Clinton Goes Negative...on Martin Luther King Jr.!

[Mr. Peabody]

She probably didn't mean for it to come out the way it did and there is some truth to it, but it's still an idiotic comment to make during this campaign.


Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed.

Hillary was asked about Obama's rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like like John F. Kennedy and King.

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."

Clinton didn't explicitly compare herself to Johnson, or Obama to King. But it seems an odd example for the argument between rhetoric and action, as there's little doubt which figure's place in history and the American imagination is more secure.

"The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president" capable of action, Clinton said.

Just a "talker" and not a "doer"...?
http://www.writespirit.net/inspirational_talks/political/martin_luther_king_talks/martin-luther-king2.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Her campaign is in full on panic mode. Looks like the meltdown continues.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Wow, she must be slipping.

It's good fodder, it's not really offensive, but it's the kind of answer someone would give because they really have nothing to say (because Obama really defended and articulated himself well against the "false hopes" criticisms.)

[SouthernFried]

She does have a point.

Wonder if she would similarly give Nixon all the credit for ending Vietnam.

[2centsworth]

this and the fake crying has got to cost her 10 more points.

[AFBlue]

Ouch!

Whether there's truth to it or not, you don't knock someone for being a visionary. You embrace that visionary's vision and you say you're the one to enact it.

[BonnerDynasty]

The power.

THE POWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRR.

Soon I will achieve it and go down as the first womanz prezident evaaaaaaaaaaarrrr!!!1111

[Mr. Peabody]

Hillary tries to remedy her mistake by misrepresenting Obama.


Hillary to Obama: You're No JFK (or MLK)

January 07, 2008 9:45 PM

Perhaps hoping to pivot away from her unusual comments criticizing Sen. Barack Obama by comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered great speeches, and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, who actually passed civil rights laws (Read more on that HERE). Clinton said the following this evening in Salem, N.H.:

"Today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me," she said, according to ABC News' Eloise Harper. "Basically he compared himself to two of our greatest heroes saying, 'Well, they gave great speeches.' President Kennedy was in the Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important ever delivered in America.

"And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed because the dream couldn't be realize until finally it was legally permissible for people from all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens."


Sounds like her campaign told her how idiotic her comment was earlier in the day.

[inconvertible]

stick a fork in her, she's done.

[PixelPusher]

I'll see your LBJ/MLK comparison and raise you a Obama = Bush comparison.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/clinton-compares-obamas-appeal-to-bush/

[O-Factor]

She's...
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/image/s_toast3.jpg

[Budkin]

Obama for the win tomorrow, and in November!!!

[Yonivore]

And for the record, it was Congressional Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed...Johnson merely signed it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And for the record, it was Congressional Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed...Johnson merely signed it.


I have to remember that Congress gets all of the accolades when it comes to legislation. The president is only the signee...

[Yonivore]

I have to remember that Congress gets all of the accolades when it comes to legislation. The president is only the signee...
Johnson gets credit for pushing the legislation but, without Republicans, he would have never seen the piece cross his desk.

[Soul_Patch]

And for the record, it was Congressional Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed...Johnson merely signed it.



This is pretty funny since just a few decades earlier, just about every other member of congress who was republican, was also backed by, or a member of the KKK.

[Yonivore]

This is pretty funny since just a few decades earlier, just about every other member of congress who was republican, was also backed by, or a member of the KKK.
You mean like Robert Byrd? Oh wait, he was a Democrat...then and now.

Care to share the data from which your conclusion is drawn?

Here, I'll share one with you:

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

[Soul_Patch]

I thought it was fairly well known, that during the upsurge of the KKK in the US, back in the 20's and 30's, they had a fair ammount of members and/or supporters in public offices at all levels.

I took interest in learning about hate groups during a class in college years back, so i dont have sources, nor can i be bothered to look for them...

[George Gervin's Afro]

You mean like Robert Byrd? Oh wait, he was a Democrat...then and now.

Care to share the data from which your conclusion is drawn?

Here, I'll share one with you:

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html


Hmm I wonder which party today holds the majority of the southern white male as it's base....the same demographic that didn't want to pass the Civil Rights act of 1964....

[George Gervin's Afro]

Johnson gets credit for pushing the legislation but, without Republicans, he would have never seen the piece cross his desk.



In the months that followed saw intense Congressional fact-finding and debate, culminating in a closely fought Senate battle to halt the longest civil rights filibuster in American history. The House of Representatives held over 70 days of public hearings, during which some 275 witnesses offered nearly six thousand pages of testimony. At the end of this process, the House passed the bill by a 290--130 vote.

A solid majority of Senators also favored passage, but a two-thirds supermajority was needed to halt the inevitable filibuster. That filibuster would last for 57 days, during which time the Senate could conduct virtually no other business. As the speeches continued (one senator carried a 1,500 page speech onto the floor), President Johnson and a variety of labor, religious and civil rights groups lobbied for cloture and a final vote. They accepted a number of amendments (many to enhance the enforcement role of states and private lawsuits, as opposed to the federal efforts) to secure the last few votes needed to reach two-thirds. Finally, on June 10, 1964, the Senate voted 71--29 to end debate -- the first time cloture had ever been successfully invoked in a civil rights matter. A week later the Senate passed its version of the civil rights bill. On July 2, 1964, the House of Representatives agreed to the Senate version, sending the bill to the White House. President Johnson's signature made it law.

Seems to be that alot of democrats , who were in the majority, backed the Civil Rights act of 64... in fact they outnumbered the republicans.. Did you miss that?



And, going back even farther than that, it was the election of large numbers of Democrats in 1964 that provided the margin of victory in Congress for many of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Presidential elections affect policymaking in this country, but congressional elections do as well.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_lp_electionsim_worth.htm

[Spawn]

Look, Hillary is saying what generations of white liberals have actually believed.

"Without our help, you'd still be running from the Klan! So you'd best vote for the right candidate!"

Johnson should be credited for initiating the move to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as should Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, the Republican floor leader who actually made sure that it survived any filibuster attempts by southern Democrats, btw). However, Johnson was, like most politicians, reactive, not leading a movement. The push for Civil Rights came out of the streets, not out of the halls of Congress.

That Hillary doesn't appear to get this intuitively speaks volumes about her.

[Yonivore]

Seems to be that alot of democrats , who were in the majority, backed the Civil Rights act of 64... in fact they outnumbered the republicans.. Did you miss that?
No, didn't miss it. But you missed the fact that a higher percentage of Republicans voted yes than Democrats. Your snippet also failed to identify the filibustering party...it was the Democrats.

[PixelPusher]

You mean like Robert Byrd? Oh wait, he was a Democrat...then and now.

Yes, he was one of the rare Dixiecrats that didn't switch over to the GOP after 1964.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, he was one of the rare Dixiecrats that didn't switch over to the GOP after 1964.


I don't think yoni has ever heard of the dixiecrats...

[Wild Cobra]

This is pretty funny since just a few decades earlier, just about every other member of congress who was republican, was also backed by, or a member of the KKK.
You should really learn some facts before inserting your food so far in your mouth it comes out your ass...

Far more republicans voted for the legislation percentage wise. More than 80% in both houses. The law required a supermajority. The dems did not give a supermajority, and they controlled both houses.

If I recall right, only the democrats had KKK members. They had at least two that we know of.

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By party

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

[Wild Cobra]

I thought it was fairly well known, that during the upsurge of the KKK in the US, back in the 20's and 30's, they had a fair ammount of members and/or supporters in public offices at all levels.

I took interest in learning about hate groups during a class in college years back, so i dont have sources, nor can i be bothered to look for them...
Sounds like to me you had leftist teachers who taught propagada. The party of Lincoln has always treated blacks better than the democrats. Historical facts will always back this up.

[Spawn]

This thread is so funny and sad at the same time... and they say we live in such a free, fair, and progressive country.

Our political party is nicer than yours.

Neither party would have done anything if it not for the Black people who stood up and said that they had had enough. The actions of the congress Republican, Democrat was just reactionary from that point on. They would have been just as happy leaving things the way they were. So stop acting as if one party or the other started the process when neither of them did.

PERIOD!!!

[George Gervin's Afro]

This thread is so funny and sad at the same time... and they say we live in such a free, fair, and progressive country.

Our political party is nicer than yours.

Neither party would have done anything if it not for the Black people who stood up and said that they had had enough. The actions of the congress Republican, Democrat was just reactionary from that point on. They would have been just as happy leaving things the way they were. So stop acting as if one party or the other started the process when neither of them did.

PERIOD!!!


we have a winner..... be prepared for a blog infested responses..

[Oh, Gee!!]

we have a winner..... be prepared for a blog infested responses..

or requests for links.