Controversy Over MLK Remarks Continues (UPDATED)
Guest Post by dnA
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton put the responsibility on the Obama campaign for distorting remarks she made about the Civil Rights movement, which some say could cause a backlash among black voters in upcoming primary states.
Clinton said in an interview in New Hampshire earlier this week that Martin Luther King’s role during that time was facilitated by the help of President Lyndon Johnson. The comments drew fire from the African-American community who felt Clinton belittled King’s efforts.
“I’m particularly offended at the way some have taken out of context and apparently deliberately tried to mislead others about what was said,” said Clinton inside a local Mexican restaurant in Reno. Clinton called the attacks “baseless and divisive.” She went on to say that she was “personally offended at the approach taken that was not only misleading but unnecessarily hurtful.”
“It clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign and I don’t think it is the kind of debate that we should be having in our campaign.”
Today, Obama responded to Clinton’s statement.
This is fascinating to me. I mean I think what we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous. I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong.
She suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. She belittled the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate despite the fact that she stood on the sidelines during that negotiations on that bill. I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don’t think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don’t think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.
I saw Hillary Clinton’s version of the Civil Rights Movement as a two-man operation was reductive, not just to Dr. King, but to all the activists, black and white, who risked life and limb fighting for equality under the law for all Americans. I found it personally very offensive, and I wasn’t the only one. That kind of attack made me feel bitter towards the Clintons in a way I never expected to before the primary season started, which is why I thought Noam Schreiber was on the money when he said this about the recent racial tension between the two campaigns:
That said, all this really just hurts the party. If you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in keeping this going beyond South Carolina, for the reasons just mentioned. But any benefit Hillary would reap from racial division in the primaries could be pretty costly in the general.
Ugh. I wish we could just shove all this toothpaste back in the tube, but something tells me that’s wishful thinking.
I argued yesterday that both Clinton and Obama might have to avoid dealing directly with race or gender in order to win if not the primary, than the general election. It’s looking more and more like that won’t be possible.
UPDATE: BET Founder Bob Johnson, the man who gave us slow motion ass-clapping, weighed in on the controversy on the side of the Clintons. Johnson is stumping for Clinton in South Carolina.
Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama’s past drug use. He also compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier, the black actor, in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”
At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.
[…]
Moments later, he added: “That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”
Johnson’s statement comparing Obama to Sidney Poiter’s character in “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” strikes me as far more offensive than Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” moment, (which I never believed was racial) both because it characterizes Obama’s campaign as something akin to fiction and therefore not likely to succeed (something of concern to black voters in SC currently trying to make up their minds and especially the Obama campaign) and Obama himself as a docile, inoffensive “House Negro.” For those who don’t know what that means, he is basically implying that Obama is a sellout.
Johnson also said this:
“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.”
Johnson later claimed that his above comments did not refer to Obama’s drug use as an adolescent.
My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.
I’m skeptical, but it is entirely possible that is what he meant.
A few thoughts come to mind: Obama benefits most when race is not an issue in the campaign. Clinton benefits more when race is an issue, because any response directly accusing the Clinton campaign of making racist statements would be seen as sour grapes by most voters. The longer this argument goes, the better it is for the Clintons, which is why they appear to be prolonging it.
It isn’t at all clear to me that Bob Johnson is entirely an asset. As a black man in a society dominated by political correctness, he can attack Obama in ways the Clintons themselves cannot. At the same time, he is viewed, as G.D. at Post-Bourgie points out, as a “very polarizing figure” among African-Americans because of long-term anger over programming at BET that many see as perpetuating black stereotypes.
As a side note, Media Matters has an item detailing the ways in which the New York Times truncated Clinton’s statements on MLK. It did not change my mind, but for those of you who either haven’t seen the full quotes or don’t know what the controversy is about, it is worth reading.
Chris
says:Senator Clinton said, “It clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign.”
No, it came from Senator Clinton’s mouth. And Donna Brazil and all the others who were disappointed or took offense at Clinton’s King/LBL remarks are not ventriloquist dummies sitting on the knee of Barak Obama (as she would have us believe).
Anne
says:No, Barack, she never questioned your clear and unambiguous opposition to the war in 2002, when she was voting for the AUMF; she questioned what happened to that opposition in 2004, when you said you didn’t know how you would have voted on the AUMF, and when you said your position on Iraq wasn’t all that different from Bush’s. She questioned why, if you were so opposed to the war, you continued to vote to fund it, and why it took you 18 months after you arrived in the Senate to make a major speech on Iraq.
Can you answer those questions, Barack, or will you continue to insist that one speech that you gave in 2002 inoculates you from any questions or criticism about what you did – or didn’t do – later?
Come on, people – are you really unable to see the disingenuousness and outright sleight of hand that Obama is performing on this issue?
As for the MLK issue, again, Obama is using this to his advantage, and in my opinion, it is really unattractive. I took the time to watch Clinton this morning give an in-depth answer to these charges, and I found them to be quite credible – and I’m not even a Clinton supporter.
Nothing that is coming out of the Obama camp on either of these issues is making me feel better about his ability to be president.
Amelia
says:Wow maybe you have to be black to get it but I interpreted Clinton’s comment as a pushback to all the fawning and fainting about Obama’s rock-star orator abilities — she saying that it takes more than the ability to make a speech – which seemed to me a perfectly appropriate comment.
It also seems to me correct that Obama gets away with a lot more than she does in the mud-slinging department.
Did anyone see Shelby Steele on Bill Moyers on Friday night? He was talking about Obama being a “bargainer” rather than a “challenger” – two “types” of black people – the first being more acceptable to white people – and that being a “bargainer” means (according to Mr. Steele) being elusive about what you really believe. If anybody saw this interview, what did you think?
zeitgeist
says:With the caveat that I am white, which may mean to some that I cannot possibly have a contextually appropriate reaction to her comments, I can’t imagine what is possibly offensive about Clinton inarguably, objectively true comments. This strikes me as looking really hard to find a way to paint her as racially insensitive.
Dr. King was not in government. It is simply a fact that he could not make governmental changes. Clinton said little more than that – indeed, she credited King with the movement itself; she merely said that it takes a President to turn the movement into policy. How is that in any way incorrect? How does that in any way diminish Dr. King? Do we now somehow have to give him all of the credit to avoid being considered racist? Does LBJ get none of it, regardless of historical fact? She never said LBJ did it all himself, she never even said he was part of the movement that set the Civil Rights Act up. Since I’m watching the playoffs as I write, let me use the sports analogy that King lead the team down the field, but LBJ happened to carry the ball across the goal line.
Can anyone really dispute that? Can anyone explain to me how that is even newsworthy other than anti-Clinton, pro-Obama folks seeing and seizing an opportunity to make her look bad by spinning a relatively innocuous comment about the difference between movements and managers?
I look at numerous examples the past week and it appears she truly cannot win, that she is in a complete Catch-22: she has to compare what she bring to the table with what Obama brings — that is what campaigns are. But everytime she does, she is “dismissing the hopes of the black community,” “marginalizing the civil rights movement,” etc. How is she supposed to contrast herself with Obama if every time she does a Brazile, Clyburn or other black leader calls it offensive?
Chris
says:Hillary Clinton says that the controversy over her MLK/LBJ remarks “came from Senator Obama’s campaign“. Talking about the issue for the first time, Obama defended himself by saying “I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it…the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.” With no evidence whatsoever to support Clinton’s assertions, there’s no reason to believe that “Obama is using this to his advantage“.
On this issue, it comes down to he said…she said. And if she’s going to make charges like that on television, then she ought to back them up with evidence. Otherwise, her credibility suffers.
jen flowers
says:Like Anne, I think I’m going to start pulling out my hair. Circular firing squad indeed.
When Obama is Clinton’s age, he will have baggage too. What’s the strategy in the future? To keep from the baggage issue, we’ll be selecting our presidents immediately after elementary school? Baggage is part of making decisions. If you make enough decisions, some will be wrong, wrong headed and even stupid in the light of hindsight. Her record is not bad. His record is not that long.
Obama is a smart man. When he spoke to the people of Kenya about their elections, everyone oohed and aahed what a great man he is. If Clinton had done something similar, she is manipulative. Folks, manipulation is part of any sales talk.
But the double standard here is ridiculous.
Anne
says:The problem, I guess, is that because Obama is black, somehow he gets to own the issue, even if he is distorting what Clinton has said – and is ignoring any and all of her remarks that discuss the issue in depth; it seems that anything he says on it is granted credibility, because to do otherwise is some form of racism, I guess.
It stinks. There is nothing – nothing – in Clinton’s background or work that would lend any credence to her being racist or using race to her advantage – but it seems that Obama is happy to frame this to his advantage on just that basis.
As Clinton has explained – to those who seem to have forgotten exactly how things get done in this country – MLK, Jr. himself, even as he was continuing the grass-roots of protest, was working with politicians to try to make the legislative change that would move things forward. And he campaigned for LBJ because he knew it would take a Democratic president to get civil rights legislation done. That was her point, not that MLK, Jr. was not integral to the process, or does not deserve any credit.
Sadly, ir appears that those who believe Clinton is belittling or dismissing the efforts of King must have chosen to listen to the Obama camp’s explanation of Clinton’s comments.
If this is going to engender an us v. them mentality, where everything white people say is framed as racist, it is going to set progress back, not move it forward.
Danp
says:I love analogies, but what Clinton’s King/Johnson comparison meant to me was, “we don’t just want a victim who speaks eloquently. We want the doctor with the training to heal him.” But Obama is not running as “the victim”, and Clinton . . .I’ll resist calling her the doctor’s wife, but to compare her qualifications to his with this analogy is outrageous.
Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08
says:Amelia,
Check out the comments section of Bill Moyers Journal. There are some enlightening comments by AA’s about Steele and his positions. Steele is a hypnotically fluid spinmeister with a pat answer for everything. His simplistic, almost dismissive, characterisations of anyone not him, are offensive, and many feel they are projections of Steele’s hidden self loathing.
ROTFLMLiberalAO
says:Nice post dNA.
Regarding Barack’s brilliant measured response: Coffin + nail.
Regarding Zeitgeist’s:
I look at numerous examples the past week and it appears she truly cannot win…
You are finally getting it.
It is what I have been saying all along.
Just as she is polarizing the Dems so she will polarize the country as a whole.
Whether it is fair or not isn’t the bottom line question for Dem voters.
The bottom line question is instead:
Should we select a person who consisitently draws such ire with such little effort?
The answer is NO!
Let her go.
Else, you will drown with her November.
Chris
says:I’m sorry, but I’m going to be blunt. There’s no double standard. As far as I can tell, Senator Clinton told at least three lies on Meet the Press today:
Lie No. 1: Obama’s opposition to the war has been less than consistent. (Removing an anti-war speech from his website and diplomatically answering a media question for the benefit of his party’s presidential nominee are not evidence of a changing position. On the latter charge, he should be thanked, not demonized).
Lie No. 2: Senator Clinton’s support for the war was limited to a situation in which U.N. inspectors are not provided with unfettered access. (In truth, she supported the invasion of Iraq on the eve of war despite the fact that Hans Blix was arguing that his team was getting full cooperation from the Iraqis and that he needed more time.)
Lie No. 3: Obama’s campaign is responsible for the controversy surrounding her MLK/LBJ remarks. (I’ve seen/heard no evidence whatsoever to back this claim up.)
It’s bad enough that our President lies to us. It’s bad enough that the Republican nominees lie to us. But the stuff coming out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth these days is extremely disappointing. Democrats should be setting the bar higher…much higher.
jen flowers
says:It is a bit ironic that the person who spews the most undiluted venom about Clinton is the one saying “Should we select a person who consisitently draws such ire with such little effort?”
Using that standard, the Democrats shouldn’t run at all ever because the media and Republicans will say bad things about them and make the country polarized.
Splitting Image
says:“Dr. King was not in government. It is simply a fact that he could not make governmental changes. Clinton said little more than that – indeed, she credited King with the movement itself; she merely said that it takes a President to turn the movement into policy. How is that in any way incorrect? ”
Because if you examine the history of the feminist movement, it isn’t true. The ERA ultimately failed, and if it had passed would have trailed the real cultural changes by ten years.
The right to abortion was decided in the courts, not by the President, which is to say that women obtained it by being pushy and standing up for what they needed, not waiting for a President to take action.
Even the right to wear pants in polite society was obtained by civil disobedience. Clinton was not only insulting Martin Luther King, but also feminists like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.
Clinton could have taken the high road by pointing out that the two movements have a large number of parallels, and that people who have marched in the street for one should be totally supportive of the other, but she decided to belittle everyone who marched in the street instead.
Worse though is if the comments themselves were not a page from the Republican playbook, her followup was. “Never apologize, never explain”. Arguing that her words have been distorted and that it is all Obama’s fault is exactly what Rush Limbaugh would have done in the situation. It’s exactly what he did when he got caught calling every Democrat in the military a “phony soldier”.
Even though I don’t like the guy, I’d have had to forgive him if he had said that mistakes happen on live shows and that comment didn’t come out the way he wanted it to. Instead he went national and spoke about how offended he was that anybody could have accused him of saying what he actually said. That’s what Clinton is doing now.
zeitgeist
says:ROTF:
Whether it is fair or not isn’t the bottom line question for Dem voters
When fairness ceases to matter, we are no better than the Republicans.
I want to win as much as anyone, I want someone who will give the Republicans hardball as much as anyone, but when we no longer care about or support fairness, or refuse to bow down to unfairness, we have become what we hate.
zeitgeist
says:Splitting Image:
Because if you examine the history of the feminist movement, it isn’t true. The ERA ultimately failed, and if it had passed would have trailed the real cultural changes by ten years.
But that is because 90% of the change that was required was provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which LBJ drove through Congress.
The right to abortion was decided in the courts, not by the President, which is to say that women obtained it by being pushy and standing up for what they needed, not waiting for a President to take action.
And courts are part of the government (appointed by the President, I might add) – only proving my point that the implementation of any movement ultimately requires Government ratification. It cannot “locked in” solely by outside actors, no matter how skilled.
Babies For Obama
says:I thought that you would be interested in knowing that BabiesForObama.com has just announced that it will be donating a portion of its profits to the Obama for America Campaign:
http://www.BabiesForObama.com
Thanks!
– Babies for Obama
jen flowers
says:If Hillary Clinton said, the sky is blue, she would be called a liar.
And if Hillary apologized for anything, she would be manipulative and a liar.
ROTFLMLiberalAO
says:Okay Zeitgeist…
While I don’t accept your premise, I will run with it–
Here is why it the current criticism of Hillary is fair:
Since when do we celebrate MLK/LBJ day in this country?
Anybody who thinks these two men are remotely equivalent is clueless.
Heck… it took a tourist boycott by the people to even make it a holiday in AZ after the fact.
Where was LBJ then?
Where was the Senate then?
The problem I see here is that Hillary needs to quit patting herself on the back for being a do-nothing legislator in the weakest Democrat Senate I’ve ever seen in my lifetime…
Fact: The House of Reps rarely, if ever leads, the people to greener pastures: It follows them.
And even then, it only follows, when the people clamor and riot like hell.
That’s why the Iraq war is still going on despite the people’s wish that it end.
The people’s will is there… but their clamoring hasn’t gotten loud enough yet.
Meanwhile, back in the real world: Hillary authorizes Bush to take off against Iran.
And that fugging monkey is only to eager to shake phony propaganda at us for war with Iran.
It’s sick.
And if the bombs drop: Blame Hillary and every Dem that voted to enable him.
dnA
says:Zeitgeist,
LBJ made an act of political courage that was possible only because of those who sacrificed to make it possible. To say “it took a president” to realize King’s dream is to say that his dream was about legislation; it wasn’t. King’s dream was about people demanding as human beings the dignity that was due them. And here’s the important point, it wasn’t just King’s dream: It was Fannie Lou Hamer’s Dream, it was Asa Philip Randolph’s Dream, it was W.E.B. DuBois’ Dream. The Civil Rights movement, and that dream, did not begin or end with the Civil Rights Act.
Dale
says:I think one thing the Islamic phenomena has taught me is to look askance at groups who wear their icons on their shoulder like chips and interpret everything they can as an insult to their particular Jesus, Kennedy, Mohammed, MLK, Pope or alternatively their religion, lifestyle, leader etc. When I read that groups are offended by a remark I always wonder if that offense trickles down to individuals or if it is just a tool for leadership to keep people in the fold and not let them be seduced by progressivism however they may define it.
Dale
says:ROTFLMLiberalAO said:
Heck… it took a tourist boycott by the people to even make it a holiday in AZ after the fact.
Where was LBJ then?
Dead? Sorry I couldn’t resist.
Dennis - SGMM
says:If Hillary Clinton said, the sky is blue, she would be called a liar.
I wouldn’t automatically call her a liar. I would look out of the window though.
Dale
says:One aspect of Hillary saying that it took a President was that it showed how much she is into Presidential power. MLK and other activists did a massive amount of dangerous work in creating the wave that allowed a Democratic congress to pass a law which LBJ may or may not have been able to make happen or not make happen. Was he in a veto-proof situation?
It took all these things to make it happen.
Dale
says:Babies For Obama said:
I thought that you would be interested in knowing that BabiesForObama.com has just announced that it will be donating a portion of its profits to the Obama for America Campaign:
Why not ALL the profits?
broadbrush
says:Hillary invokes LBJ and talks about 35 years in the sruggle for civil rights. Has she forgotten that she was a ” Goldwater girl and member of the young Republicans opposing the civil rights agenda and the ” Great Society.” How Clintonian. Her vote to enable ” W ” to go to war in Iraq while voting against the Levin amendment and other amendments to restrict ” W ” can only be misundestood by those who struggle to determine what the meaning of is is Hillary now embraces change ( Obama ) and says it is personal for me ( Edwards) when it is politically conveniet. The attacks by her campaign manager( Mark Penn) and by surrogates Bob Kerry and Bill Shaheen, her use of last minute mailings implying that they come from John Edwards as well as the implied inferiority contained in the remarks of her and her husband, a former President are about as dignified as the behavior they exhibited in the White House. Dick Tuck would be proud. We should not be.
zeitgeist
says:dnA –
I read your discussion at your own site which puts a little more flesh on your argument, and obvious you are correct that there was more to the successes of the civil rights movement than a two-man effort with one speechifying and one implementing. Nonetheless, that complaint strikes be as somewhere between oversensitive and disingenuous in that Clinton’s use of MLK as a symbol, representing the movement, could only have been inteded as a slight to the myriad other leaders, marchers, voter registration drive workers, etc if you believe that her using LBJ as a symbol of the government side was intended to slight the Congressional majorities who were also clearly required. I think people need to be realistic about the fact that political speeches, while more detailed than 30 second spots, are still relatviely short. It just isn’t logical or practical, or fair to expect, that HRC would have given that speech and done some thorough analysis or even a listing of everyone deserving of credit, black or white, government or not, in decades of activism on behalf of civil rights. As ROTF replied to me above, we have MLK Day, not MLK/LBJ Day – but it is equally true that we don’t have MLK, DuBois, Hamer, etc Day — and that doesn’t seem to be a big controversy. So we know that sometimes it is ok to let Dr. King stand in as an icon of the movement as whole. Why is it suddenly wrong when Hillary does it (particularly when she does the same thing to the almost entirely white Governmental side of the equation by naming only LBJ?)
Mark
says:Maybe something major about American politics eludes me, but why is it so important what the presidential candidate actually “believes”? Are his or her personal beliefs so important, considering that as the people’s highest elected representative, he or she is supposed to embody the collective will of the American people, rather than his or her own beliefs?
I have an inspirational poster on my wall which contains, among other gems, this Bushism; “…the reason I believe in a large tax cut, because it’s what I believe”. It is my profound hope that Americans have elected for the last time in a looonnng time a president who is allowed to rule according to his own beliefs and self-interest rather than their own, since any number of people must have counselled that a large tax cut while trying to pay for a couple of expensive foreign wars was….what’s the word? Stupid. Unless you’re stinking rich, of course.
I don’t know that it’s so important what Obama or Clinton actually believe, which is why their voting record IS important, since it is illustrative of how the senator represents the will of his/her constituents against his/her own interests. Elected officials are supposed to defend and support the will of those they represent, or be able to explain to their satisfaction why their position is short-sighted or foolish. Hillary voted for the war, and defended her vote in the most hawkish terms, including an implicit willingness to continue the policy of preemptive invasion. Obama voted against it. Why he did is not particularly relevant.
I still haven’t seen anything to convince me a President Hillary wouldn’t mean business as usual, while a President Obama would more likely mean change. That might be good or bad, but at least it would be different. I think Americans are ready to take a chance, rather than put up with the same old – same old.
broadbrush
says:Hillary’s implications with the King remark and with her emotional statements were to imply that it took a white man to do what a black man could not and that is why she like LBJ should come to the rescue because Obama like MLK was not capable. Can anyone tell me what she has done in 35 years. I am aware of as member of the Rose Law firm she was involved in lucrative stock deals with inside position when her husband was Governor of Arkansas, that she mishandled a health initiative which brought in a GOP majority while first lady, that her misplacement of supoened documents which disappeared at the time of the suicide of Vince Foster magically appeared a year later, and she gave a right wing conspiracy speech, and she did not possess a security clearance to enable her to become involved in important domestic and forign issues. There are some positive things that the Clinton administration can be proud of but we are denied access to any role that Hillary may have played because while she says she is about transparency Hill and Bill refuse to release the Presidential records that would allow public scrutiny. They also will not release documents about the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton library some of which are from anti democratic potentates from the Middle East. Transparency should also work at home. What she must do is reveal her assets in campaign disclosure documents. A Look is revealing. Public service has proved to be quite lucrative.
Dale
says:dnA said ” argued yesterday that both Clinton and Obama might have to avoid dealing directly with race or gender in order to win if not the primary, than the general election. It’s looking more and more like that won’t be possible.”
Very true. And the comment #28 shows the kind of crap we’ll get from the Republicans if we do:
slip kid no more
says:This conflict is both an attempt to be self-serving and stupidly petty by both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. As an Edwards supporter, I glad he’s above this knuckle-bearing fray. Though, Obama’s response is disproportionate and vengefully (not presidential).
DrBB
says:The great thing about this whole controversy is it gets everything everyone hates about identity politics, and identifies with the D brand, right out in public and keeps it there. Great from the point of view of the GOP, that is.
DrBB
says:Hillary’s implications with the King remark and with her emotional statements were to imply that it took a white man to do what a black man could not and that is why she like LBJ should come to the rescue
Right. She being a white man, of course.
Chris
says:Dale wrote, “When I read that groups are offended by a remark I always wonder if that offense trickles down to individuals or if it is just a tool for leadership to keep people in the fold…”
Since this “wondering” out loud is in response to the controversy surrounding Senator Clinton’s MLK/LBJ remarks, it appears to specifically accuse Donna Brazil, Clyburn, dnA and others of feigning offense or disappointment “to keep people in the fold”. If so, the accusation itself is offensive. (Please note that I am not a member of any leadership group, and I have no “fold” where people are held. Any offense I take “trickles down” to me.)
Chris
says:“This conflict is both an attempt to be self-serving and stupidly petty by both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.”
Obama did what anybody would when somebody tells a lie about them. Senator Clinton falsely claims, on national television, that the controversy arising out of her remarks “clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign”. And Obama should remain silent? If he attempts to set the record straight, then he is also “self-serving and stupidly petty”?
He responded to the lie as follows:
“I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she I think offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.” Well done.
zeitgeist
says:Hillary’s implications with the King remark and with her emotional statements were to imply that it took a white man to do what a black man could not and that is why she like LBJ should come to the rescue because Obama like MLK was not capable.
She never said anything close to this, but broadbrush proves a point I made earlier very well about the wildly unfair Catch-22. Obama is attracting people by being an inspirational orator. Now, I suppose the Obama swooners would suggest that of course what HRC should do is just give up and bow before his evident superiority, but assuming she actually is enough of a fighter to keep trying to win, what exactly can she do to blunt that advantage? It appears that anything she tries to say to suggest that oratory is not the be-all and end-all of political worth is either denying him the rightful legacy of MLK, is telling black America that they shouldn’t dare to dream, or some other nonsense that is a wholesale distortion of what comes out of her mouth.
This is clever in a very Rovian sort of way: establish a frame that makes everything HRC says that would perfectly normal in a hard-fought political campaign into a racial attack; in short order HRC gets gunshy and doesn’t fight back at all allowing Obama an unchallenged ride to the nomination. How convenient. Of course, that lack of challenge, that honeymoon style pass is what Bill Clinton referred to as a fairy tale – and of course that somehow was racially insensitive as well.
I have a feeling that in the long run if everyone forces HRC and the rest of the world to continually treat Obama with kid gloves. to walk (talk?) on eggshells around him, it will actually backfire – it will look like, due to race, he is so fragile, so vulnerable that no one can speak ill of him. That is the sort of soft bigotry of low expectations that helps no one.
Danp
says:zeitgeist says: if everyone forces HRC and the rest of the world to continually treat Obama with kid gloves. to walk (talk?) on eggshells around him, it will actually backfire – it will look like, due to race, he is so fragile, so vulnerable that no one can speak ill of him.
It is a two way street, however. If Obama had been the one to speak first, and used Susan B Anthony instead of MLK, even if Clinton was not offended, many women would have, and she would have been forced to defend herself, especially if he then accused her campaign of creating the controversy. Personally, I think her original remark was offensive without bringing race into it, but to suggest that he created the controversy really shows a certain amount of insensitivity, or self-interest over truth.
Chris
says:Thinking about zeitgeist’s comments, I didn’t find Senator Clinton’s MLK/LBJ statement offensive; I found it unpersuasive, but not offensive. But some took issue with the comparison.
In response, Clinton could have clarified that she did not intend to diminish the important work of Rev. King. She could have described the significance of the contributions and sacrifices that he and other civil rights leaders and workers made on behalf of all Americans. She could have continued by talking about her work and record on issues important to the African-American community. She could have used this controversy as an opportunity to describe her proposals on issues important to blacks and other minority communities.
But she didn’t do any of these things. Instead, by fabricating the story about Obama’s involvement in the controversy, she essentially accused those who genuinely took offense of being puppets of Barak Obama.
Experience? Maybe.
Integrity? I don’t see it.
zeitgeist
says:dnA, thanks for the update.
it appears that just as professional women often find other women their biggest detractors in the workplace that the concept extends to race as well.
Dale
says:Chris said: Since this “wondering” out loud is in response to the controversy surrounding Senator Clinton’s MLK/LBJ remarks, it appears to specifically accuse Donna Brazil, Clyburn, dnA and others of feigning offense or disappointment “to keep people in the fold”. If so, the accusation itself is offensive. (Please note that I am not a member of any leadership group, and I have no “fold” where people are held. Any offense I take “trickles down” to me.)
It’s easier to get offended by what you think is implied rather than what is said. Brazil and Clyburn are leaders. Then you, Chris, remarked, Chris said, “I didn’t find Senator Clinton’s MLK/LBJ statement offensive; “
Don’t worry Chris, as dnA said, “What you have is solely a grasp of your own perspective, which is precisely the problem. ”
Sometimes leaders speak for the people. Sometimes they speak FOR the people.
Chris
says:Dale,
There’s no contradiction between me not taking offense at Clinton’s MLK/LBJ remark while defending the sincerity of others who do.
As I’m sure you know, it’s not uncommon for people to make implications without specificity so they can later claim, “I never said that!” If you weren’t implying what I think you were implying, feel free to set the record straight (you haven’t so far). But you should know that your comment that “Brazil and Clyburn are leaders” seems to reinforce the perception that you think they’re faking their reactions specifically “to keep people in the fold”.
Tom Cleaver
says:As someone who both served in the war in Vietnam and in the war against the war in Vietnam, who was personally out on the line being chased by the KKK in Mississippi and Texas and on the FBI’s COINTELPRO list for harassment of me and my family for the crime of my believing in the Constitution – as all the while Bill Clinton was hiding from the draft in law school with his bullshit excuses and failing to inhale, and while Hillary was busy brown-nosing anyone and everyone to give her a “good job” out of law school, and while neither of them were worrying about anything in the world beyond the ends of their careerist noses – this attitude on their part is why I nearly didn’t vote for Bubba the Bozo back in 1992 (I only did out of party loyalty, since to me he represented everything I hated in my generation’s attitudes toward the world and their role in it); it’s why I didn’t vote for him in 1996, and it’s why I won’t vote for her in 2008.
Being a leader means not being a coward – and these two are the perfect definition of the term Yuppie Coward. He was “against the war” in Vietnam but wouldn’t do anything to actually oppose it that might harm his future career. She was “against the war” in Iraq but wouldn’t do anything to oppose it that might harm her future career. Anyone notice a certain similarity???
Bill and Hillary: busy building a bridge to a Yesterday that never happened the way they say it did.
They’re even more pathetic than Hubert Humphrey was in 1968.
Dale
says:#41 The Zelig family strikes again.
Chased by the KKK, now there’s a movie idea with legs!
Pug
says:Robert Johnson:
My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.
Liar.
If anybody has promoted drug use in the black community it is Robert Johnson with his network’s continuos videos glorifying drugs, sex and violence.
Hypocrite.
Anne
says:Chris @37 said: In response, Clinton could have clarified that she did not intend to diminish the important work of Rev. King. She could have described the significance of the contributions and sacrifices that he and other civil rights leaders and workers made on behalf of all Americans. She could have continued by talking about her work and record on issues important to the African-American community. She could have used this controversy as an opportunity to describe her proposals on issues important to blacks and other minority communities.
Uh, Chris, that’s exactly what she did. Heard it myself.
The problem with these “controversies” is that they continue to be controversies because people – like you – are still repeating things that aren’t true. Maybe you’re comfortable with that, but as often as I hear people complaining that the media never does its homework, I think there are a lot of people doing that same thing.
Is Clinton wrong that the pushback is coming from the Obama campaign? Well, all I can say to that is, when Clinton is in a situation where she denies that her campaign is involved, no one believes her. Why do you believe Obama when he claims that his campaign is not involved? Is there some reason why the skepticism is not aimed at his campaign?
doubtful
says:I’m not sure I entirely get what’s going on here. I remember Clinton making those initial comments, but did Obama ever say anything about them until his statement today? The way I understand it, Clinton is attributing comments from other people to Obama, and that just seems unethical.
Horselover Fat
says:Amaya Smith is Obama’s South Carolina Press Secretary.
Candice Tolliver is an Obama spokesperson.
Seems reasonable to me to link such people, and what they say, to Obama.
RealClearPolitics - Blog Coverage
says:Clinton Supporter Hints at Obama’s Drug Use?…
Risky BET:…
PW
says:There was a brief moment about a week ago when caught maybe 15 minutes of a Clinton speech in NH. She was talking about environmental issues and she was good. Good enough for me to think, Boy, I would never have voted for her in the general election if she were to become the nominee, but I maybe I could… Her behaviors since the NH primary, culminating in today’s awful business with Bob Johnson, made me realize there’s nothing that will overcome for me her arrogance and the anger she generates so easily in herself and others. Both Clintons are behaving badly. It’s a real shame. Tom Cleaver (above) uses the word “pathetic.” He’s not wrong.
vwcat
says:If Hillary Clinton said, the sky is blue, she would be called a liar.
I would probably double check out the window and call for a weather report just to make sure.
See, when you lie, blur, revise and distort you tend to get a reputation for dishonesty and we all know the clintons have never been accused of being truthful.
As for their actions of the past few weeks, I find them repugnant.
When a democrat starts acting like Karl Rove and thinks nothing of racebaiting and all other kinds of dirty play towards another democrat, then you have to wonder where their real loyalites lay.
And for those who are always excusing Hillary for the most repulsive behavior and engaging in the swiftboating of a fellow democrat, I wonder how it feels to look in the mirror trying to convince yourself you are not anything like those wingnuts you so despise.
Jed
says:This is all so depressing dnA. I know you know how I feel about some of the stuff that Obama and Edwards got into in Iowa (policy shit) but I just don’t see how I can support Hillary #2 after this stuff. It is so sad to see her doing this. She could win other ways. Doing this is just depressing.
Horselover Fat
says:I guess joining up with a cult of personality includes acquiring contempt for anyone who fails to see how magic the One True Candidate is.
As for Karl Rove, I’ve seen him quoted, not by name though, as a “Clinton Supporter” for the putdowns Rove laid on Obama is his Wall Street Journal piece of yesterday. The OFB can call it “Clinton Support,” I call Rove’s hit piece ratf**king.
BAC
says:There was nothing racist in Hillary’s comment about MLK and LBJ. She was making an astute comment on the political reality of the time. Yes, it does take someone to “inspire” a nation to bring about change, but it took the political actions of Johnson to make King’s dream a reality. THAT is what Clinton was talking about, and anyone who doesn’t understand it must have slept through their American history class.
I don’t think Sen. Clinton wants this primary season to be about gender or race — it would be a no win scenario for both candidates. If we allow the media to make this a racism vs sexism debate, we ALL lose.
BAC
Peters
says:Why the hell aren’t Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Michael Eric Dyson also being skewered for their inflammatory rhetoric? This has got to stop and it won’t until all are held to the same standards.
Peters
says:For the record:
*Jesse Jackson, Jr.–the national co-chair–said HRC only got emotional over her “appearance” and not Katrina survivors; and
*Michael Eric Dyson (a supporter) said that when HRC said she was prepared to lead and, thus, Obama was not that it was “racial in subtext” (i.e. any criticism of Obama now is somehow racist).
Again, every fool needs to be punished and yet Obama’s people aren’t. Because of that they continue to push the distortions regarding the Clintons (Hillary on the MLK quote and Bill on the “fairy tale” comment).
libra
says:I guess we’re all human — and willing to give more slack to “our” candidate than to his/her opponent.
I thought Clinton’s *original* statement comparing the achievements of the President (LBJ) versus those of the rabble rouser MLK — and suggesting she embodied the first while Obama wsa the modern version of the second — was offensive, disgusting, below the belt, and altogether disappointing. No amount of “post-partum” whitewashing is going to counteract it for me.
By the same token, I was almost (but not quite) as offended by Obama’s “you’re likeable enough” directed at Clinton, after she’d said he was extremely likeable (even though she’d also said — quite correctly — that likeability, by itself, wasn’t enough).
But… This had been Obama’s first low-blow comment and, IMO, fairly minor. What’s been coming out of the Clinton campaign for the past 3 weeks or so — some via surrogates, some directly from her — has been adding up to a river of vomit that I’m finding more and more difficult to ignore.
I understand that some of you object to others parsing everything everyone says. Well… That’s what, among other things, I was trained to do — observe and analyze language usage. And I used to “spin it” (we used to call it “propaganda”) some too, on a side, so I’m kind-a sensitive and tend to recognize it when others do it.
I’m also kind-a objective in this battle, I think. My first choice is Edwards, not Clinton *or* Obama (though I — mildly — object to my spell-checker objecting to “Obama” but not to “Clinton” — somewhat discriminatory . OTOH… It objects to “Cheney” also, bless its little robotic heart). That doesn’t mean I see no faults at all in Edwards; only that I’m inclined to forgive more of his sins. But, at least, I don’t lie — even to myself — about my motives; I don’t defend him with spurious arguments and pretend that they’re logical or even reasonable (as many of the Clinton-defenders or Obama-opponents — which is not the same thing at all — do).
Some people, especially in the South, even if they think of themselves as non-racist liberals, are uncomfortable with blacks (or Jews, for that matter). On one level, they’re perfectly OK with equality, desegregation, and all that post MLK/LBJ “jazz”. Just not when it “intrudes” into their immediate environment (“Look Who’s Coming to Dinner” and there was another film — don’t know the English title — about a white girl stringing beads and befriended by a black man). So we get all kinds of “just because he’s black, he gets all the breaks” sort of arguments, or people getting hung-up on a single item (like the Paulbots) and hoping that’s enough of a cover-up for their more base reasons.
Please, can we stop lying to ourselves when it comes to confronting our inner racial-conflict monsters?
OK. That’s my Swan-song for the day and I’ll bite my tongue for at least 7 next threads, even if I don’t like it 🙂
Michael
says:Anne-
I’ve seen you perpetuate the claim that Obama recanted his war opposition in 2004 multiple times, even in response to posts that put the lite to your claim.
So, again, maybe this will penetrate your apparently unbelievable “defenses” to facts:
The quote where he said he doesn’t know how he was voted was followed immediately by the statement, “BUT FROM MY VANTAGE, THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN MADE”
What is so difficult about this? He simply said, “I don’t know what it was like to be in their shoes, but I do know what it was like in my own, and in that position I though that the war was unjust and rash.”
Please stop peddling this distortion. This “question” has been asked and answered multiple times, including on this blog, this weekend, in a post I know you saw because you commented on it, repeating the distortion.
If you continue to peddle this claim I think the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that you are being willfully dishonest in your criticism of Obama on this points. Which doesn’t serve discussion on this site well.
Michael
says:heres is the post that debunks the charge that Obama recanted his opposition in 2004
Here is the relevant portion:
Here is Obama’s full quote:
This is not difficult
Here is you, in that very same thread, continuing to raise this obviously misleading criticism:
link to your comment
Please, let’s keep this discussion honest.
toowearyforoutrage
says:For better for worse, Clinton has been hammering home the point that flowery speeches and community activism aren’t as important as experience in federal government.
It’s been her bread and butter for months now.
In this context, what was the purpose of bringing up the partnership of LBJ and MLK if not to glorify the “experience” part of the equation without which the fruition of MLK’s exhaustive work would not have been completed with a stroke of a pen. (assuming anyone thinks LBJ finished the work that continued beyond his presidency)
She created the environment where LBJ’s important, but relatively easy, role was to be seen as indispensable. This speech in context continued her usual approach of belittling Obama’s orator talents and glorifying her own nuts and bolts statespersonship.
How could one NOT see a troubling comparison to the orator and statesman in the LBJ and MLK remark? Is it surprising so many jaws around the nation obeyed the law of gravity?
Julie
says:BARACK OBAMA JUST LOST MY VOTE…..WHITE AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT BLACK JUSTICE IN SOCIETY HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THEIR EFFORTS….LYDON B. JOHNSON DIDN’T GET IT AND NOW HILLARY AND BILL ARE DENIED THEIR RECORD OF SUPPORT.
THE RACIAL DIVIDE HAPPENS EVERYTIME I GET ON THE BUS AND AM HARASSED BY BLACK MEN AND WOMEN. iT DIVIDES US WHEN I AM BEAT UP BY 5-BLACK MALE GANG MEMBERS FOR JUST BEING WHITE. THE RACIAL DIVIDE GOES ON WHEN I WAS RAPPED BY A BLACK MAILE AT AGE 16, AND THERE WAS A COVER UP BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A RIOT, OR BACK LASH FROM OTHER BLACKS.
WHITE PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN UP ON REACHING OUT TO THEM, IT’S TOO MUCH EFFORT FOR TOO LITTLE GAIN.
VOTE HILLARY CLINTON………….BARACK SUPPORTERS WANT SOCIAL REVOLUTION AT HOME,…MUCH…..MORE THAN INTERNATIONAL PEACE.
InfraQuest
says:No one person is responsible for the Civil Rights movement, that is a simple fact. Every generation has their important figures and Martin Luther King was an important figure in his generation, as he helped bring the Civil Rights Movement to the public’s attention.
It’s people like Martin Luther King and Harriet Beecher Stowe (who brought slavery to the public attention) who inspire change within the American people, but ultimately it’s the American people and the government who force change.
It’s common for groups to try to discredit individuals or groups of individuals for political gain or some other agenda, but it can never alter the reality that change can only happen when a nation starts to embrace it socially and politically. There will always be a few individuals who will try to ignore the reality that Martin Luther King had gained the support of the majority of White America, which included some very powerful politicians, including the President.
I’m not fan of the Clinton’s, but a racist she is not. In no way was she discrediting Martin Luther King. If anything, her past makes it clear she has been an admirer of Martin Luther King.
Greg Jones
says:Blacks learning
Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Feel Deceived !
A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement.
In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her ‘civil rights experience’ during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the “bloody Sunday” freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: “As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” But Novak’s article states that there’s a big problem with her statement.
The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes “…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?” He continues, “…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’ (Hillary worked on Goldwater’s presidential campaign)
Novak adds, “As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary later headed Young Republicans in college.
Greg ‘Peace Song’ Jones
(Google: ‘Hillary,King,Goldwater’ to read Novaks original article)
Dr BLT
says:Hillary’s remarks concerning MLK may not have been deliberately racist, but they were, at best, an extremely poor choice of words. Or perhaps those words were deliberately selected. Either way, the end result was a diminishing of the role of MLK, the man tributed in this song:
It Only Hurts When I Cry
(A Tribute to Martin Luther King Jr.)
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008
http://www.drblt.net/music/ItOnlyDemo2.mp3