Mrs Clinton, trying to make a point about presidential leadership and Mr Obama’s constant references to Dr King, the civil rights icon, said: “Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
Mrs Clinton has since tried to clarify the comment, but the damage was done. Mr Clyburn, who had previously said that he would stay neutral, told The New York Times that he had been “bothered a great deal” by the remarks and was rethinking his position.
Update: There is much more here also.
I don’t understand the problem with her comment. She’s right. Civil rights leaders can focus the country’s attention and enlist massive support but they can’t change the laws. Only the elected leadership can.
Could someone please explain to me why this comment is controversial?
A Puzzled Canadian…..
#2 — I read the Times article again and all of the readers’ comments. Apparently, it’s only “controversial” because Obama didn’t win the NH primary and they’re playing the race card. That’s ridiculous because of the excellent relationship the Clintons have had with the black community. LOL, they elected Bill Clinton to the African-American Hall of Fame!
Also, when Bill Clinton started his foundation, he could have located his substantial office in any city or part of the country he wanted. He chose Harlem. Trying to paint the Clintons as “racist” is really crazy.
The Times also misquoted Bill Clinton. I have read AND listened to his comments and he clearly said that Obama’s statements on the Iraq war were “a fairy tale,” NOT Obama’s candidacy or campaign. The comments were purposely taken out of context.
I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton. But I fail to see why her comment should be controversial. Some activist types are not happy unless they are unhappy.
Since when has speaking the truth been a ‘gaffe’? Only when people don’t know or don’t care for the truth.
Hillary’s comment is, of course, an accurate reflection of historic reality. The problem with it is that it collides with King hagiography, in which MLK was essentially solely responsible for bringing about the end of segregation (how he passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts without LBJ, or for that matter without lots of Republican senators, is anybody’s guess, but facts don’t count for much in the realm of racial legend). It also places a white politician on a par with an African-American saint, which is a definite no-no in a party where identity politics counts for everything.
I’ll be the lone voice of opposition, LBJ had the constitutional power but MLK created the political demand, that is why the laws changed. The civil rights movement is one that spanned decades and parties, it was Ike who called out the National Guard, it was JFK who began to wooed this political entity and attempt (successfully) to gain the African-American vote, but the civil rights leaders had been at it for decades building support.
The comments show nativity more than anything of our elected officials, they’re much more about power than they are about leadership, if any doubt, come live in my city for ten plus years and meet them, go to school with their kids, worse yet is be a service technician in their home.
About the subject of Ms. Clinton’s remark — she’s not a novice, how could she have been so stupid! She just insulted part of the DNC core power base, in that community it’ll be heard as “the black man is not to credit, but the white man.” I don’t care if most on T19 don’t read it that way, all that matters is how the African-American electorate hears it. MLK gains martyr status because of all his effort then being shot down April 4, 1968, there were many other leaders of the movement, but they lived so do not have the ‘untouchable’ status an assassination gains (JFK’s ills are quickly forgotten much for the same reason). She had little to gain but much to loose, this was a politically stupid comment.
Important safety tip – I don’t care if you don’t understand, if an African-American is using the MLK stump, just let it be, there are far more political gains that could be made elsewhere and taking it leads to stuff like this.
I’ll agree with KAR’s first paragraph and go another mile for its concept. MLK, for all his warts, was critical in the development of the US as he symbolized how violence was unnecessary to effect social and political change. Compare the civil rights movement to any number of predecessors, such as the labor union movement or the imposition of Jim Crow laws (yes, that was a populist measure in the deep South) and you will see either at the edges or even at the cores of such movements a violent component that was inseparable from the non violent components. MLK deliberately eschewed that, and lifted the US out of the mess that India and Pakistan, for instance, are still in with their communal violence episodes. Or, for that matter which France is still in with respect to its Muslim populace. For that, MLK has a national holiday and LBJ does not, unless you count his 1/43rd share of Presidents Day.
Along with that, MLK was shot for his beliefs and LBJ was not. Again, for all his warts, you don’t put down a man’s historical importance who died for his beliefs.
I would never ever vote for Hillary, but what she said is nothing to get all lathered up about. It’s actually true. LBJ made a big difference. And I’m not even a fan of his. It doesn’t diminish MLK’s incredible contribution to say that about LBJ.
I won’t vote for Hillary, but I think the controversy over these remarks is way overblown. However, KAR is right; what matters is how black Democratic politicians and activists view these remarks, and how much black Democratic voters follow their lead.
Democrats have been doing identity politics for a generation, and now it may come back to bite them. If Clinton is the nominee, for instance, will the black Democratic base sit on its hands because of this perceived slight?
I wouldn’t vote for Hillary if she were the only one on the ticket. Nevertheless, I want to say she is certainly no Harry Truman. One of my favorite quotes from him: “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.†Hillary wants to make sure MLK wasn’t the only one getting the credit. I think that is what people object to.
Hillary was simply pointing out the difference between a civil rights leader and an elected leader, mostly because Obama is stylizing himself as an MLK. It’s a valid distinction.
But what’s emerging in this race is troublesome — if a white person criticizes Obama or doesn’t vote for Obama, then that person must be a racist. If Obama wins a “white” state, a big deal is made of it. Speculation is then made if he’ll win other white states and, if not, then race is the issue.
If that continues, people are going to grow very weary of the race card and wonder, perhaps rightly, if an Obama presidency would enhance racial division and mistrust.
Okay, Teatime, whatever …
However, I’d give you this little bit of advice … don’t try to run for a US office on a DNC ticket, I ‘m not sure you grasp the intricacies of the electorate and what will do much more harm that benefit in a campaign.
I don’t recall asking for advice or indicating I had any interest in running for office, which I don’t. I was simply offering my opinion, as everyone else here is.
However, if you feel you fully understand “the intricacies of the electorate,” by all means offer your services to the campaign of your choice and have at it. And good luck with it — “the electorate” is proving hard to gage.
The advice was free of charge, mostly for the benefit of the African-American “electorate” in the US South-East. As for the leadership question, I’m sorry but I’ve rarely seen much of that in DC, not for a long time. LBJ was probably the most successful at getting legislation through Congress than any other President, but also his “War on Poverty” created as many social ills as it was to solve, in fact it in many ways we’re still attempting to fix what he created. What about that campaign promise of not increasing the war in Vietnam? Sorry, but Civil Rights legislation was more a responsive measure due to the usual cast of characters who been fighting for a long time, LBJ just happen to be in the chair when it boiled, if Nixon or JFK had been in the chair, I’m sure the pressure would have caused them to do likewise.
I particularly like KAR’s “LBJ just happen to be in the chair when it boiled”, as it aptly describes how the former Senate Majority Leader tried to herd the same cats from the Oval Office, while pursuing the domestic war on poverty and the foreign Vietnam War. I seem to recall that civil rights legislation was a natural part of that political platform, but for LBJ it was not a [i]life or death[/i] issue, rather it was simply another good idea that ought to be implemented if the votes could be gathered and the bills passed. For that matter, neither party up to 1965 had a monopoly on either support or opposition to civil rights legislation.
#3 teatime wrote
[blockquote]Also, when Bill Clinton started his foundation, he could have located his substantial office in any city or part of the country he wanted. He chose Harlem.[/blockquote]
Do you really think that Harlem was the choice because Bill Clinton was smitten with African-Americans?
Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
On another note, please do not forget that Caucasians and African-Americans (and Hispanics, et al) see the US out of different prisims. It is not strange that some persons do not see what the controversy is about, but neither should they poo-poo it.
As a West Indian American(?) sometimes I don’t get ‘stuff’ that other Americans – black, white, pink or blue – get.
Live and let live generously
Frankly, if it had been up to the Southern Democrats, the Civil Rights acts would never have been passed. They threatened fillibusters and delaying tactics, but the REPUBLICANS forced it through, and LBJ had to fight to get it to pass.
And wasn’t Hillary working for the Goldwater campaign at that time? The one Republican to vote against the Civil Rights act? Glad to see she’s changed her mind.
Oh, so the point was: it took the Republicans, not just a President, and MLK’s dream would have been realized eventually if not with LBJ then with Nixon.
18+19 concur completely. LBJ was compromised in his role as Democrat Majority Leader, and then pushing the same tactics on Congressional Democrats in office. Things worked out so that major legislation got passed before 1969, but given various urban riots and the downturn of the Vietnamese commitment, Nixon would have been forced to support civil rights if LBJ and the southern Democrats had been stalled before 1969.
Thank you Libraryjim for bursting the bubble of the constant lie about Dem responsibility for Civil Rights legislation. But the lie is even larger than you point out. No one talks about all the Republican Civil Rights legislation in the 50’s. THAT was what forced some Dems (incl LBJ) to act before Dems lost the loyal black voters they had just acquired 30 years before.