Where Democratic Race Was Hijacked By Race - and the smearing of Hillary Clinton began

I was going to try and be nice, but your comment above goes around the bend. You are essentially calling Obama a racist. This article is nonsense and misses the mark by a mile. Not only do you fail to cite any evidence, you misquote Senator Obama. Oh wait - you didn't misquote him, you just say he said something he didn't. No quotes (even though you say you were "watching, specifically").

.' Look for insult from whites everytime and anywhere you can. They are all out to get you.'

Amazing hypocritical arrogance here. You seem to decry this sentiment, yet you are saying the exact same thing about Senator Obama, and without one citation, reference, or quote. Are you saying this sort of bigotry is wrong coming from the Obama campaign, but perfectly fine when engaged in by you?

Obama surrogates in the media began to plant the suggestion

Are you just making things up here, or do you have some evidence? (why do I even ask)

In a COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE effort to appeal specifically to black voters, Hillary Clinton reminded that a President led legislative efforts to enact Civil Rights legislation in the mid 1960's.

I guess you are a 'black voter.' Thanks for telling us what is appropriate for us. Now can you tell us what is appropriate to appeal to the Jewish and Asian voters? It seems that, like Clinton, you know exactly what is best for all groups. They should just shush and do as they're told.

The fairy tale comment was wrong itself, but as far as its meaning being twisted, that was the media.

This article is a poor example of opinion writing. You could substitute one sentence, "Obama is a racist," and be done with it.

Obama is a true oportunist and old style Chicago boss who will do and say anything to get what he wants. He now wraps himself in the flag which he once refused to have on stage with him and even played "God Bless America". Obama is very slick and knows how to play the voters.

Hmm, article starts with a blatant, racially inciting, empty attack on Barack Obama. The author then goes on to offer little to no defense of the attack. A reader is left to guess on how Obama was the first to "play the race card", was it by being black, I don't know, it wasn't discussed?

But this is a particularly impressive piece of spin doctoring.

Would Obama downplay the incident , as anyone should have, or would he use 'race' for political gain? Obama told reporters that Clinton's comment had offended many blacks and she needed to explain her statement further. At this instant, the die was cast. Innocent Clinton statements would be demonized and used to rile up black voters against Hillary

.

So, according to this, stating the effects a comment had on people and asking for clarification, is demonizing. This seems to suggest that anything less than a kowtow and performance of other obsequities to Clinton would be "playing the race card" or perhaps it means to suggest that it was Obama's job to clarify Clinton's statements.

FWIW
"Play the race card" is a bull@!$%# phrase. It should be avoided at all costs because it's inexplicit, dismissive, and, with few exceptions, cannot be used in a non-insulting way. Just like "politicizing" the term itself employs the exact tactic that it is trying to demonize or dismiss in its target. Which in tern renders the user (the piece's author) of the term MORE suspicious than the target (Obama) of the term.

Now, the traditional use of the phrase is different. It describes a scenario where someone has played on other people's racism to gain advantage, for example "In South Carolina, George Bush played the race card against John McCain," (by implying that he had a black child outside of his marriage). This term does not impeach it's user, does not dismiss people, and only demonizes people insofar as they ought to be.

John, you have a pre-conceived notion and you are forcing Obama into it by any rhetorical means possible, facts be damned. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement Obama made that you highlight above. Clinton is no inexperienced politician and what you bemoan here, though a complete stretch of reality, is par for the course in her political playbook. The gas tax issue alone proved that Clinton is a panderer-in-chief and willing to do or say anything to fool us into electing her.

What's that they say about noticing the spec in someone else's eye but not the log in your own?

In my opinion, it was the Clinton camp that released the Wright tapes. HRC would do anything to smear Obama and give her a clear path. Her tone was clearly divisive and racist, as well as the tone of Slick Willie. The reality is, HRC is a woman scorned by 2 men. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. She never expected she would be up against a viable and tough to beat candidate as Obama. After Bill publicly humiliated her, though she has never been surprised or upset about his philandering, she likely demanded Bill pay the price of the public humiliation by using his clout to win her the White House. Almost 8 years later, Bill's clout has diminished and Hillary was never as well liked anyway. She was delusional. HRC became a bitter, angry woman, not caring anything about what she said and how it was said, and eventually many blacks, rightfully heard tones of racism. The WH was never promised to HRC, as much as she seemed to think it was her turn. To say a majority of blacks vote for Obama because he is black, is as racist as it would be sexist to say only women vote for Hillary. Why is it, blacks cannot feel they are being racially targeted? If they do, whites are quick to shoot it down and then lay criticism of the audacity of claiming racism. Why do black owe Hillary Clinton loyalty, because of Bill's time in the WH? Some blacks would even say, Bill did nothing so great that its worth giving him or his wife a huge amount of credit. This is an election. A right to vote anyway you choose, regardless of race, or gender. No one has to live with their choice and the outcome of the Administration, but the voters who cast a vote for the winner. Voting is a right.....let us exercise it as we see fit.

In my opinion, John Russell's critique of how the Clintons' remarks were mischaracterized at the time of the SC primaries, by Obama's camp (AND by the media) is spot on.

As for other criticisms in this thread, Hillary was not responsible for "privatization of petroleum reserves" or whatever other so-called sins of the past Clinton administration. That people blame Hillary for whatever her husband, the President, did in the 90s, is shameful.

As First Lady, Hillary Clinton was instrumental behind the scenes on some issues. For instance, yes, she was invited and encouraged to participate in getting the SCHIP program through, but she was not in the position of legislating it or signing it into law, had the efforts been successful. The latter point is consistently and conveniently overlooked in discussions of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. While other examples above do not apply to Hillary Clinton's work as First Lady, the point below does apply:

In 1997, Senator Kennedy DID give her credit for her efforts on SCHIP, according to Factcheck.org, in its article, "Giving Hillary Credit for SCHIP", published March 18, 2008, citing an AP article which contradicts the claims and positions of the Boston Globe article: (I don't know how to set off quotes in this Newsvine format. I found this by Googling "hillary childrens health care Nick Littlefield Ted Kennedy")

FACTCHECK.ORG:

"...Kennedy, of course, is now backing Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, for the nomination. But last year, before that endorsement, he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying something quite different, which the Globe did not note in its story:

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue."

In that same story, The AP's Beth Fouhy concluded, "While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial." She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, "we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."..." (END OF QUOTE) Note that Orrin Hatch was the co-sponsor of SCHIP.

Factcheck validates Hillary Clinton's claim on SCHIP. This point, however, was not widely clarified by the media.

Embedded in this article is just one very clear example of the proof of how nuance, spin, blaming Hillary for whatever perceived sins of the previous Clinton administration, and the rewriting of history were all blatantly used to disparage and discredit Hillary Clinton throughout this campaign process. Where was the media when it came to clarifying this point? Over-talking, interrupting, and "correcting" Hillary defenders in these little chat fests they called "political analysis".

As for the history of that Civil Rights Act of 1964, legislation was originally introduced by President Kennedy in 1963. Rep. Howard Smith, a Democrat, tried blocking it in committee. President Lyndon Johnson got it through in 1964. (wikipedia) Martin Luther King devoted his life to obtaining civil rights; it was his movement that sparked the legislative initiative, but without his sacrifice and the actions of the two Presidents above, it would not have materialized.

In the 57-second YouTube presentation, "Sen. Hillary Clinton: LBJ vs MLK", of the question that led to her response, it's clear that her response was not meant as it was subsequently characterized by the media. Remember, too, the question that prompted her response was not widely reported, but her response was contextualized by media reports in a manner inconsistent with the entire nuance of the moment. Please note that the title of that 57-second piece does not reflect accurately what happened in the video, either. There was no 'versus'.

So skeptic, blacks should be forever in the debt of all that has ever been elected to the office of President? White men. Believe it or not, blacks are still Americans. Blacks were born here, and in this day and age are still being treated like second class citizens, still losing out to opportunities for others who move here from Asia, or other continents. Blacks for many years never thought they would see the day a black person male or female made it this far in an election as Obama has, for the highest office in the land. So, excuse me if Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton just happened to be the white man who passed legislation on their behalf. But, if this is the United States of America, and it is supposed to be fair and equal for all, why were blacks and women denied voting rights well after white men? Why were blacks denied voting rights, well after white men and women?

As for Hillary doing so much as a First Lady, you can't have it both ways. Barbara and Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford, and Rosalyn Carter, did plenty as first ladies. Of course, they have not lied about the dangers of that position and been caught in that lie, like Hillary has. She chides Obama for serving on a board with Weather Underground Bill Ayres, but when he chided back, Bill clinton pardoned two former members of the WU, she seemed stomped. As for the SCHIP, I recall on the news recently, that she misrepresented her authoring and actual offerings to the SCHIP plan.

Hillary wants credit for the good things about Bill Administration, but not the bad things. She wants to change the way we vote for a nominee, only because she is losing. She wants to make Florida and Michigan count, even though they willingly violated the rules, and she even said so. We don't need a person who panders, wants to change the rules as we go along, and wants to divide and destroy a party she claims to love. That kind of ambition is deadly, and wrong.

67% of voters say she is untruthful and not trustworthy, and she by her own mouth has proven that.
I agree she is vetted for President, moreso than Obama, because she does as a typical politician does, lies, cheats and spins.

I agree she is vetted for President, moreso than Obama, because she does as a typical politician does, lies, cheats and spins.

Claudette -- what was Obama's throwing under the bus all those Ds running against him for state Senate? What was Obama's pushing the Tribune to run a story on the "sex life" of his Democratic competitor for the US Senate, a competitor that was leading in the polls at the time, BTW? What was his throwing Wright under the bus last week ... after affirming that he could never do so back in Philadelphia?

Obama has been running for "the next" office almost before he wins the current one. You don't get where he is without money & connections -- iow, the good old boys network. In Illinois Senate, that meant the black D leader who "gave" him prime sponsorship of a slew of bills so he would have a legislative history (until then, he had gotten no bills passed).

Then there was this political-business-as-usual:

2001 - Obama receives legal services contract with Illinois firm owned by Robert Blackwell, Jr. A few months later, Obama writes a letter on Illinois Senate letterhead in support of a tourism grant for a different Blackwell company. The next day, "Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell... In the presidential race he is credited on Obama's website with committing to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama's campaign."

In 2003, while he was state senator -- when the Ds had JUST taken control of the Illinois Senate -- David Axelrod began filming EVERY public appearance Obama made ... this gave him the footage to create the promo for Obama when he launched his presidential bid online in Jan 2007.

See the timeline of his career

I don't care if people support Obama because of his positions on issues, but I'm tired of being told he is holier-than-any-other politician. He ain't. It's simply the press have given him a pass. Hellsbells, this Sunday's NYT piece said not word one about how he got his state senate seat (he got ALL the opponents thrown out on legal technicality -- even the woman who was the incumbent)

"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, that Presidents 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 real in people's lives because we had a President who said 'we're going to do it', and actually got it accomplished."

I didn't particularly care about these remarks, but then I don't care too much about people's racist attitudes unless they directly affect me. However, it is pretty clear why some would be offended, despite John's bigoted assessment:

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson

See? Bad. Dr. King's dream began to be realized when Dr. King began working as an activist toward his goal. You remember: marches, jail, fire hoses, assassination?

But it took a President to get it done.

Uh, no, see, wrong. It took a President to sign the legislation. No President would have signed the legislation if there wasn't a compelling social imperative to do so, a social imperative inspired by Dr. King and others.

the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a President

Oh so wrong. The power of that dream was evident daily in the actions of the activists working towards its realization. You remember: marches, fire hoses, jail, assassination? None of those things would have happened if not for the power of Dr. King's dream making a real impact on people's lives.

You know, now that I lay this out like this, it turns out I am a bit more offended by this statement than I was at the time.

john Russell and excellent article, I agree with so many issues you are talking about. I also feel Obama used the race issue, and planned this from the start. Check out my site when you have time, I have an interesting article on Obama.

I'm not speaking to the assertion that the Obama camp started the broohaha over LBJ/King -- I wasn't paying attention at the time because it was the politics of the personal and irrelevant, IMO. But the fact is that LBJ had a MAJOR role in bringing into law the policies that MLK was pushing for in the streets.

King could not have done it alone -- neither could have LBJ. After all, there had been attempts in the 50s to get similar legislation passed, to no avail.

Presidents help shape the Congressional legislative agenda as well as public opinion ... that then shapes Congressional votes.

When Johnson assumed office after Kennedy's assassination, he made passage of the [Civil Rights] bill, introduced by JFK in June of 1963, a priority. In LBJ's words, "no memorial or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought."

Then there's this from Bill Moyers, who was LBJ's press secretary from 65-67:

As the pressure intensified on each side, Johnson wanted King to wait a little longer and give him a chance to bring Congress around by hook or crook. But Martin Luther King said his people had already waited too long. He talked about the murders and lynchings, the churches set on fire, children brutalized, the law defied, men and women humiliated, their lives exhausted, their hearts broken. LBJ listened, as intently as I ever saw him listen. He listened, and then he put his hand on Martin Luther King's shoulder, and said, in effect: "OK. You go out there Dr. King and keep doing what you're doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing." Lyndon Johnson was no racist but he had not been a civil rights hero, either. Now, as president, he came down on the side of civil disobedience, believing it might quicken America's conscience until the cry for justice became irresistible, enabling him to turn Congress. So King marched and Johnson maneuvered and Congress folded.

And one more citation:

Johnson and King engaged in a series of negotiations that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but this spirit of cooperation was irrevocably damaged in 1967 when King made his public statement against the War in Vietnam...

Under Johnson, two landmark pieces of civil rights legislation were passed: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provided for federal enforcement of voter registration and outlawed literacy tests. King did not give Johnson overwhelming credit for the legislation, stating that these resolutions were "written in the streets" by demonstrators....

A landmark of Johnson's presidency was the Great Society program. Initiated by Johnson in January 1965, this legislation aimed to alleviate poverty through programs for educational improvements, urban renewal, the development of impoverished areas, and crime prevention. Johnson believed this program would ultimately benefit the black community, but he told King and other civil rights leaders that he would have difficulty passing voting rights legislation. King disagreed and urged Johnson to make voting rights a priority.

Later that year, in a speech given at Howard University, Johnson restated his commitment to the struggle for civil rights when he outlined a new direction for his administration: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity," he said. "All our citizens must have the ability to walk through the gates. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

I'm growing weary of the manufactured outrage coming from your column. So I won't even attempt to dissect your specious arguments.

Except for this:

Clinton's comment about Martin Luther Ling and LBJ was perfectly acceptable as a response to the fact that Barack Obama's web site was specifically appealing to African Americans to vote for him.

Where / How did Obama's web site specifically appeal to blacks?

It is clear that an activist cannot pass a law therefore he must have the support of a politician to make real change by making laws. You could be the best activist ever but with Bush as President you are not going to get any real change. So if President Johnston was not for civil rights and did not support civil rights laws they would not have passed. This is no insult to MLK. His activism enlightened a lot of people
but if Wallce was President how mcuh progress do you think there would have been?