NY Times repeatedly truncated Clinton civil rights comments
SUMMARY: A January 11 New York Times article marked at least the third time that a Times article, editorial, or blog post truncated Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights. Each of the articles quoted Clinton's statement that "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done" but omitted Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. Clinton had also said that passing a civil rights bill was "something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried."
As blogger and media critic Greg Sargent noted, a January 11 New York Times article by Carl Hulse truncated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights, omitting Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. A January 9 New York Times editorial, as well as a January 7 blog post by Sarah Wheaton on the Times' politics blog, The Caucus, and a January 7 blog post titled "Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King" by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, also omitted the reference to Kennedy. Each of these pieces quoted Clinton saying that "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done." But each of them omitted the middle portion of Clinton's full quote, which was: "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done" [emphasis added].
As Sargent also noted, the full quotation including the reference to Kennedy appeared in a January 11 post in The Caucus.
Smith later repeated Clinton's full comment in a separate post on his Politico blog titled "Clinton, Kennedy, King" and updated his earlier post to provide a link to the later post.
In a January 7 interview, Fox News political correspondent Major Garrett asked Clinton if she would react to a portion of a quote from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: "False hopes? ... Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument: 'Sorry, guys. False hope. The dream will die. It can't be done.' " Clinton said:
I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president 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 are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.
The Times article, editorial, and January 7 Caucus blog post as well as Smith's January 7 post titled "Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King" all omitted the words "when [Johnson] was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried."
From the January 9 editorial:
In Mrs. Clinton's zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama's), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King's soaring rhetoric, but said: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. "
Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.
From the January 11 article:
In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Mrs. Clinton, who was locked in a running exchange with Senator Barack Obama, a rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, over the meaning of the legacies of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., tried to make a point about presidential leadership.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean more to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. "It took a president to get it done."
Quickly realizing that her comments could draw criticism, Mrs. Clinton returned to the subject at a later stop, recalling how Dr. King was beaten and jailed and how he worked with Johnson to pass the landmark law. Clinton advisers said her first remark had not captured what she meant to convey. And they said she would never detract from a movement that has driven her own public service.
From the January 7 post on the Times' The Caucus blog:
Only a few hours later, she brought up the civil rights legislation herself in remarks to a Fox News correspondent.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been in a running feud arising from her suggestion at Saturday's debate that he was raising "false hope."
Mr. Obama responded that Mr. Kennedy did not decide going to the moon was a false hope and that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not see ending segregation as such.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Mrs. Clinton said when asked about Mr. Obama's rejoinder by Fox's Major Garrett after her speech in Dover. "It took a president to get it done."
Smith's January 7 blog post titled "Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King" in its entirety:
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.
The interview was taped, and I listened in. It's set to air later today.
UPDATE: Here's the video.
UPDATE: In Salem this evening, Hillary seemed to be seeking to repair the impression that King hadn't done political work, and to contrast King and Obama.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led a movement - he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed - and he gave a speeh [sic] that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever delivered in America, the "I have a dream" speech.... And hten [sic] he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights law passed, because the dream couldn't be realized until it was legally permissible for people of all races and colors and background to be recognized as citizens.
UPDATE: More on what she said, here.
On January 7, TPM Media editor and publisher Josh Marshall wrote that "the edited quote that's circulating from The Politico is misleading."
In his final update to the post, Smith linked to a separate January 7 post responding to Marshall that contained the full quote from Clinton.
The second time in one day I've had to email the NYT's editorial board. The "gray lady" is looking kinda sickly.
The point is that the Hildabeast, like all of you leftist nutcases, thinks that freedom is something that has to be granted by the government. In her little mind LBJ and government hacks like him, and only government hacks like him, can grant civil rights. She thinks that MLK was just a rambunctious rabble-rouser and Kennedy or Johnson would have taken care of the black folk anyway.
At the University of Natal in Durban, I was told the church to which most of the white population belongs teaches apartheid as a moral necessity. A questioner declared that few churches allow black Africans to pray with the white because the Bible says that is the way it should be, because God created Negroes to serve. 'But suppose God is black', I replied. 'What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?'
There was no answer. Only silence
If freedom is not something granted (bad word there, but what the heck) by the government. Then the freedom is contained within the people, right commrad.
Martin Luther's part in civil rights is denighed by few. Its a small population, HRC is not part of this bunch.
The wingnut mantra currently is to raise hate and discontent between the Dems. Your gambit is duly played, go get your ticket stamped.
You denigrate a presidential candidate’s looks and call others nutcases? As she famously said the other day, this is not a game. In addition, how would you have proposed African Americans achieve more freedom.
So yeah, it took presidential intervention to institutionalize change. But the change would have happened without presidential intervention, it just would have been much uglier. So KUDOS to Kennedy and Johnson.
The Supreme Court, led by Eisenhower(R) appointee Earl Warren, struck down racial segregation in education in Brown v. Board of Education. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus(D) called out the Arkansas national guard to keep black students from entering “white” schools. Eisenhower(R), sent the 101st Airborne to enforce the law after Faubus(D) gave in. Among those condemning Eisenhower’s(R) use of force were JFK(D) and LBJ(D).
Most Democrats were against it comes from the Southern
House Democrats (Dixiecrats) who voted against it by
an 87-7 margin which was truly disgusting. HOWEVER,
the Southern House Republicans all voted against it
(10-0, notably not as many, but interesting). If we
stay within the House of Representatives, the Northern
Democrats voted for the Act by a margin of 145-9 (94%)
and the Northern Republicans voted for it by a margin
of 138-24 (85%). The Senate voting was similar, the
Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act
21-1 and the only Southern Republican voted against
it. Again, when the Northern Democrats voted, they
voted for it by a margin of 45-1 (98%) and the
Northern Republicans voted for it by a margin of 27-5
(84%). More tellingly, Barry Goldwater voted against
it saying "you cannot legislate morality" and he
became the Republican nominee in 1964 (Rehnquist
actually worked on his campaign but that is a
different story for a different time.).
Eisenhower said that his appointing of Earl Warren was "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." You can't claim points for Eisenhower (and by extension, your political party) when he specifically disavowed it.
RESPONSE: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Freedom, we know from history, is something that has to be defended and ENFORCED by government. Without the government enforcing EQUAL TREATMENT by government, segments of our society will be subjected to SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION. One only need reference "Jim Crow" era LAWS to see that government WILL deny equality unless the Constitution is enforced, BY FEDERAL LAW, on the states.
Rosa Parks violated LOCAL LAW by refusing to ride in the back of the bus. Our RIGHTS are "inalienable", but historically, those rights must be fought for, and are ultimately realized by the enacting and enforcement of LAWS which seek to eliminate discrimination.
BRUTUS continues: "In her little mind (gratuitious insult and NAMECALLING) LBJ and government hacks (more NAMECALLING) like him, and only government hacks like him, can grant civil rights."
RESPONSE: The historical record is clear. Americans DISCRIMINATE against minorities, through deed, action, and LAW, and it violates our Constitution. Those discriminated-against groups must suffer, protest, and demand to be heard, against overwhelming odds and great violence. FINALLY, the government seeks to redress these grievances, through changes in LAW, and through the overturning of LAWS that make discrimination systemic in various localities. THIS IS THE HISTORIC RECORD of the civil rights struggle in America. Hillary has it EXACTLY CORRECT.
BRUTUS: "She thinks that MLK was just a rambunctious rabble-rouser and Kennedy or Johnson would have taken care of the black folk anyway."
RESPONSE: BRUTUS has NO standing to tell us what Hillary, or anyone else, "thinks". BRUTUS himself obviously cannot think, but can only insult, namecall, and ignore the Historical Record that is clear to any cogent person, of the struggle to realize civil rights in America.
Hillary has the issue EXACTLY CORRECT, while BRUTUS gets a solid "F" in American History (and also a failing grade from humanity as a whole).
The triumph of the civil rights movement belongs to the masses of people who shed their blood in the streets and forced the President and all branches of government to institiute Progressive change.
And Brutus, you are ridiculous with your argument against Executive power. The crowning achievement of the modern day conservative movement is the consolidation of Executive power.
You’re trying to put the carriage ahead of the horse. The movement would have never had chance to take foothold had it not been for the Democratic presidents speaking out. This emboldened the masses to initiate the movement that had been simmering for years, yet stifled by Republican administration's willingness to accept the status quo.
And Brutus, you are ridiculous with your argument against Executive power. The crowning achievement of the modern day conservative movement is the consolidation of Executive power.
I’m still trying to figure where you pull “executive power” from anything Brutus has written in this thread – but will say that if you consider what The Bush Administration has done to “Executive power” to be “the crowning achievement of the modern day conservative movement”, then I feel bad for your concept of America and The Constitution.
Ummm..... No.
In fact exactly backwards. The pickets, the sit-ins, the court cases, the decades of activism and organizing (e.g., first Freedom Ride; 1947; Montgomery bus boycott, 1955; first sit-in, 1960) are what provided the opening for politicians to make pro-civil rights noises.
And even then you should look into just what it took - including civil rights activists repeatedly being subjected to mob violence, mass marches, organized resistance, and direct challenges to the Democratic Party - to get those politicians to act on their words.
I feel bad for your concept of America and The Constitution.
I expect Roundhouse can speak for him/herself, but still I'd suggest that while looking into the history of the civil rights movement you take a moment to look up the meaning of "sarcasm."
Right. Sure. Our democracy operates from the top down. Got it. I feel bad for your concept of power to the people.
When I talk about the consolidation of Executive power it's in response to Brutus' assertion that libs believe freedom is granted by government. His implicit argument is that Conservatives believe the opposite. So, yep and thanks to Larry, he recognized the sarcasm. I was being sarcastic because the actions of conservative Republican politicians contravenes the fundamental principle of seperation of power. From Nixon, "Well, when the president does it, it is not illegal." all the way down to, "I'm the decider" Bush, it's clear Republicans believe freedom is granted from the top down.
I didn't say our democracy works from the top down. But I do stick with what I was trying to say in my last post - that whatever party is in control greatly influences the growth of any political or social movement in America.
The blossoming of the Civil Rights Movement very much parallels the rise in Christian Fundamentalisn of the past decade. If it hadn't been for conservative Republicans controlling the nation's politics, it would have never happened. The nation is fortunate you wingnuts didn't get some "Religious Rights Bill" passed over tha past 7 years - or, similar to the passing of The Civil Rights Bill, you'd all be out in the streets demanding the Ten Commandmends be posted in every public building and that creationism be taught in every public school.
You are both simply trying to make arguments to deny the history of racism in the Republican party.
"You are both simply trying to make arguments to deny the history of racism in the Republican party."
Are you out of your mind? You think I'm a right-winger, you think I'm making excuses for Republicnas? You must be out of your mind.
"The blossoming of the Civil Rights Movement very much parallels the rise in Christian Fundamentalisn of the past decade. If it hadn't been for conservative Republicans controlling the nation's politics, it would have never happened."
I would argue the opposite. That Republicans would not have been so influential in national politics were it not for the grassroots organizing and activism of conservative Christian Republicans.
And, I swear there should be 2 different colors of text for conservative and progressive posters. Sometimes I don't read things carefully enough. And jump to reply too soon, sorry.
Anyhow, I think it's really funny - just goes to show how political arguments can go in circles!
We could do the chicken or egg thing all day. (But i still think I'm right - LOL)
Anyway, welcome to MMFA. I look forward to reading your posts. And I am eager to convince you that I am always right, er correct, on all matters of social empowerment ;)
(Just in case. That final sentence was definitely humor)
Kirk out.
In 1964 blacks were still largely referred to as N e g r o e s and lynchings still happened. Esienhower had done little to stop all that in the previous decade while he started the American involvement in the Vietnam War.
SO KUDOS to Kennedy and Johnson for doing the right thing at the right time. Had they not intervened domestically, things still would have changed, but it would have taken much longer and been much uglier.
It's quite true that in full context, Clinton's remark sounds neither as ignorant nor as patronizing as the edited version, even the full text leaves a disturbing sense of a condescending comparison of "experience" with "rhetoric."
The fact that Clinton later amended the comment from "it took a president" to saying King "worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights law passed" indicates she and/or her team realized that.