Hillary Clinton And An Attack Vs. Martin Luther King

Oh, for crying out loud.

Just because you're for Obama doesn't mean you have to take up the twisted logic and tactics of the Clinton-haters. She didn't say anything bad about Dr. King. She said it took a President's signature to change the laws--and she's correct.

You detest these internal fights? Funny, you seem eager to fuel this one.

its clear from the actual quotes that Hillary is saying, Kennedy was hopeful, but LBJ acted.

Reporter quoting OBAMA. "False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Memorial, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hopes, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us."

Reporter: Would you react to that?

Senator Clinton: "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 in 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 eyes because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

LOOK.. Both Clinton and Obama are running for president, and Obama has been compared to President Kennedy, and has even welcomed the comparison. She is implicitly saying hey look, Kennedy was hopeful, but he didn't get it done. LBJ got it done. She is comparing herself to LBJ. It might not be the wisest move, but shes saying instead of being hopeful for it like Kennedy, I will get it done.

Whether or not you agree with her, shes trying to use this augment that hope is one thing, but results are another. Now you may say Clinton has no results of her own, or whatever, I'm fine with that, but to say she is diminishing MLK, and that MLK hoped, but LBJ acted is not accurate. This is about Kennedy vs. LBJ, hope vs. action. She is in no way diminishing MLK.

Please view the video before you attack Hillary.

She was dismissing MLK, Quaker. Period. I'm not the only one who sees it like that. I like Sen. Clinton, but this is beyond the pale. You don't have to be a Clinton-hater - and my record clearly shows I'm not, moreso than the average liberal even - to see this.

Given that the elected president at the time, Kennedy, wasn't able to get it done, and was pretty much going to blow it off, and Johnson basically managed to get it passed by appealing to a still-shocked Congress with the memory of the dead president, Clinton's next book can be It Takes a Bullet.

King's dream began to be realized when people exercised civil disobedience, arranged boycotts, and forced the issue. People took action. This would confirm the contrast between Clinton's "I am ready to be president" and Obama's "You made it happen, you made this possible."

I don't know that she "attacked" King but she certainly disrespected him. I question the Democratic hagiography of Johnson on this issue but even if I am wrong, his ass perched in the White House Oval Office john talking to some Congressman through the door cannot be compared to King's risking (and ultimately losing) his life, to his many speeches, marches, voting drives, strikes, etc.

She is such a triangulator, even her rear-end has three angles. I look forward to Obama delivering the death blow tomorrow, I hope.

She was dismissing MLK, Quaker. Period. I'm not the only one who sees it like that.

I'm sure you're not the only one who sees it that way--but I think you have to want to see it.

There's absolutely no plausible reason for her to "dismiss" MLK. Why on earth would one suspect she has done so? You're straining mightily to find an insult.

Hillary's comments regarding MLK shows her ignorance of the history of the civil rights movement. Typical Washington insider who has a photo-op then runs back to the barricades when the show is over. No clue of the real world.

Pres. Johnson had steely twins for pushing for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but one bill does not even come close to the heavy lifting that Dr. King and all the others who took the abuse and firehosing for so long.

The more I hear about Obama, the more I like. Although the nation is ready for a woman in the Big Chair, I don't trust Hillary. Never have. Never will.

phew... thank god someone agrees with me. please see www.talkingpointsmemo.com... its amazing how people just pile on so quickly.

OW, I've got two words for you: Ben. Smith. Don't play his game.

serita is right. You should read Josh Marshall's piece on this.

Clearly she didn't mean to outright dismiss MLK, as such a strategy, if actually considered and acted upon, would be daft beyond measure. However, there is little question that her remarks were inept and reflected a poor understanding of what it is that seems to be elevating Obama's candidacy. If Obama's success can be attributed in large part to his ability to convey a sense of optimism and hope, than it seems particularly stupid to dismiss in any way the contributions of one of the country's best known activists, MLK. Sure she has a point about the importance of signing the Civil Rights Act, particularly in an era as conflicted as the 60's, but she could have easily been inclusive in her statement, rather than sounding so dismissive. Really, regardless of how she meant it, what internal dialog is she lacking that failed to warn her that such a statement might sound a bit patronizing at best, condescending and steeped in hubris at worst?

And really, while I'm no rose-colored-glasses Kennedy fan, it's ridiculous to knock him for failing to accomplish a great deal before getting, you know, assassinated and stuff. See, if he had been smart and scheduled a bullet to the brain late in his second term, perhaps he might have gotten around to that Civil Rights Act.

Stupid mortality, why do you always have to be such a wet blanket?

Look, Ms. Clinton may be your preferred candidate's opponent, but she's not the enemy.

Instead of parsing her every sentence in search of an insult, maybe you should be looking for signs of what's to come. Here's what Jonah Goldberg posted at The Corner this past Friday:

Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee — and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008.

I'm not parsing. This was a boneheaded statement from Sen. Clinton. Period. In the past I've dinged Edwards and Obama for stupid moves and actions, for me this one was worse but don't pretend like I dinged her as part of some water carrying for Sen. Obama. She's being stupid here, just like when Billy Shaheen was being stupid on her behalf and like when the Obama campaign scheduled the ex-gay gospel singer.

Do I think HRC is a racist or against MLK? Heck no. But I think in the heat of political fighting she made a statement thats effect was to belittle MLK.

In the LBJ & MLK equation, one of them did what presidents do. The other did what MLK did. If Barack is running for the Inspiring Preacher, that's fine. But Clinton is running for president. So her analogy was spot-on.

I do declare, OW is gettin' the vapors--sounding more and more like a hysterical wingnut blogger by the second.

And. It's. Creeping. Me. Out.

I knew LBJ. LBJ was a friend of mine. Senator Clinton, you're no....well, hmmm, maybe...

You're spot on here Mr. Willis. The whole words vs. action duality is dumb anyway, but to divide King and Johnson that way is silly. And I'd bet my fortune that it was Bill Clinton that suggested the analogy, because he apparently loved telling LBJ stories.

BTW, sorry to hear about your man Joe Gibbs. Any favorites for his replacement?

While it was surpassingly inept, I really think HRC was going for a JFK / LBJ comparison, and did an inadvertent takedown on Dr. King. Which is, in its own way, a form of disrespect, if perhaps not quite at the level Oliver is arguing for.

I can't agree that Oliver was wrong to point a sharp jab at the statement. The political process is helped, not hurt, by this type of measured and specific criticism, even directed at missteps.

Arianna had this

5. Obama is a dreamer. That's right, Clinton is actually trying to convince voters that Obama is too positive, too optimistic, too inspirational. In a speech she called him "an untested man who offers false hope," and in Saturday's debate she said, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Oh, yeah, that's the last thing we need, someone who actually seeks to inspire Americans to allow their reach to exceed their grasp. That's the problem with leaders like Lincoln, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King -- they just weren't realistic enough. King shouldn't have said, "I have a dream!," he should have said, "I have a realistic view of what we should settle for! We probably won't be able to pass the Civil Rights Act, but we might be able to pass a bill condemning segregated water fountains. You probably won't be able to sit at the front of the bus, but I might be able to get you to the middle."

This is who Hillary Clinton is, through and through. "I have always tried to strike a balance," she said in 2004. "I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be." That's a long, dispiriting way from Bobby Kennedy's "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

It must burn the Clintons' toast that Obama is being compared to JFK, considering how much effort Bill went to to co-opt that comparison years ago.
But Hillary ain't no Jackie.

Sorry, graf 2 and 3 should be blockquoted.

"I think in the heat of political fighting she made a statement thats effect was to belittle MLK."

That was the effect if you accept Ben Smith's framing of it. I don't need to explain to you what's wrong with that--you're the one who taught me by posting many times about Smith's biases.

tdreamer, above, has it exactly right. Ms. Clinton was talking about presidents and what they must do. An "inspiring" president won't necessarily bring about needed change.

I believe you are twisting the words Senator Clinton spoke; she merely stated a simple fact that Dr. King's dream could not be fully realized until Congress and a President acted. Kennedy was an inspiring President and hopeful one, but many of the things Kennedy hoped for, LBJ carried out. Her statement is not mis-leading, insulting or even an attack on Dr. King and she phrased her answer beautifully.

If you are concerned about Hillary's statements I would urge you to take a step back and really read what the comments are instead of someone's spin on those words. By reading too much in to anything, we could all invent arguments and continue this in-fighting forever.

Please take a step back and read a very harmless comment and if you are a supporter of Obama or another candidate go support them in helpful ways, but not by diminishing or twisting accurate statements made by their opponents.

And please do not let yourself be blindsighted by Obama's rhetoric; I'm from Illinois and Obama has not done wondorous things for our state.