Well, yes, it's true that it was the Dems who supported Jim Crow throughout the South and who wore most of the sheets and pointy hoods for much of the 20th century. Heck, since the Dems had undisputed control of Washington from the Depression onwards, they theoretically coulda passed civil rights legislation many decades earlier--I'm sure they were fixin to all along but just didn't get around to it for a few generations.

anonymous plays the stupid card exceedingly well here.

the democrats were perfectly content to be the home of southern racists for a very, very long time, and for that, deserve to be criticized. but when the moment of truth came - about which more in a moment - johnson chose doing the right thing even though he knew this would damage the democrats in the south for generations.

as to the broader issue, "change" is a rather slippery term, of course, and there's no question that on an individual/community level "change" was going on for a number of decades prior to the well-known landmarks like brown v. board and the civil rights and voting rights act.

nonetheless, without the civil rights and voting rights acts, "change" would have come much more slowly and it's not clear to me that there's any reason to think that it would have come more, shall we say, favorably.

so hillary clinton is correct that as important as the civil rights movement was in laying the groundwork, nonetheless it took a presidential willingness by johnson to achieve the crucial goals embodied in the civil rights and voting rights acts.

indeed, in a better world where candidates weren't looking to pick fights over modest differences, we would all acknowledge that when it comes to matters like equal rights for citizens of all colors (or sexual orientations, or religions, or what have you), you need both community-level organizing and national-level politics....

Best post I've read on this issue to date. Thanks.

Its absurd to contrast the "change" that comes from washington with some kind of truer change that "comes from the desire of the american people." The point about civil rights was that a large percentage of the american peole did not support civil rights and the desires, the marching, and the wants of the minority of people who did "desire" it couldn't be fully actuated (to use a horrible word) until that struggle was brought to legislative fruition. And don't think for a moment that MLK and also Malcolm X didn't realize just how big a struggle for hearts and minds this was. And how much bigger than the mere american electorate and its desires.

I agree with howard--we always need both community level organizing an dnational level politics and policies. And setting up a long term political actor like HRC as believing solely in "one" or the "other" is an absurdly reductionist binary view of a complex person.

aimai

While this is correct, it's also true that her campaign and surrogates are actively race-baiting.

It's not like she can't disagree with his vision of change while simultaneously playing the race card.

After all, if a bunch of white folks stand around a water cooler debating "was X a racist statement? Was Y a racist statement? Does that make the speaker a racist? Where do we draw the line..." it's not very good for Obama's campaign.

Furthermore, the message is that an Obama presidency means 4 years of these kinds of conversations--arguing over whether black or white people get "credit" for Civil Rights, arguing about whether a particular statement was racist. That's really not good for him.

Which is why they are bringing it up.

Don't forget, one of the urban dictionary's definitions of "uppity" is "When one goes crazy over something totally not worth it." That's the uppity stereotype they're working here. And it's proving a quite effective race-based attack.

We're long past the point of no return, since the MLK/LBJ quote has been presented in truncated form by pretty much every major news outlet, and no one seems to care. And maybe I should stop caring whether HRC is misrepresented -- i.e., seen by most of the media and (therefore?) many on both the right and the left through a lens of Clinton hatred and sexism -- since I don't support her candidacy. But . . . the full quote seems to me to be saying (very badly) that Obama would be like Kennedy (NOT King), while HRC is going to be like LBJ (which is a scary analogy when you apply it to foreign policy . . . ). It's impossible to say for sure, of course.

I'm not of a mind to defend Hillary or Bill in this matter, but I think, given Kate's post, that there is an even more technocratic aspect to this argument, which is I think the non-veiled point.

It's all well and good, she seems to be saying, to speak for change and to inspire people. But the actually work of changing government requires what LBJ did. It took arm twisting and carefully crafted coalitions.

So, in short, she's saying something that is probably accurate, which is that if Obama wants to go to Washington, he has to do more than be a community organizer and more than a great orator (as Dr. King was in both cases). I don't think that belittles the Civil Rights movement or even runs counter to other comments here. It merely makes the point that Hillary wants to make, that once people are inspired, something else has to happen and you need skills to accomplish those things.

Do I agree with her that Obama can't or won't? No. But I don't think there's an inherent anti-King message here.

If you actually read Caro, you must know LBJ did much more than 'signed off on civil rights legislation.'
As such, why write such misleading words?

The problem here was not Hillarys intent, if was the unwillingness to appoligise afterwords.

Some people were offended, a simple "i am sorry to those to took offense, what i was trying to say was..."

Hillary did a terrible job, in her unwillingness to amit a simple and forgivable slip of the tounge.

The problem here was not Hillarys intent, if was the unwillingness to appoligise afterwords.

Some people were offended, a simple "i am sorry to those to took offense, what i was trying to say was..."

Hillary did a terrible job, in her unwillingness to amit a simple and forgivable slip of the tounge.

Assuming paulk's interpretation is correct, which I think it is, it's quite a stretch to read this comment as "racist" or "anti-King" or containing any message other than "Obama won't get the job done, and I will". In fact, it's baffling to me that this is even an issue. I don't like Clinton but whatever quality of hers this mini-flap supposedly exposes wouldn't make my top 10 list of objections to her.

LBJ came into office with decades of legislative background, including leadership positions. He had a ton of chits and big Dem majorities in Congress, big Dem advantage in registration in the country. And he had the martyrdom of his predecessor. For Hillary to think her situation is anything like LBJ's is delusional.

Another delusion is to think the president makes things happen by force of will. It depends on his or her moral authority and standing in the country. HRC faces an election where her upper limit in voting % is probably 52 if she is lucky. Plus her dirty campaign against Obama doesn't help either.

It just goes to show you "experience" doesn't always confer wisdom. What experience you may ask. Beats me.

Whatever, folks. I simply want to note that I am gratified that Sen. Clinton was able to bring the national political discourse right back to where it belonged all along -- the Sixties. Next year's Presidential election should be a referendum on the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. How much more relevant could these issues be to the lives of average Americans?

Has anyone read Clinton's actual remarks? It's absolutely clear that she is not contrasting Lyndon Johnsom with Martin Luther King Jr. She is explicitly contrasting Johnson's ability to get things done with Kennedy's rhetorical skills. In that case, she obviously has the best of the argument.

"Johnson signing it into law was an imperative part of progress, but it was by no means the first, or the last."

The 1957 Civil Rights Act was the first piece of civil rights legislation to get through the senate since reconstruction, and there's no way that happens without Johnson pushing it in every conceivable way to everyone involved. It was a big political risk for him, and a pretty amazing accomplishment all things considered.

Perhaps we read it differently, but I got the impression from Caro's work that he was a dirty pol, certainly an opportunist, and mostly interested in acquiring more power, but also that his work on civil rights and poverty was as personal as it was political.

"Alice in Wonderland"

Occupied Territories : Clinton has no idea about the change Americans are looking for !!

Palestinians will not accept Rambo-style diplomacy and will revert to international law as the only reference point for resolving the conflict.

Abbas to request America's support for nonviolent resistance against sixty years of dispossession and forty years of military occupation by calling for a strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it joins the community of law-abiding nations.

Palestine is being destroyed. Israel has all the power,supported by the USA Government.

The Palestinian people - a good, patient people - are being ground into the dirt, their leaders killed, imprisoned or exiled, their young people impoverished and robbed of a future. Any possibility for nonviolent protest is made all but
impossible by a brutal military occupation.

See the Separation Wall - not the sanitized Israeli section, but the real story of the Wall, reaching deep into the West Bank to grab huge chunks of territory and separating Palestinians from Palestinians and farmers from their land. Ask yourselves, when you see it, if you think the wall is for security. Visit the checkpoints and feel the shame and disgust that are the only emotions one
can feel for the baseless humiliation and oppression being perpetrated.

Go and see the villages being destroyed and the land taken to build a system of Bantustans and erect neighborhoods and towns for American Jews who believe that they have the right to do it.

Americans and Palestinians have in common
Is the state of Israel legal?

What the American people and the Palestinian people have in common is both are victim of the Zionists. But the difference is although the Americans do not know this fact; the Palestinians know it very well. Americans do not fight it, because they are , among other things, very rich and have a bigger population to feel it. This fact affects the Palestinian considerably, because they do not have enough resources (human and economic). For example, if the Zionists in Israel kill three thousand of Palestinians who want to liberate their land (Palestine) that would affect the population considerably, but if they (Zionists) are the reason of killing three thousands American by sending them to, fight a war that they have nothing to do with them, Iraq the enemy of the state of Israel, three thousand of three hundred millions is just nothing. If the Zionists take away the tiny land of Palestine, that means that they took everything they owns, but if the Zionist take billions of dollars from us, they really did not take enough to divested us. The reason is because whatever the Zionists take away from America, it will still be minor. Taking away from huge America to give a tiny nation of Israel would not be noticeable, although, what the Zionists take away is too much compared to their population. If you do not know what the Zionist state take away for free from America, read James Petras’ book “The Power of Israel in the United States”. Nonetheless, it is a taboo; why American congress and each president of our country have to support the Zionists against the poor people of Palestine and allow these kinds of the give away of our human and economical resources without mentioning our political power of the Veto in the Security Council. If you look at the front and back cover and do not have to read Ilan Pappe’s (Jewish historian) book “the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine “, you will learn how we supported a crime against humanities.

The one billion dollar questions are: why did that fact happen? And how did we allow it to happen?

Although no one can give all the answers, there are some obvious reasons. The media, the press and the education (information system), and the campaign contributions. Our information system is controlled by the Zionists. The media and what comes with it from news to entertainments are controlled by Zionists. That the reason a lot of us do not know, not only, what the Zionists are doing in our country, but also, they do not know what the word “Zionists” means. Our education system is controlled by Zionists not only the books and curriculums, but also who is teaching them. The above components with other components conspire together to form a power that nobody knows where it came from and leave the people who are in public offices to afraid of opposing it and we become as bunch of zebras running away from the lion, because we are strong enough, but we can not coordinate our efforts to fight Zionism.

Conspiracy was not played only in America, but also played internationally. I believe that the whole world came together in around1948 and voted to allow the establishment of the state of Israel on the Palestinian land and the whole world gave a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing. How did these things happen? Before answering this question I would like to show what is happening in our State Department. If you know the name of the past American ambassadors to the UN. I will give you some names: Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Holbrooke, Nigrobonte, Albright, and so on, you will find them Zionists or pro-Zionists. You may probably heard about Andrew Young how was pressured to resigned the post of the UN ambassador because he denounced Israel for having "become the oppressor" of the Palestinians, for engaging in "terroristic" raids and "constant bombing" in Lebanon, and for "losing their moral advantage." Even John Bolton who supported the state of Israel has to leave the post because he said; "that settlement expansion must stop" and also its concern regarding "the route of the barrier" that Israel is constructing between the two states. So you can say there is a mechanism by which the Zionists can impose on America who can be and who can not be the ambassador of the US to the UN. If they can impose it on American they can impose it on the rest of the world. I believe they can impose it, also, on Moslem and Arab countries. I believe that the Zionists by 948 have enough Zionists or pro-Zionists to vote in the UN to allow them to move to Palestine. As this is just a belief and not confirmed, I ask you to ask your congress to make an investigation regarding: Firstly, if the whole world voting for the establishment of the state of Israel is legal. In other words, is the state of Israel legal? Secondly, why congress and all the presidents of the US support the Zionists and allow the them to get what no other race can get.

I can not write to my congress. They are all Zionists.

You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it.

Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?

Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Let's take a look at Iraq . Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq , hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq , nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.

Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.

In Iraq , about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.

Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq .

I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.

Noble Americans,

You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed “war on terror.” But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.

The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of “the war on terror,” civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death.

I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the 2006 elections. 2008 elections, those who have heard and heed the message of the American people will be elected, those that continue on with

business as usual will go home.

SENATOR CLINTON, WHO TALKS ABOUT

EXPERIENCE AND DECISIONS, HAS FOR

8 years been lead by the nose by other

senators, representative senators for AIPAC,

and Israeli interest. Our complete failure, on foreign

policy and the Middle East Quagmire of

killing and immorality.

.

Having read Caro's biography of Johnson, I'd say going to him for an opinion on LBJ is the rough equivalent of going to Chris Matthews for an opinion on HRC.