I'm sorry that I don't have time to do a more thorough article right now about the sparring that started last week and apparently escalated over the weekend (I was out shepherding my Girl Scout cookie-seller and her friend and was out of touch.), about who deserves the most credit for civil rights progress in the 60's. However, I do want to start a thread to encourage discussion about it.
As I recall, it started just before the NH primary, when Sen. Clinton was trying to point out that she is a doer of change and that Sen. Obama is a speaker about change. She tried to analogize between Pres. Johnson and MLK, Jr. It seemed to me at the time as an ill-advised remark that seemed desperate. Now, it would seem that Sen. Obama is trying to use it to his advantage - while decrying her use of the "politics of destruction." I don't think either of the front-runners are comporting themselves well.
That led me to wonder whether this skirmish (and the Robert Johnson comments, and the Nevada lawsuit, and...) would play right into Sen. Edwards' current gameplan (i.e. one or both of them self-destructing, and opening a hole for Edwards). However, I think the civil rights skirmish is more likely to just prompt voters to choose between the two of them; I still think Edwards is going to have trouble re-establishing himself as a front-runner that people should cast their ballots for.
Anyway, I publish this article to "GATHER Discusses Tolerance", at nohate.gather.com because we are at the junction of tolerance-related discussion and politics discussion.
(edited to fix typo in headline)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Obama is good at taking the "higher road" in my opinion. He likes to point out her flaws and not fall into her traps.... He has good spinners.
I don't think either of them will really sabotage their chances.... But... That's just me.
I agree, Spencer and Lainie. And, Lainie, I think Obama has slid a bit off the high road with this. But, your point is well-taken.
Linda, it would have been nice, wouldn't it?
***
What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Sen. 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.
***
He goes on to not-attack-attack her on distorting his record, etc. Here's the transcript: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obama_Clinton_rewrites_history.html
Tony: Here is a snippet of Obama's non-attacking attack:
***
What we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games they play. But Sen. 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.
***
He goes on to not-attack-attack her on distorting his record, etc. Here's the transcript: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ 0108/Obama_Clinton_ rewrites_history.html
I do believe that there is a lot of distortion going on, but to me it seems very one-sided--even to the point of suggesting that Obama has not done anything but make speeches. In his speeches his only comparison to King is the issue that we have to have a measure of hope in order to get anything done. If you want to see if he's gotten anything done ask, the people of Illinois. After 7 years in their legislature, they trusted him enough to fight for them in Washington.
And so far, I haven't seen him trying to embarrass Sen. Clinton. She and her husband seem to be doing a fine job on their own.
And, did you read that transcript of his comments? That certainly would fall under the category of the candidate himself trying to make hay and engaging in the kind of politics that he portrays himself as being above.
As for Obama's comments himself (thank you for those!), I still don't see the kind of distortion, antagonism, and unwarranted accusation that I see on the other side. Defending one's record and decrying dirty politics is not the same as playing dirty politics.
And finally remember Sen Clinton's comments that started this whole thing are the best example of the games she's playing: the suggestion that because Obama makes a good speech he can't follow it up with action to be a good President. The logic is unfathomable. Again I say: Ask the people of Illinois. They didn't elect him because he makes good speeches.
For instance, Bill Clinton is fair in reminding us of the context in which he use the expression "fairy tale." It was all about Obama's statement that he has consistently opposed the Iraqi invasionsince 2002. The media blew it out of proportion.
Had they let it stand, anyone could see that Bill either 1) deliberately misrepresented Obama's war stance or 2) was spouting off, without any knowledge. In either case, just look at the vindictive out-of-control tirade from our former President.
And, as I said privately, WELCOME TO GATHER! It is always a good day when a new, reasonable person joins the Gather community.
46) Hillary is to Obama as:
A) LBJ is to MLK
B) Bill is to Michelle
C) Lucy is to Ricky
D) Hillary's analogy is to the worst question on the SAT
The correct answer is "D".