "Fired Up!" "Ready To Go!" Obama '08

      by bawbie on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The diary is Limbaugh-like. (8+ / 0-)

    Come on, people.

    I'm a solid Edwards guy, and have no great love of HRC's policy screw-ups (Iraq, Iran, Soc. Sec.). There is more than enough factual and issues amunition to use against her nomination. Let's not start with Limbaugh-like statement-out-of-context smear crap.

    She was making the point that to make change you need both a movement AND the political chops to get it done.

    Save the smear stuff for the RePugs.

    •  maybe so (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, craigkg, Inland

      but this was a very bad political gaffe.

      And she was, at best, somewhat inaccurate.  She should have stressed that LBJ at least was able to do what he did because of all of the work and sacrifice that MLK put forth.

      Yes, the "plug at the top" is important.  But, as Obama (and to be sure, Edwards too) says:  "the president can't do it alone; the people have to do it."

      This was a bad gaffe.

      When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

      by onanyes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:28:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  LBJ followed reluctantly and did not lead (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sagittarius

      on civil rights which probably makes him a hero for Hillary Triangulator Clinton.

      I guess the theory is that Obama would lack the leadership to lag behind, but that she would truly lag.  I guess.  She can discuss it in her memoirs of her campaign which she can start late tomorrow night.

  •  sure... (11+ / 0-)

    Let's start out with a wonkish distinction about legislative process and twist it until it becomes a racist remark that denigrates black people, Martin Luther King, Jr., and anyone who every volunteered for a cause.  Sure. Why not.  

    ---
    Frameshop needs your love to survive! Click through to support the site...

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:23:39 PM PST

  •  that statement alone means she can't win (0+ / 0-)

    after tomorrow she will be ridiculed, it will not be easier.

  •  I understand what she meant (8+ / 0-)

    But that can so easily be taken the wrong way. Poor choice of words.

  •  New Campaign Theme (0+ / 0-)

    JRE 2008
    I TOLD YOU the Presidency was NOT a family heirloom!

    by DrFrankLives on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:30:01 PM PST

  •  A very strange form of political suicide n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigchin, little liberal
  •  Either way you slice & dice (4+ / 0-)

    her idiotic comment, she's still wrong.  The dream BEGAN to be realized the moment people started demanding it. Her comment does a complete disservice to everyone who was out there on the front lines, getting gassed and hosed, beaten and arrested.  The idea that the guy sitting in his office with a pen BEGAN anything is reprehensible.  LJ may have followed through, but the true leadership was inside those people on the front lines suffering for it, including MLK.

    John Edwards = Captain Hero

    by little liberal on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:34:27 PM PST

  •  Obama Most Electable (0+ / 0-)

    New flurry of polls from Rasmussen show Obama is now the most electable candidate from either party and essentially tied with Hillary for the democratic nomination after being 17 points down.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

    The American people are not the problem in this country; they are the answer--Sen. Barack Obama

    by FuPrez on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM PST

  •  Uh, Hillary is right. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andgarden, RenMin

    MLK didn't get it done, and JFK didn't either.  It takes a lot of people to move a nation forward - dreamers and politicians.  And if Obama isn't a politician, he won't get elected.  Simple as that.

    Okay, pass the donuts.

    "Deforestation can never be stopped as long as trees are worth more dead than alive" - Mark Lynas

    by Bob Love on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM PST

    •  It is stupid politics to compare oneself to LBJ (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, Yoshimi, Sagittarius

      and compare one's opponent to MLK.

      As an historical thesis, it is an interesting and debatable point and it did take a people and a nation and a President.

      As an effort to win votes, her statement was stupid.

      Kinda makes it hard for me to accept that her campaigning savvy would be an attribute rather than a detriment come November.

      We got 212,000 voters, they got 115,000. HUGE HUGE WIN for all of us.

      by Bill White on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, it's the WAR thing again. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bill White

        HRC comparing herself to LBJ means she's comparing herself to the person who killed the party with a stupid ass war....not good for her.

        "They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed. They say, `We need to boil all the hope out of him -- like us -- and then he'll be ready.'"

        by Inland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:50:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  comments by Joe Klein on Hillary's Tear Moment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Turkana

    I think I've now been asked 53 times whether Hillary Clinton's emotional moment helps her, hurts her, will cause the ozone hole to expand and the polar ice caps to melt. Who knows? My reaction was that she's exhausted, in a tough race and held things together very well under the circumstances.
    In any case, I've seen her cry before--in Ahmedabad, India, in 1995, when a group of untouchable women at a marvelous NGO called Sewa began to sang "We Shall Overcome" in Gujurati. Every last one of us cried that day, including Senator Clinton, and none of will ever forget it.....joe klein

    http://time-blog.com/...

  •  Did She Really Say This? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny, Over the Edge, RenMin

    I've got to believe there is more context to this.  I certainly see the point she is trying to make, but it's hard to imagine a less effective way of making it.  She could have contrasted Dr. Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall to make the point about the difference between aspirational rhetoric and tangible accomplishments, and avoided the racism that her comment implies.
    BTW - no one should, as an historical matter, minimize LBJ's accomplishment.  The Civil Rights laws were not the product of popular will.  It took a President who both had an unstoppable will and consummate skills at Congressional manipulation to get it done.  I'm really not sure that anyone other than LBJ could have done it.

    •  It would have happened without LBJ... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Sure, Johnson was skilled at legislative politics -- and that is an understatement -- but the Civil Rights Movement was one of the great tides of history.  King shaped and defined the movement according to non-violent principles.  It might have taken longer but it would have happened without LBJ.  King was also right in attacking LBJ over the war in Vietnam.

      Ain't no time to hate.

      by howardpark on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:25:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with what you just wrote, but question... (0+ / 0-)

        ...just how long it would have taken without LBJ.

      •  LBJ's Successor (0+ / 0-)

        Was Richard Nixon.  Do you really think he would have championed Civil Rights laws?  Don't think it would have fit in with his "Southern Strategy."  African-Americans are roughly 12% of the US population, and in 1964, they were a miniscule portion of the voting population.  I really think it is questionable whether there would have been Civil Rights laws without LBJ.  White America could easily have chosen to deal with the civil rights movement through greater repression, which is pretty much what did happen following LBJ's presidency.
        And of course MLK was right about Vietnam, but that's another story.

    •  Did You Really Say This? (0+ / 0-)

      That MLK was "aspirational rhetoric" and Thurgood Marshall was "tangible accomplishments?"

      Perhaps I can recommend, oh, about 30 books on the civil rights movement you might need to read?

      Here's the short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Or perhaps I misunderstood you somehow.  If so, please enlighten me.

      If we want hope to survive in this world today, then every day we've got to teach on, teach on. - Ysaye Maria Barnwell

      by Femlaw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:52:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Brown v. Board of Ed., (0+ / 0-)

        Ended Jim Crow by eliminating any legal justification for segregation and racial discrimination.  This was almost entirely the product of the brilliant and innovative legal work of Thurgood Marshall.  I do not think that you can point to any "tangible accomplishment" by Dr. Martin Luther King, or anyone else involved in the civil rights movement, that matches the scope of what Marshall and his team achieved in the Courts.
        I am reasonably familiar with the history of the civil rights movement, and I do not wish to belittle Dr. King.  He was a great man, both for his rhetoric and his action.  (His first speech against the Vietnam War still stands as one of the greatest critiques of US foreign policy ever made).  However, I think that we have a tendency towards hero-worship that somewhat exaggerates the individual importance of Dr. King.  I would recommend to you reading up on the life and work of Ella Baker, an extraordinary activist and organizer, who was critical of the paternalistic domination of the movement by male, Christian figures like Dr. King.
        The basic point is a valid one: Having a dream is a necessary starting point.  It takes the work of pragmatic people, including lawyers, community organizers, and even politicians, to make the dream a reality.

        •  I stand in awe of Ella Baker and many others (0+ / 0-)
          - women and men, and the work they have done.  All of it well outside the courtroom.  Many scholars and historians of the civil rights movement view the legal accomplishments as deeply entwined with the protest activity, making it very difficult to say which was, in fact, the driving force for change.  My own view is that both were extremely important and that one without the other may have failed.  And that the achievements of the 1963 and 1964 legislation would have been impossible absent the protest movement.  I doubt very much that Thurgood Marshall would say anything different.

          If we want hope to survive in this world today, then every day we've got to teach on, teach on. - Ysaye Maria Barnwell

          by Femlaw on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:08:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not So Sure (0+ / 0-)

            There is considerable historical evidence, some of it discussed in Juan Williams' book on Thurgood Marshall, that Marshall was skeptical about the practical impact of the protest movement and was critical of King's tactics.  For example, Marshall once expressed the view that sit-ins were illegal because they violated private property rights and provided a pretext for violent reprisals by white authorities.  I think you can make the argument that the protest movement did relatively little to advance the legal victories of the civil rights movement, and actually helped promote a white backlash.  This was reflected in the fact that in 1968, the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for George Wallace and Richard Nixon.

  •  Here is one reason (0+ / 0-)

    people might be offended:

    http://www.crmvet.org/...

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:43:57 PM PST

  •  You Can Support Obama (5+ / 0-)

    Without hating Hillary Clinton.

    I don't understand this vitriol.  I'm neutral at the moment.  I think they're both good Democrats (as is Edwards), and I'd be happy to vote for either, even though neither is perfect.

    I think it's silly and self-defeating for supporters of either to try to twist the other's words to come up with some sort of faux outrage.  That's what the Republicans do to us, we don't have to do it to ourselves.  Remember the pearl-clutching vapors (apologies to Digby) the Republicans had when Kerry told his joke?  That's what this thread sounds like.

    Let's remember the goal here -- to elect Democrats.  We don't need circular firing squads.    

    •  Wise words, and yet... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin

      ...I don't think the mob is interested in wisdom at this point.  It wants blood -- probably for Clinton's AUMF vote, ignoring of course, that both Obama and Clinton have voted consistently to fund Bush's Folly.  Makes no sense, yet primary fever never does.

    •  Your words are very thoughtful (0+ / 0-)

      now go on Hillary's blog and tell her the same thing. This line came from her negative hits on Obama.

      You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

      by tazz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's it. Game over. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karen Wehrstein, james risser, roycej

    There's no way she can recover from this. She should just bow out of the race, apologize, and hope this doesn't cost her the Senate seat. I can't believe she'd say something that mindblowingly stupid.

  •  Clinton is a racist and an embarassment (0+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    DrFrankLives, fisheye

    I wished it was just Mark Penn. But ultimately the candidate controls their campaign. The pathetic and deplorable statement from Senator Clinton proves that she personally is a racist of the worst sort. She is an embarrassment to our party and this country. She should resign her Senate seat, stop her campaign and go back to wherever the hell she calls home, and never utter a public word again. She crossed the line, big time. She personally is an idiotic racist that is too much of a pathetic person to understand why people hate her. It's because you yourself hate Hillary. Go home. Now!

    •  This is ridiculous!!!! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moira977, Larry Bailey, xanthe

      A racist?

      For this statement?

      Do you really believe this?

      •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

        It's easy to not be a racist when one is in power. The key comes when one is challenged for power. Hillary has: had her campaign plant the Obama is a Muslim lie in Insight Magazin; Kept the lie in the news with e-mails and later Bob Kerrey; continually asserted Obama should've "waited his turn," which is surely code; and now this.

        Sorry, she has run a racist campaign. Campaigns are reflective of the candidate. I conclude, from her racist campaign, that Hillary Clinton is a racist. Racists shouldn't be allowed in our party. Period. Want to defend minimizing the role of Martin Luther King, who FORCED Johnson to act on Civil Rights by altering the calculus and building white support? Hillary does. She doesn't get it. Like most racists, she is an idiot.

    •  What a pathetic comment. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maddie05, fisheye, RenMin

      Obamaramas need to regain their balance, otherwise, if Senator Clinton wins this thing, they'll be choosing between the asylum or a bridge.

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ran3dy

        If you can't see what's wrong with minimizing King's accomplishments, then I feel sorry for you. See above.

        •  I don't agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xanthe

          That she was minimizing Dr. King's accomplishments.

          I certainly am not.  I think he's one of the two greatest Americans of the last 100 years (FDR being the other).

          It's true that Johnson couldn't have passed civil rights without King and the other civil rights activists marching and raising consciousness.  But it's also true that all those heroic actions would have been in vain if Johnson hadn't been able to use his insider political skills to get the legislation passed.

          That doesn't seem to me to be a racist observation.

          •  If that had been it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Guy Fawkes

            You'd be right, but then there was the part where "We don't want to raise false expectations," which is code for: "I don't think a black guy can get elected." In other words, "people should stay in their place." That is what is so insidious about her statement.  

          •  No this is false (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            arielle, Ran3dy

            But it's also true that all those heroic actions would have been in vain if Johnson hadn't been able to use his insider political skills to get the legislation passed.

            They would never have been in vein. Sorry. But Lyndon Johnson was the unwitting oportunist of Civil Rights inevitability. Made inevitable by the will of the people and the struggle of the oppressed. Sorry but you are wrong and so is Hillary Clinton. So, so wrong. And it is exactly that belief in the real and just power of the 'people' of The United States over the powers 'that be' in office that is propelling Obama to the nimination. That is his message. The national tidal wave of support for him is a direct and irrefutable refutation of Hillary and your comment. Lyndon Johnson like all presidents 'served' the people, greatly or poorly the president serves the people. Lyndon Johnson knew this and refused to accept his parties nomination, amidst a devided nation, for a second term because of this fact.

    •  uncalled for n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

      by jethropalerobber on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary Clinton made a stupid comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elie

      extolling the virtue of Presidential legal authority as contrasted to the non immediately legally authoritative community activist. It was a stupid, ill concieved and belittling comment. But, it is far from sum total of who Hillary Clinton is as a Democrat and a person.
      Your comment is innapropriate.

      •  No it isn't (0+ / 0-)

        When will people realize that just because someone has a D after their name doesn't mean that they aren't racists. Wallace was a Democrat too you know.

        Hillary's campaign:

        Planted the Muslim smear in Insight magazine. Kept it up with e-mails and later Bob Kerrey.

        The Billy Shaheen smear that tried to equate Obama with the black kid dealing drugs on the street corner.

        Now this, which minimized Martin Luther King's statements.

        People around here were throwing fits (rightly so) over Imus. This is no different. And if you choose to live in ignorance about it, that's your choice. It's clear that Hillary has run one of the most shameful and vile campaigns in history. She is a racist. Period. A non-racist would never put up with this shit, let alone spout it, as she has done.

  •  As a woman I'm beginning to resent her. (4+ / 0-)

    There are so many great women who could have gone out there and showed what we're really made of.

    Barbara Boxer comes to mind.

    Instead we get this whiny, catty, rhymes-with-witch making us look really bad. God, I hope the American public knows enough women not to count us all out because of her.

    -9.0, -8.3. Socialized medicine, not "universal coverage". Public transit, not "35 mpg".

    by SensibleShoes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM PST

  •  This is some mean spirited twisted shit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, RenMin

    damn! Geeksque is carrying whose water here?  I've read a lot of crap here the past month, but this is really getting twisted.

    Hope we can live with whatever nominee we have later on this year.  

    "I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist" Helen Thomas, 2008

    by redlief on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:30 PM PST

  •  She prefers the assassin-in-chief of the MIC (0+ / 0-)

    to one of the Big Three assassinated by the MIC.

    That is all you'll ever need to know about Clinton.

  •  I wonder if HRC isn't thinking about Vietnam. (0+ / 0-)

    That's what makes LBJ less of a hero....but Obama has her beat there, too.

    "They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed. They say, `We need to boil all the hope out of him -- like us -- and then he'll be ready.'"

    by Inland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:49:29 PM PST

  •  Clinton is right (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, GenXWho, RenMin

    Clinton was right.  Now only did it take a President to get it done, it took a southern and in many ways conservative politician to get it done.

    In fact, I think Clinton made an important point.  I appreciate this point.  I also liked her candor in the "crying" speech today.  She made a good point there also.

    Listen, we are heaping on here.  She's going to lose.  I support Edwards, but let's not turn this forum into one much like mainstream talk in which nothing is turned into something.  Or in this case, in which actual substantive and apt observations are turned around because they didn't sound perfectly crafted by a  rhetorical seamstress.

    And unless someone thinks I support Clinton, she is the  candidate I least like.  Still, I appreciate her approach to this election, claiming experience is necessary.

    I like Edwards over the entire field and see little more than symbolical and rhetorical differences between Obama and Clinton.

    •  AA, this crowd is not interested in history... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin

      They've got the fever, man!  They're unstoppable!  They're...headed to a depressing first primary loss soon, and will have to reason left to live.

    •  I have the same feeling about how this is being (4+ / 0-)

      spun here, but as someone who was there and was arrested for the cause, Clinton is wrong. The blood and the dead bodies of African Americans (as well as white freedom fighters) fought for Civil Rights. We forced it to happen and it would have happened whether LBJ was president or not. You understand? I guess that white star has to lead mentality will always be there. We don't need a white messiah to exact change. We'll take all the help and assistance you can give, but LBJ was not the star of the show. Malcolm, Medgar, Martin and whole lot of other people not named Clinton made it happen. I didn't see Hillary or Bill Clinton frog-marched off to the Birmingham jail. LBJ sat in the throne of power, he didn't get bloody and sprayed in the face with high pressure water hoses.

      You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

      by tazz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:22:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With all due respect for your bravery, you're... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RenMin

        Reading things into Senator Clinton's comments that simply were not in there.

        •  From the first sentence I wrote clearly says (0+ / 0-)

          I don't agree with the way the spin is being spun here. I think her comment was wrong though I understand why she said it. To me, it's a non sequitur. Much ado about nothing. But she was wrong.

          You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

          by tazz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:31:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is a Hit Piece (11+ / 0-)

    And a pathetic one at that.  I am seriously more offended by this diary than her remarks.  I know it is primary season, but this is really low.  She is one of us, whether you like it or not.

    Hillary did not inherently put down the civil rights movement or MLK.  She correctly asserted that the office of the president is key in passing legislation (twisting arms, bully pulpit).  You know, THE OFFICE FOR WHICH SHE IS RUNNING.

    Look, movements are important and we can argue whether people lead or politicians lead, ad nauseum.  But, in this situation she is running for office and is pointing out to her audience that putting the right person in that office to get things done is important.  She is plainly running on her experience as a politician (and/or time in the WH).  Why is that so hard to grasp?

    The dogs are in the motherfuckin' street

    by GenXWho on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:51:41 PM PST

    •  As I said up above... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RenMin

      If Senator Clinton wins the nomination, those who have gone berserk against her here will be left with a choice -- the asylum or a bridge. Forget that: they won't even be able to go on after the first primary loss!  I don't think they realize that no one, aside from sitting presidents, have EVER run the table in a modern primary season.

      •  OK (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larry Bailey, RenMin

        I'm an Edwards guy right now, myself.

        But, I'm a Democratic partisan, and a Clinton fan (Bill and Hill) who has read Hillary's biography.  The idea that she is somehow a racist or race-baiting in this primary is just fucking ludicrous.  I don't comment much, but I couldn't let this one slide--really one of the worst hit pieces I've seen in a long time.  I'll stop typing now, lest I get in trouble.

        The dogs are in the motherfuckin' street

        by GenXWho on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:06:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then, we're just alike, except... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RenMin

          ...you seem to have decided on Edwards, while I haven't made a decision yet -- torn between Obama and Clinton, and the mob here is making it hard to say I like Obama.  I don't want to be associated with people like the diarist, or the pack that rushes in to provide the chorus on bullshit like this diary.

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            I am sick and tired of Obama's supporters. They are very ignorant.

            Shit they called me today (i.e Obama's call center staff) asking for $500...I told him I was unemployed and he still asked for $25...I told him if I had $25 it would go to Edwards because I feel that Edwards is the best one to rip the rich a new one. Hillary is now my second choice.

            Obama and all his lets get alone kumbaya rehtoric is turning me off. I want to crush the republicants no work with them.

    •  She opened herself to it. (0+ / 0-)

      She is left now trying to explain it.
      Her sense of framing is awful.

      And timing: wow. Really bad timing.

      No one here with a brain is accusing her of being a racist, but plenty here are looking at the smug attitude, of how 'it takes a President' ..

      What the hell happened to 'it takes a village'???

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:27:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ouch (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RenMin

    It is certainly true that real change did not come until the 1964 Act.  It is also true that LBJ ultimately called in chits to get it done.  However, I can't think of another way of saying what she said that wouldn't come off badly.  

    She would have been far better off drawing a comparison between Kennedy and Johnson, saying something like, "JFK didn't make a promise that in 10 years we would develop a time machine or a car that runs on water.  He set goals that were lofty but reachable.  He challenged our spirits without setting up disappointment.  And even Kennedy wasn't able to get strong civil rights legislation passed.  In the end, it took the more experienced leadership of Lyndon Johnson to make sure that Congressional opposition did not defeat the legislation."  Comparing apples to apples that way, avoiding any racial subtext, and, most importantly, not even arguably dissing Martin Luther King in a Democratic primary.

    People who love this country can change it.

    by DelRPCV on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:53:10 PM PST

  •  MLK wasn't afforded the opportunity to be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran

    president.  

    Now, 44 years later, Obama has that opportunity, to have the bully pulpit that LBJ had back in 1964.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM PST

  •  Sweet fancy moses! (0+ / 0-)

    She certainly knows how to step all in it lately...

    "If you are the big tree, we are the small axe"

    by peaceandprogress on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM PST

  •  Let's remember what got LBJ to that position (11+ / 0-)

    Obama consistently said that "he can't do it alone".  He is about empowering people.

    The people get it done; the President can work with that.

    Don't get me wrong: I like the way that LBJ helped out on civil rights.  But let us remember what got us there:



    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM PST

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lufah, RenMin, be the change you seek

    Not to get into a shoving match about whose daddy could beat up whose daddy, but according to Taylor Branch's great biography of Martin Luther King Jr., MLK did consider LBJ to be a true civil rights hero.  

    It was no mean feat to get the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act enacted by Congress when a major chunk of the Democratic Party was in favor of filibustering both pieces of legislation.

    And that's not to take anything away from Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Fanny Lou Hamer or Bob Moses.

    JFK, the idea man and Mr. Change of 1960, didn't do shit to get any civil rights legislation passed.  HRC flatters herself if she thinks she's comparing herself to LBJ.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM PST

  •  where's that diary comparing this race to 1968? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j1j2j3j4

    they thought HRC was Humphrey but i guess she's LBJ after all.

    Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

    by jethropalerobber on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM PST

  •  The one who's sunk pretty damn low... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, Larry Bailey, bevenro, RenMin

    ....is Geekesque.  Clinton was absolutely correct in what she said.  

    "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM PST

    •  why? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sagittarius

      at best Clinton is implying here that civil rights could not be achieved without the imprimatur of a president.  not MLK, not the SPLC, not the many black men and women who risked life and limb, but only someone holding the highest office in the land.  it's incredibly dismissive to the efforts of so many other people.  it also serves as an analogy: Barack Obama is today's MLK.

      one has to at least ask: what the hell is Hillary thinking?

      •  I can't believe this needs explication. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larry Bailey

        MLK's efforts would have come to nothing, if not for LBJ.  Doesn't anyone here know the slightest thing about their own country's history?

        I'm getting frustrated here, because a pretty elementary point is being obfuscated and denied simply because people don't think it will help their preferred candidate.  That's not a good enough reason.

        "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i'm sorry, but it does. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          j1j2j3j4, Tom Enever

          "MLK's efforts would have come to nothing, if not for LBJ."

          that is outright wrong, and that's the problem.

          we know our country's history alright.  we know that a hell of a lot of people fought for civil rights.  but to claim that the dream of equality would have lived or died solely with the stroke of LBJ's pen is completely wrong.

          it's the same kind of reasoning that David Horowitz used when he claimed that blacks wouldn't have been emancipated were it not for the "magnanimity" of whites.

          •  I'll skip the repetitive exasperation. (0+ / 0-)

            Racial equality was a popular movement.  Civil rights was a legal-political reform.  We got civil rights, but we didn't get racial equality.  You figure it out.

            LBJ wouldn't have done shit on civil rights without the movement spearheaded by MLK.  But MLK without LBJ or a similar figure in the presidency would have been murdered in 1964.

            "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

            by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh good god. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Enever

          Yes, it was the great white father who really deserves all the credit.

          Barf.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:00:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for taking note, Geekesque! (Really) (0+ / 0-)

            MLK was a civil rights leader.  That's what he did, and very well.  Obviously it required physical courage, but it didn't require any political courage.  MLK didn't throw anything away, or put anything at risk in terms of his career or legacy.  Quite the contrary--his entire prominence was as a civil rights leader.  None of this detracts from his accomplishment and historical importance.  Now let's turn to LBJ.  He occupied the most important office in the world, and he put his power and his legacy, most of all among the people who put him in power, at stake to make civil rights a legal reality.  

            I think Obama would endorse this interpretation, outside of the context of a political campaign.  Not that it matters.

            "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

            by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:09:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, you Clinton folks should run with the theme (0+ / 0-)

              that "MLK's actions didn't require any political courage."

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, here on my planet words still have meaning. (0+ / 0-)

                They're not just tools for getting the crowd excited.  And if you think MLK showed "political courage" in the sense that it's conventionally used, i.e. making what the lawyers would call "statements against interest," you're suggesting that he would have been better off as an anonymous minister in Jim Crow Georgia.

                "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

                by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  You are so Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          A hell of a lot of people are. I'll repeat an earlier commetn of mine becuse people don't seem to know this country's history.

          I disagree with the premise that the passing of the Civil Rights Act was everything to the Civil Rights movement. I have pointed out that many of the gains in Civil Rights and desegregation had already occured by then. MLK. Jr. and the Black community had already accomplished desegregation in many areas of the South by around 1960 through the sit-ins and boycotts. (I think it was in over 30 cities by then.) These actions weren't just to get attention. They were plans devised to break these segregated business economically and they worked. The bus boycott was breaking the transportation system FINANCIALLY. The sit-ins were causing FINANCIAL losses to these businesses. King and other leaders of the civil rights movement knew this. They knew if they got these segregated businesses in the pocketbooks, change would come. The real world changes were happening long before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. King and the Black community were forcing these changes long before the Civil Rights act was passed. He wasn't just dreaming and trying to get attention. He was getting things done. That is what pisses me off about this. He was not just a speaker. He was getting things done BEFORE any politicians stepped in.

          ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:33:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, but this is US history as written... (0+ / 0-)

            ...by fantasists.  Without the legal changes, the small-scale practical changes you mention would have been rolled back.  

            I'd like to say this misunderstanding of the relationship between protest and power symbolizes what's wrong with Obama's message, but in all honesty I can't say that--because I don't believe Obama would endorse the fantasist's version I have seen here from commenters.  He's smarter and more historically literate than that.  But I think a lot of his supporters need a serious reality check. I'm sorry for the condescension, but this is all seriously mistaken stuff, and it's mistaken in a structured way that is worrying to see in people whom I am broadly in agreement with (given the whole spectrum we have in this country).

            "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

            by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:45:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you say this? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm sorry, but this is US history as written... (0 / 0)
              ...by fantasists.  Without the legal changes, the small-scale practical changes you mention would have been rolled back.

              The Civil rights movement was growing stronger by the minute. There was no indication that anything would be rolled back. Do you think the Black community was just going to give up and go backwards? What makes you think that?
              You are condescending and willfully ignorant of the facts.  You need history lessons and a reality check.

              ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

              by jennybravo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:13:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It Was Rolled Back (0+ / 0-)

                In 1968, the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for Wallace (overt racist) and Nixon (slightly concealed racist "law and order" campaign).  This was followed by a sharp rightward turn of the Supreme Court, reversal of support of busing to integrate schools, reversal of support for affirmative action, systematic dismantling of the war on poverty, defeat of efforts to reform school financing to eliminate disparities, etc.  It culminated in 1980 with Reagan's decision to kick-off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the infamous murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwoerner: a pretty clear declaration that the civil rights movement was a thing of the past.

  •  MLK and LBJ: Hillary's macaca moment n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  You're reading too much into this (6+ / 0-)

    IANAHF (I am not a Hillary fan), but I don't buy that she was trying to put down King. Her point is that all of King's activism still needed political savvy to get the job done. As others here have pointed out, LBJ really did believe in civil rights long before it was politically popular - and he signed the bill knowing it would the Democrats politically unpopular "for a generation" (and he underestimated that, if anything).

    If LBJ had not been willing to take that risk, and to twist arms to get it done, there would not have been a civil rights act for many more years.

    I read her point as being that we needed both MLK and LBJ. She did not express herself as well as she could, but I credit that to campaign fatigue.

    I still have problems with her, but this isn't part of it.

    It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven nor to save them from hell.

    by DanK Is Back on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:12:05 PM PST

  •  The problem as I see this: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, phaeretic, roycej, brklyngrl

    She's appears to be saying she's LBJ and Obama's MLK (loosely, of course).  

    But she's argued that Obama's all talk and no action, and that Obama's not a "doer," which in turn is dismissive of what MLK did (if Obama is supposed to line up to MLK in her analogy).

    Alternatively, I suppose she could be saying that Obama's approach is better suited to socio-cultural movements, and not politics.  I've got several problems with this, mostly centered on my discomfort w/ anyone telling an African American where they belong.

    Obama's running for president.  So if it takes a president to get it done, he's in the right fucking place, no?

    This is just all kinds of tonedeaf.  

    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you are...is a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

    by Sinister Rae on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:12:05 PM PST

  •  Not What She Said but the Context & Implications (0+ / 0-)

    HRC was not making this statement in a graduate history colloquium to provoke discussion but in a presidential campaign to benefit her candidacy.

    Does anyone dispute that she was analogizing herself to LBJ and Obama to MLK?

    Anyone who lived through the Civil Rights era would likely take this as an unintended compliment to Obama.  Anyone who didn't (and is not a student of American history) probably doesn't know who LBJ was and knows MLK as a folk hero.

    HRC is no racist and neither was her statement.  It was incredibly stupid in the context of a struggling campaign, though.

    The final, sad irony is that given Obama's hopeful, inclusive rhetoric, the Obama/MLK analogy is way more resonant than the assertion that HRC, who has never held any position of leadership or successfully played hardball politics, is like LBJ.

  •  This is an amazing thread (0+ / 0-)

    very few seem to get it that Hillary's a political genius.

    After all NH was the last (second to last maybe?) state to enact MLK day.  Clearly, she knows her audience . . .

    (isn't winning what it's all about?)

    •  you obviously have ZERO idea about NH (0+ / 0-)

      and NH politics.

      This is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. The left is in control in NH during the primary season in this State, always has been, at least since I've been here.

      You know, the State where Eugene McCarty's strong showing in '68 convinced LBJ to drop out?

      The SAME one.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:23:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dr. King's Birthday is Jan. 21... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emilymv, Tom Enever

    ...the South Carolina Primary is Jan. 26.

    Ain't no time to hate.

    by howardpark on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM PST

  •  This diary is the kind of shit we expect from... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iddybud, moira977, RenMin

    ...Karl Rove, where he knows something's not true, but insists on saying it.  The diarist should be ashamed, but being in the throes of Mob Fever, undoubtedly is not. Too bad, 'cause the old fever always breaks, and then the shame returns.

  •  Like Nancy's "advocates vs. leaders" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Data Pimp

    horseshit...

    Hillary should do herself a favor and shut he trap until she finally loses for good.

    "You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

    by bigchin on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM PST

  •  MLK comment of Hillary is something Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j1j2j3j4

    might sincerely say.  Wow.  

  •  Obama Response (0+ / 0-)

    I'd love to see Obama respond to this with his usual supercool way of turning things like this to his advantage, but not in an adversarial way - something like, his goal is to become a President like LBJ who can transform dreams into reality, after all, that's the reason why he wants to be a President, and not a preacher.  He should urge HRC to work with him on that quest.

  •  I came to the same conclusion as other (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gottayo, Sagittarius

    African-American bloggers here in my diary:

    It took a white man to get it done.

    You are defending yourself through a 1964 analogy?  A Jim Crow analogy?

    Coming from this black man and Harvard grad, kiss my ass. I'm done with you, and I guarantee that you can't expect black support once this gets out.  I understand your desperation, but dissing MLK because he wasn't in the position to get laws passed in 1964?  The reason why he wasn't in position to get those laws passed was what he was fighting for.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:00:58 PM PST

  •  this diary is bad in so many ways (0+ / 0-)

    Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:03:22 PM PST

  •  Please Jesus take the wheel... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagittarius

    I don't really like her but man...someone help this woman. This whole scene is not good for the Dem party. According to Clinton, LBJ could have got it done without MLK. All of those marches, death and burning building was a minor effect. I'm trying not to read anything into this, but my parents were not happy. I'm trying to get this picture of the Civil Rights Movement without the march on Washington and Selma. Somehow I don't think LBJ could even come close without MLK. We probably would look more like South Africa if it wasn't for MLK...

  •  It's called natural selection and HRC is proving (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fisheye

    she's unfit to compete for the office, bravo! No coincidence she was a Goldwater supporter at the time of the civil rights era?

  •  Who is paying you to post 24 hours per day? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bevenro

    You have posted over 260 comments in less than 48 hours for 24 hours per day. Who is paying you? And how many of you are posting under Geekesque?

  •  Hey, if anyone cares (0+ / 0-)

    there is something more immediate than tomorrow happening tonight

    LSU 24
    OSU 21

    Go Tigers!!! I need the money.

    You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

    by tazz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM PST

  •  Hillary is correct (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iddybud, Maddie05

    Yes Martin Luther King Jr had a dream and a vision of equality and marched and spoke all over America about it but LBJ did push it through

    Here is a factoid Hillary haters...LBJ lost the South for the Democratic party for over a generation because of it.

    Obama for all his positives and rehtoric is going to get creamed in November...why? because he is naive to the fact that the Republicans are just a racist as ever before and you cant make deals with that crowd...that is what Hillary is pointing out and more forcefully that is what John Edwards is pointing out.

    Obama should just drop out for the good of our chances in this election.

    •  Everyone here knows the narrative (0+ / 0-)

      The implication that blacks and activists were not clamoring for hundreds of years for their rights, and that it 'took a President' to make those dreams become reality leads me to think a lot of people aren't going to be wanting to go hat in hand to Her Highness and get permission.

      She was stupid to say it that way: and no, I'm not a Hillary Hater. Yet.

      But if this crap keeps up, she might convince me.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:19:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What about Lincoln& the19th century abolitionist? (0+ / 0-)

        They weren't on the same team. The 19th century abolitionists inspired others to be activists...the President finally made their activist case with the Emnacipation Proclamation partway into the U.S. Civil War to bring about a startling change of events.

        Should Lincoln NOT be credited for bringing about, after having made mistakes, the law that would not only eventually win the war because there was finally a moral cause for which to win it, but to raise the abolitionists' dream to reality?

        All Hillary's saying isthat she's more ready, Day One,to be a Lincoln or an LBJ while Obama is an inspirational speaker with virtually no foreign-policy-practice to show us.

      •  There are bigger fish to fry these days. (0+ / 0-)

        UHC for example. IDP is a dead end.

        I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

        by Salo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:39:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I retract my assessment of her statement (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        labradog

        now that I have seen it

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        It's quite clear her intent was not as portrayed in this diary at all.

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
        If you want to go far, go together.
        We have to go far, quickly."

        by shpilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:26:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You know what? I resent that crap (6+ / 0-)

      I can't even begin to imagine a more offensive meme, on a Democratic blog no less, than the idea that minority candidates should not be supported because of the racism of others.  I think your analysis is not only dead wrong, but offensive in the extreme.  

      That sort of Chamberlain-esque appeasement has no place in a party that seeks to represent the people of the United States.  This is the home of the brave, not the cowardly racism appeasers.  

      "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." Milan Kedrun

      by Guy Fawkes on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then it's a good thing Repubs are a minority. (0+ / 0-)
  •  An intellectually dishonest analysis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    labradog, Maddie05

    Jesus Christ has inspired people for over 2000 years...Moses and Abraham for much longer.... and they never had to pass a law in any Congress in order to keep us bathed in the light of faith and hope. Many believe Moses handed down law from a source beyond our human existence.

    Whenever a law that best forwards social justice is passed in the name of the people of this country, the law was one that was created long ago in the hearts of men and women.

    The same is true for Rev. Dr. MLK Jr., who was a holy man and an inspirer.

    Hillary Clinton was by no means discounting Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. by showing how his dream was put into action...and who helped to put it there.

    So LBJ wasn't black. You can use that as a bait for racist thought..a cheap shot....or you could see it for what it is...not such a difficult thing to do if you're unbiased.

    Without the inspirers, the American lawmaker could pass a thousand laws and create no opportunity for the social justice we've needed and sometimes acomplished.

    Obama's purporting to be them all wrapped up in one. Jesus, Moses, JFK, Rev MLK, Bobby, and the savior of the civic world.  

    Isn't that just a bit of as stretch for the newest Senator of the top tier?

    If Hillary's pointing that out, more power to her for the reality check.

    By the way, when you display the reaction of these selected bloggers, you are being more divisive than Hillarty herself.

    I'm sure Obama's not happy with his supporters egging on the race issue by distorting Hillary's words.

  •  wow (0+ / 0-)

    that has got to smart for anyone left supporting Hillary.

    I was invited to see Bill, Hill and Chelsea tonight, and declined the invite: that was before I read this.

    ugh.

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:17:28 PM PST

  •  She has a small point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthe, WNCEdwards08Indy

    By looking at LBJs signing of the Civil Rights Act as merely putting pen to paper does it a disservice. Johnson as Vice President was the driving force behind getting the bill started in congress. His public advocacy as President tipped the scales to get it passed. He knew the dangers.

    The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both political parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. As Vice President Johnson pushed the Kennedy administration to introduce civil rights legislation, telling Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[7] As president, Johnson was warned by Senator Russell that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election." [8] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964.

    Granted, LBJ never had to withstand police dogs, water cannons or jail, but he did fight the fight from his end the best he could.

    The first person to ever brew beer was probably naked.

    by bobinson on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:18:02 PM PST

  •  With all due respect (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akr nyc, brittain33, BeBe, moira977, xanthe, Salo

    This constant slander, misinterpretation and DELIBERATE misrepresentation of absolutely every single thing Clinton says or does is vile.  You may be a good writer, but you have personally managed to lower the bar of this site through daily bilious attacks--probably  more so than nearly any of the candidate diaries that scroll by here every minute.  And your bevy of supporters should be ashamed of themselves for keeping this crap flowing.  Why do I read this, then?  Same reason my mom listens to Rush--to get her blood boiling.

    Hillary's campaign is imploding for several reasons, some of which were outlined fairly well by Fineman today on msnbc.com.  I had been a supporter--but I may consider switching to Edwards because I'm very concerned that Clinton is unable to free herself from a terribly informed inner circle.  She's gotten lost--she's trying too hard to politicize and come up with a misguided winning strategy.  Unfortunatley, she's gone very wrong.  These are her issues--NOT phony trumped-up charges of racism.  She is not a bad, vile, evil person. Grow up, and get over it.

    •  Get over someone marginalizeing and minimizing (0+ / 0-)

      Dr. King (whether intentionally or not)?

      That's your privilege I guess.

      •  I'm just going to assume (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        moira977, labradog

        for the benefit of the doubt, that you don't REALLY believe that she marginalized MLK.

        Come on.

        Change has two components--inspiration and action.  Both are equally important.  Of course, both are apparent in the movement itself, but it had to go further.

        Keep in mind, JayGR, that the March on Washington was ON WASHINGTON for a reason, no?  Was it because King was supplicating to the white man in the White House?  I think we can all agree on a flat out no to that question.  But king and the entire civil rights movement certainly knew the power that rests in government, and congress, and knew that all the grass roots activity had to continue to the top.  

        LBJ's signing the ACT reflected a victory in King's ability to enforce the change in the status quo.  They were both needed, and neither one needs to marginalize the other.  They are different sides of the same coin.

        •  My guess is that history (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          j1j2j3j4

          doesn't support your 2 sides of the same coin theory.

          LBJ was a racist who played a shrewd political game. If it wasn't him it would have been someone else or a court.

          He wasn't necessary. The movement was. He was simply reacting to the movement. A movement which began far before MLK of course but he is the historical representative of the movement. There's a reason LBJ is not.

          To answer your question, I think she meant to marginalize Obama not MLK but in doing so she sounds like she's trying to marginalize MLK. However, all she accomplished was to compare Obama to MLK and to piss off a bunch of people.

          •  the establishment (0+ / 0-)

            is in and of itself essential in overturning the establishment.  Clinton's point wasn't to elevate Johnson while reducing King--but to demonstrate that the governing entity has to act.  It's the final instrument of enforcing change.  The power of that final symbol is reflective of the power of the movement itself.  

            •  I understand her position. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              j1j2j3j4

              It's the position of a very traditional politician who is used to being the dynamics of a movement. Movements can create change all by themselves without the benevolent hand of the man being necessary at all.

              The civil rights movement, and the dream, began well before LBJ ever signed any legislation. She's merely showing both her lack of knowledge of the civil rights movement and an ability to insert foot into mouth at a critical moment in her campaign.

        •  I should add that (0+ / 0-)

          the dream began well before LBJ signed a piece of legislation.

          See Brown v. Board & A. Phillip Randolph for examples.

  •  Just as a matter of campaign strategy... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter, dconrad

    while we are in the middle of an unpopular war, i dont think its smart to compare yourself to Lyndon Johnson. Its also not too smart to say that your opponents is like Martin Luther King, Jr.

    WTF?!!!

    "So, until the day we expire and turn to vapors, me and my capers, will be somewhere stackin plenty papers." - AZ

    by brooklynbadboy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:20:34 PM PST

  •  Jack and Jill, hit this on out of the park. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonie3234, Tom Enever

    The Clintons, ARE OUT OF TOUCH, or that SHIT would not have come out of HRC's mouth.  PERIOD.

  •  This has been a Dem refrain for year though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter

    the saving of the Negro Race

    We, negros stay loyal to Dems and give the political power and they dole out crumbs to the negros a lot better than the right wing GOP will.

    •  Wow...look at the demon Geekesque has raised (0+ / 0-)

      Unbelievable.

      •  this is how many have felt the Dems have played (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        missreporter

        Blacks

        And this is coming from a Dem for all of my life.

        Dems have been better than supporting the GOP but understands that many especially before the Ron Brown years have felt this way.

        Dems have supported MLK holidays and parades but then supported mandatory sentencing (Rockafeller) for minor crack offenses while powder cocaine gets leniency.

        True equality in econmic opportunity has been completely ilusive for the vast majority of Blacks in Amerca under GOP govt and Dem govt...the corporatist do not want the masses including Blacks to rise from a weak dependant position.

        •  Is this an argument for welfare reform? (0+ / 0-)

          the corporatist do not want the masses including Blacks to rise from a weak dependant position.

          Because I don't get why welfare reform, aimed at reducing that 'dependency' and creating economic sustainability is so disdained by 'progressives' here.

          At this point even the NPO's are realizing 'social entrepreneurship' is essential to their success at community vitalization.

  •  The once feared mighty Cliton Machine now (0+ / 0-)

    just look desparate.

  •  diary title even worse than subject (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter

    BOTH were civil rights heroes, and I don't think Hillary said otherwise.  That said, she phrased it VERY clumsily.

    I'm kind of surprised how off-balance she's been in the  past month or so, though.  "Experience" was to some degree a euphemism for "practiced at fighting the GOP attack machine", but she's not holding up very well against a POSITIVE attack.

    The company you keep says a lot about the person you are.

    by Leggy Starlitz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM PST

  •  another angle -- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WorkingMomInLA

    this demonstrates the folly of the argument that HRC is better prepared to navigate a way past the GOP smear machine.

    Obama's response was excellent (strong AND fair). HRC's original quote is a support for a broader argument, but as we all know, such quotes are often taken out of context by media and acquire a life of their own. shiny object politics, you know?

    well for all her trying to show she's the best equipped to navigate the pitfalls of our political landscape, ironically, she's shown here that she's just as likely as any candidate to make a severe gaffe at a key time. she'll get bad short-term press from this (already is, apparently).

    Obama for his part demonstrates that he's able to react to an exploding story with speed, taste and wit.

  •  FYI: Olbermann is GRILLING Hillary right now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ericwmr, dconrad

    Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

    by poblano on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:45 PM PST

    •  OUCH..., so much for KO being in Clinton's pocket (0+ / 0-)
    •  And Olbermann is wrong. She was talking about JFK (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Iddybud, baronzito

      yawn

      •  you're right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        j1j2j3j4

        but it still isn't great politics for a Dem politician to say "I'm like LBJ and you're like JFK."   LBJ's experience really did help him pass the Civil Rights Act, but he is remembered as a tragic figure because his experience also led him astray, to escalate the Vietnam War, which split his party and led directly to Tricky Dick.

        JFK probably did emphasize hope over accomplishment, although who really knows because he died so young.  But he is a symbol of progress and hope for so many Dems (like Richardson in the last Debate) that it is pure foolishness to   assign the JFK role to your opponent.    

  •  You sir are scum and would make Rove proud... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brittain33, Iddybud, BeBe, LittlegNYC

    with all of the twists, turns, distortions and rhetorical leaps of faith that it took you to get to your absurd conclusion.  You shame yourself and your candidate.

    N.B. to Sen Obama: Hope is not a plan!

    by TX Dem in DC on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM PST

  •  KO just brought the MLK thing up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, dconrad

    ....He's dissecting HRC right now.

  •  Assuming she is not stupid, (0+ / 0-)

    and that Politico didn't take this radically out of context (have they released the tape yet?), then this may mean that she doesn't believe she can get the African American vote after Iowa, and has nothing left to lose on that front.

    This is a CLM (Career Limiting Move). It is campaign ending, for sure, unless there is another big surprise after Politico releases the tape.

    I hope JRE picks up a lot of her former supporters.

    "Toute société se juge au sort qu'elle réserve aux plus démunis d'entre les siens."
         — Victor Hugo

    by dconrad on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM PST

  •  More crap from John Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    I sure want HIM for my veep
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Sorry HRC supporters I don't get it (0+ / 0-)

    This was a silly analogy.  Again, the problem with HRC's campaign is that she keeps trying to make it about the other candidates not being qualified.  That's just wrong.  Stick to the issues; stick to your own vision.  Otherwise, I think voters will reject this sort of attacks.

  •  Yes, BUT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter, faithfull

    What Hillary was really trying to say is that Obama is black and therefore won't ever BE a president.  

    That's what she was trying to say. MLK couldn't make the changes he inspired, he needed the white president to do it.

    Hillary doesn't believe Obama can get to the White HOuse, because of his color.  She's saying that he's a great inspiring speaker, but he will never get to the presidency (i.e. Dems will lose with him because of his color) and therefore will not have the opportunity to improve health care access, etc.  

    Hillary still believes that the country is too racist, that all African Americans are still victims of whites, and therefore they still need white saviors.  

    America seems to disagree with her.  Let's see who's right.

    "We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril." Barack Obama, Nov.10, 2007

    by keeplaughing on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:14:47 PM PST

  •  Not surprisingly, GEEK got it wrong. (6+ / 0-)

    Hillary was actually saying that JFK was the "hope"  person on civil rights, but LBJ got it done.
    You can delete this ridiculous piece now.

  •  Not just Jack and Jill - (0+ / 0-)

    Lots of blogs are all over this. Do a Google Blog Search.

    The Richmond Democrat:

    It was her second mistake that may turn out to have been the most fateful. Clinton has sought to draw a distinction between herself, a "person of action" so-called, and Barack Obama, who she implied is all talk and no action. Unfortunately, she chose to compare Obama to Martin Luther King, Jr. while impliedly comparing herself to Lyndon Johnson. In Clinton's view, MLK was just a talker and it was LBJ who achieved historic civil rights reforms, more or less by himself. She said this eighteen days before the South Carolina Democratic primary, in which a huge percentage of the likely voters are African Americans and where her numbers are already tanking. This is a disaster.

    Media Lizzy:

    Hillary’s tone-deaf response further illuminates my point that angry Baby Boomers have not yet figured out they can’t shout down Generation X. Barack Obama isn’t asking Hillary for the keys to the car. He’s asking Americans to elect him as our next President of the United States.

    We know the difference.

    Faboo Mama:

    Is she trying to lose Black Democrats?

    I don't know exactly what Clinton's purpose was for such a statement, but the only way to look at it is that she's framing herself as Johnson. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but at the expense of Dr. King? A couple of weeks before Martin Luther King Day? Sen. Clinton just told us that, "Hey, it's great that Dr. King 'Had a Dream', but Johnson enacted the legislation." Which is true, because last I checked Dr. King wasn't an elected official. Still, it's not like Johnson was working in a vacuum either.

    All About Race:

    Hillary Clinton is careful with words and she is not unfamiliar with history. I trust she meant EXACTLY what she said. And I am not interested in any "clarifications" that may appear later today or tomorrow or at any time in the future.

    Mrs. Clinton, I would argue that it took Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination to "get it done." Wisely, President Johnson was shrewd enough to capitalize on white America’s collective shame and sadness to enact legislation that was sinfully overdue.

    There is way more at the Blog Search. This is blowing up. Is this her "Dean Scream"?

    •  Hey, I'm an angry Baby Boomer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nonie3234

      enraged over what George W. Bush has done to this country. But I've been an Obama supporter since before he was elected to the Senate. Bring on Senator Obama and GenX.

      •  I hear ya. (0+ / 0-)

        Me, too!

        But I think we are the exception. Mostly, she has the older demographic, he the younger. I think that's the point that blogger is making.

        •  Yes, I know, it's just that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nonie3234, Maddie05

          the whole Baby Boom thing drives me up a tree sometime.

          I'm officially toward the end of the Boom. But I still can't figure out why, when I was, say, in first grade, I supposedly had loads in common with someone who was being drafted and shipped off to Vietnam; but when I was in college, I allegedly had way more in common with 30-somethings who were married with kids than with high schoolers; and now that I'm in mid-career, I supposedly identify with people turning 60 more than someone like Obama who's just a few years younger than me.

          •  Maybe it is because (0+ / 0-)

            some of these posts are based on group think and lack any independent thought, just reaction.

            ånd because it seems powerful to be abusive in lack of any insight and analytical  skills needed to make rational comments.  

            It is hard to believe that this thread was created by a Democrat. I see it as Rove garbage.  To insinuate that Hillary Clinton is a racist is ignorant.  I can't think of another word to use than that.

            This is deplorable.

            "Every generation needs a new revolution."Thomas Jefferson

            by Maddie05 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:31:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Holy fucking shit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maddie05, LittlegNYC

    How many more sanguine anti-Clinton diaries do we need on this site?  I'm not much of a fan of hers, believe me, but do you folks who post these things ever get tired of bashing her?  Do you really believe that you're changing any more minds against her?

    Holy fucking shit, indeed; what's the damn point of this any longer?

    Liberal.
    Committed to voting "Uncommitted."

    by GOTV on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM PST

  •  Na na naa naa... (0+ / 0-)

    na na naa naa,
    hey hey hey

    GOODBYE!

    "Politics is the art of controlling your environment." - HST

    by angrycalifornian on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM PST

  •  How fitting (0+ / 0-)

    that the candidacy of the first serious female contender for the presidency ends with a "change only happens when the old white man lets it happen" moment.

  •  My God, Hell hath no sour grapes.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    faithfull

    or something like that.  She has absolutely no idea what to do to combat an authentic visionary, and apparently her campaign doesn't either.  There is no person on this planet that would have gotten me to say that LBJ "gave" MLK his dream.  This is a disgrace.  

  •  HRC Made An Arguably Valid Point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    faithfull, j1j2j3j4

    . . . in the worse way possible.  HRC is trying to stop Barack's mom