Found this one to be interesting. The link is from bartcop...always worth a read.
http://www.bartcop.com
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
One of the main points...identifying how the racism issue came to take a central role in the campaign after the MLK LBJ exchange...
Here is a little piece of it.
Clinton pointed out, however, that it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it.
Obama riposted that this failed to take account of the sort of impetus for change created by great rhetoric of the kind used by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. So far, so good. Normal political exchange.
more follows
Note it was Obama who introduced King into the debate, on his side. Clinton then made the obvious, and surely entirely legitimate, factual point that King's rhetoric had certainly been the indispensable inspiration for change, but that president Lyndon Johnson's efforts had also been indispensable in actually getting civil rights legislation through the Congress against deep opposition from parts of his own party.
The place went into meltdown. This was said to disrespect King. How could Clinton equate King to Johnson? She wasn't: she was simply pointing out that both were necessary, one to inspire and one to deliver.
Soon her words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Make no mistake: Obama's people joined in briefing the media and others extensively to create this impression.
True false irrelevant?
"There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
Barack Obama 2004 at the Democratic Convention