The debate over race is continuing to rock the Democratic primary, and I now feel obliged to offer a mea culpa. In the post at Campaign Diaries in which I summarized the complaints of Obama's campaign against comments made by the Clintons, I quoted the version of Hillary's quote on MLK as it appeared in the New York Times -- but it now looks like the quote used by the NYT and most media accounts might have mischaracterized what Clinton said by completely truncating her comments, in a way that makes her words look much more condescending to King than the full quote does (this is being reported and pointed out by TPM's reporting team and it is because of TPM's insistence on this that I now realize that it's important to place all of this in full context).
This post has been cross-posted on my blog, at Campaign Diaries.
This is not to say that Clinton's words were not inappropriate, but that this leaves room to interpret her comments as a swipe to John F. Kennedy (to whom Obama is often compared) rather than at MLK. With Clinton's comments now at the center of a firestorm, the meaning of what she said is being debated with increasing heat. And voters can still decide that Clinton was disparaging King's accomplishments, but they should do so after having looked at the full quote. So here is the the NYT's account I relied on in my original post:
"Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. "It took a president to get it done."
And here is Clinton's full quote:
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 people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.
As I said, this does not at all clear up Clinton's comments, and her comments about "the dream" becoming reality towards the end appears to hint at MLK's dream, seemingly diminishing the momentous importance of King's actions, marches and organizing. But Clinton's criticism of Kennedy seems more relevant to what she was saying -- in essence that JFK trumpeted his commitment to civil-rights but did not have the capacity to back up his speeches, whereas Johnson actually rolled up his sleeve and acted. Both interpretations are possible, and the "it took a president" could be diminishing to MLK or to JFK, depending on how people want to read this. But debating on these grounds and using the full quote seems much more fair than relying on the truncated version.
And it also seems important to cite the full quote of Bill Clinton's referring to the "fairy tale" since that has also been criticized for racial overtones. The Obama campaign is accusing Clinton of diminishing a black candidacy as a fairy tale, and Clinton is responding that he was talking about the media portrayal of Obama's opposition to the war. And in this case, the full quote seems much more clear-cut and in favor of Bill Clinton's version of the incident, as the entirety of these comments are devoted to the Iraq War (if you want to make sure these comments are leaving nothing out, the video of Clinton's comments is available here):
It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.
Now the controversy is continuing, fed by Hillary's decision to fight back rather than see if it will die out. She said, "I was personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful. And I have made that clear to many people in the last several days." Clinton is also accusing the Obama camp of "distorting her remarks." And this in the context of the Huffington Post reporting that the Obama campaign is distributing a memo highlighting all the instances they feel the Clintons are playing the race card. (Update: The controversy is getting even more heated, if that is possible, with Obama responding to Clinton's Meet the Press appearance and calling her putting the blame on his camp "ludicrous.")
Overall, the media is blowing up this race and gender controversy beyond belief. Whether they are criticizing Obama's sexism during last week's debate, the Tom Bradley effect in New Hampshire or the racist overtones of Clinton's comments, they are clearly enjoying the portrayal of the Democratic primaries as the victory of identity politics. Just look at this NYT story published this week that summarizes the election as a clash between the civil rights movement and the women's rights movement. To frame the article, the accompanying picture is one of... Elizabeth Stanton and Frederick Douglass and a significant portion of the article is devoted to the post-Civil War fight between those two towering figures over which group should get the right to vote first.
It seems incredible to suggest that race and gender are playing a role in this year's election that in any way and extent resembles the Douglass/Stanton debate. There is very little chance that the Bradley effect played a significant role. Obama's "you're likable enough" or Edwards's criticism of Hillary's jacket were both inappropriate; and so was Hillary's comment on King and Johnson (even if we look at the full quote that included the swipes at Kennedy). But Clinton has no history of racist comments just as Obama and Edwards have no history of sexism; neither of these storylines fit a preexisting narrative in any way, and both are being blown-up out of proportion by the candidates and by the media.