About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media outlets continued to mislead on the Clintons' "fairy tale" and civil rights quotes

January 13, 2008 6:49 pm ET

SUMMARY: Articles in Newsweek and The Washington Post mischaracterized a remark by former President Bill Clinton, claiming that he appeared to dismiss Sen. Barack Obama's campaign as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." In fact, Clinton was referring to Obama's statements about his position on the Iraq war; he was not talking about the Obama campaign as the "biggest fairy tale." Further, the Newsweek article, as well as a New York Times article and a Washington Post op-ed, all truncated a comment by Hillary Clinton on the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, omitting a portion of her remarks in which she referred to President John F. Kennedy.

49 Comments

In his cover story for the January 21 issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham mischaracterized quotes by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Discussing January 7 comments by Bill Clinton, Meacham reported as fact that "Bill Clinton appeared to dismiss [Sen. Barack] Obama's [D-IL] campaign as 'the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen,' a remark that infuriated many African-Americans." Similarly, in a January 12 Washington Post article, staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray wrote: "Bill Clinton ... appeared to dismissively describe the campaign platform of hope and change offered by the strongest black presidential contender in history as the 'biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.' " In fact, Clinton was referring to Obama's statements about his position on the Iraq war; he was not talking about the Obama campaign as the "biggest fairy tale." Indeed, in a January 13 piece for The New York Times' Week In Review section, reporter Mark Leibovich noted that in using the words "fairy tale," Clinton "was referring specifically to the perception that Mr. Obama was totally pure in his opposition to the Iraq war."

Both Meacham's Newsweek article and Kornblut and Murray's Post article reported that Clinton discussed his remarks in a January 11 interview on The Al Sharpton Show. Meacham wrote that "Clinton called Al Sharpton's radio show to clarify, arguing that the 'fairy tale' remark was limited to Obama's claim that he would have opposed the Iraq War if he had been in the Senate in 2002-03 despite expressing some doubts to The New York Times in 2004." The Post article reported: "In a call-in interview on Al Sharpton's radio show, Clinton said he had meant only that Obama's statements about his position on the Iraq war are a 'fairy tale,' because Obama (D-Ill.) had voted to fund the war upon arriving in the Senate after saying he opposed the invasion." But neither Newsweek nor the Post noted that Clinton's remarks to Sharpton were consistent with his original comments at the January 7 campaign appearance.

Further, the Newsweek cover story, a Washington Post op-ed by journalist Marjorie Valbrun, and a New York Times article by Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy all truncated a comment by Hillary Clinton on the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Meacham wrote in Newsweek that "Hillary Clinton noted that while Martin Luther King Jr. marched, it 'took a president' -- Lyndon Johnson -- to get civil-rights legislation passed and signed." Valbrun wrote: " '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.' " Valbrun added, "In other words, 'I have a dream' is a nice sentiment, but King couldn't make it reality. It took a more practical and, of course, white president, Lyndon Johnson, to get blacks to the mountaintop." And Nagourney and Healy reported: "This was what Mrs. Clinton said on Monday: '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.' "

However, each of these pieces omitted the middle portion of Hillary Clinton's quote, in which she referred to President John F. Kennedy. Following is Clinton's full quote:

I would point to the fact 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. [emphasis added]

Indeed, Nagourney and Healy's article gave no indication that anything had been omitted from Hillary Clinton's comments, quoting two different parts of Clinton's statement as one continuous quote without ellipses. As Media Matters for America documented, The New York Times has repeatedly cropped Clinton's civil rights comments.

Nagourney and Healy's Times article did report that Bill Clinton used "the phrase 'fairy tale' in talking about Mr. Obama's views on the war in Iraq."

From the January 7 campaign event with Bill Clinton, as transcribed by Congressional Quarterly:

QUESTION: Thanks. One of the things that Senator Obama talks about a lot is judgment and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the recent criticism of Mark Penn, who is Hillary's chief strategist, who's been criticized for being somewhat out of touch with reality.

For instance, he circulated a memo about Iowa, saying "Where's the balance," [sic: bounce] and then the next day, there was a 12-point jump for Obama.

CLINTON: He was wrong. He was wrong about that, because the balance [sic] always occurs on the second day, not the first day. It always occurs on the second day, not the first day.

But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. "It doesn't matter that I started running for president less than a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois state senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I am the only one that had the judgment to oppose this floor [sic: war] from the beginning, always, always, always."

First, it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the U.N. inspectors withdrew. Chuck Hagel [NE] was one of the co-authors of that resolution, the only Republican Senator that always opposed the war, every day, from the get-go.

He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't cooperate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by [then-National Security Adviser] Condi Rice, as many of the other Senators were. So, first, the case is wrong that way.

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years and never got asked one time, not once, "Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Give me a break.

[applause]

This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing, calling Hillary the "Senator from Punjab?" Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook, scouring me, scathing criticism over my financial reports.

[Former independent counsel] Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon. So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want, it wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly we didn't do better in Iowa.

But, you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and other is negative, when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

[applause]

Otherwise, I do not have any strong feelings about that subject.

[laughter]

Go ahead. I've got to take a question back here and then I -- go ahead.

From the January 21 issue of Newsweek:

In New Hampshire, Bill Clinton appeared to dismiss Obama's campaign as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," a remark that infuriated many African-Americans. "When has 'black' and 'fairy tale' ever been mentioned in the same sentence?" asked Todd Boyd, professor of African-American and Critical Studies at the University of Southern California. "That was just insulting, and he needs to be very careful." Clinton called Al Sharpton's radio show to clarify, arguing that the "fairy tale" remark was limited to Obama's claim that he would have opposed the Iraq War if he had been in the Senate in 2002-03 despite expressing some doubts to The New York Times in 2004: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." And when Hillary Clinton noted that while Martin Luther King Jr. marched, it "took a president" -- Lyndon Johnson -- to get civil-rights legislation passed and signed, the comment prompted some Obama supporters to say that Clinton was minimizing King. By late last week, South Carolina Rep. James E. Clyburn felt compelled to issue a statement calling for a ceasefire: "I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use. This is an historic race for America to have such strong, diverse candidates vying for the Democratic nomination." John Lewis, the Georgia congressman, civil-rights veteran and perennial optimist, said, "I hope we will put these issues of gender and race to rest and return to the marketplace of politics."

From the January 12 Washington Post article by Kornblut and Murray:

The comments have come from Clinton (D-N.Y.) and several of her most prominent surrogates, including New Hampshire ally Billy Shaheen, who made insinuations about Sen. Barack Obama's admission of past drug use, and Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, who appeared to dismissively describe the campaign platform of hope and change offered by the strongest black presidential contender in history as the "biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

[...]

Bill Clinton spent much of the day trying to explain his remarks and regain the confidence of a community that historically has provided some of the Clintons' strongest support. In a call-in interview on Al Sharpton's radio show, Clinton said he had meant only that Obama's statements about his position on the Iraq war are a "fairy tale," because Obama (D-Ill.) had voted to fund the war upon arriving in the Senate after saying he opposed the invasion.

From Valbrun's January 13 Washington Post op-ed:

Clinton herself has made racially tinged comments that could be taken as either insensitive or patronizing. The most widely noticed was in her efforts to dismiss Obama's talk of "hope" and "change" as empty idealism. In doing so, she offhandedly diminished the important role played by Martin Luther King Jr. in pushing America to meet its promise of equality for millions of black Americans. "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."

In other words, "I have a dream" is a nice sentiment, but King couldn't make it reality. It took a more practical and, of course, white president, Lyndon Johnson, to get blacks to the mountaintop. Of course no black man could have hoped to be president 44 years ago. And, for that matter, neither could any woman.

What was Clinton thinking? King's name is sacrosanct in most black households, and for poor and struggling blacks whose lives have yet to reflect King's ideals, "hope" is more than just a notion. Clinton managed to insult a beloved black leader in her eager attempt to insult a rising black leader.

From Nagourney and Healy's January 13 New York Times article:

Mr. Clyburn said he was disappointed by what Mrs. Clinton had said and by former President Bill Clinton's use of the phrase "fairy tale" in talking about Mr. Obama's views on the war in Iraq.

[...]

This was what Mrs. Clinton said on Monday: "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." At a later stop, she said that her remark had not captured what she had sought to portray.

Mrs. Clinton seemed prepared to address the question Saturday the second she stepped in front of reporters, and she went into the attack as soon as she was asked about Mr. Clyburn.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Clevenative (January 13, 2008 7:08 pm ET)
         

      Do you think that if Hillary just started every morning with a press conference that began with “This is a list of the lies that were said about me yeserday…” anyone in the media would cover it?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (January 13, 2008 8:08 pm ET)
         
      the newsweek article has this:  "when has 'black' and 'fairy tale' ever been mentioned in the same sentence?", asked todd boyd, professor of african american and critical studies at the university of southern california".   uh, was it?  i don't think bill mentioned that.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 13, 2008 10:20 pm ET)
           
        You don't mean they've banned "Little Black Sambo" as no longer PC? Hell, that was one of my favorites as a kid. But hmm, now that you mention it - I can't think of any other "black" fairy tales.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (January 13, 2008 9:13 pm ET)
         
      Here's what it all boils down to: these people are either fools, knaves, or both. It's totally disgusting, this misrepresentation and dishonesty. It insults the intelligence of everyone.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by solonswine (January 13, 2008 10:42 pm ET)
         
      No one is trying to mislead anyone, what was said was said. Everyone heard it. Know camp Clinton and MMFHRC is trying to spin it into something that it's not. He was talking about Obama's campaign. Pure and simple. Why on Earth do you think the crowd erupted in applause?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bruce1ace (January 13, 2008 10:47 pm ET)
         
      What do people here think about Obama and Edwards going after Hillary for her civil rights comments? 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 2:42 pm ET)
           
        Obama did not go "after her." That's a fiction Sen. Clinton is pushing with the help of the media. The facts are that it was not until AFTER Sen. Clinton's appearance on Meet the Press Sunday morning that Sen. Obama responded to the comment at all.

        At that point, Sen. Obama said, "Senator 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."

        Sen. Clinton's remark about Dr. King and President Johnson was made January 7th. Sen. Obama did not respond to her remark in any way until January 13th AFTER Sen. Clinton blamed the "Obama campaign" for distorting her intent. How exactly do you see that as Sen. Obama going after Sen. Clinton? Seems to me that the shoe is on the other foot in this one.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (January 15, 2008 8:16 am ET)
             
          How would you defend hilary for her insensitive remark that does diminish the role played by Martin L King and others during the civil rights movement? She's obviously planning all this out in an attempt to pull Obama into a 'race fight'. If this doesn't work, she will try to drag him into a 'war fight'. If that doesn't work she'll find some other way of denegrating her opponants. She is good at that aspect of political action. She doesn't have much of a history actually running anything, so she can't really stand on her merits. She needs to pull everyone else down to her level, at which point she is the best at doing what she does 'at her level'. No one else is beneath her, every other candidate has more experience/knowledge than her and she knows it, so she is taking the road she wants to take in order to achieve the power grab she is after.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 13, 2008 10:53 pm ET)
         

      I have thought of many different ways the Democratic party could lose in 2008 but I must admit this Hillary/Obama scenario was not one of them. Unfortunately I think it will be the very thing that stops the Democratic party from winning in 2008 and the Republican won't have to do a thing.

      I have believed for a long time that Hillary and Bill were smart people but why they decided that going after Obama injecting ANY mention of civil rights and MLK is beyond me. Bill has been involved in black issues all his life but common sense would have told both of them to tread lightly on issues of race involving Obama since a divided black America is not a good thing for the Democratic party. Now BET founder Robert Johnson is supporting Hillary but in making a speech on her behalf makes digs about Obama's drug use and hints at possible drug dealing. Are we to think that because the words didn't come from Hillary's mouth they won't be attributed to her or her campaign? I expected this from Republicans but honestly I never expected this from Bill or Hillary.

      I have said all along that I would support the Democratic nominee, even if it was Hillary but today, at this moment, I would stay at home rather than vote for her. There are many differences between Obama and Hillary and race is the least of the differences.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (January 14, 2008 12:04 pm ET)
           
        Good points Pearl. All this is the reason people are so turned off by politics and campaigns, in my opinion. For the Clintons and the Obamas to get into this fracas is just ridiculous. Identifying differences on issues, direction and vision is fine, but to play with innuendoes and word parsing on race or sex to insinuate this or that, planting seeds of doubt or sucker-punching each other with veiled insults and cheap shots is just plain yeech.........they may brusie and batter each other so much they can't heal or recover to win any general election, and they deserve to lose. Grow up, all of them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 3:09 pm ET)
           
        Pearlene,

        I am not surprised that you expected this from the Republicans, (a convenient and unprovoked slam,) just as I am not surprised that the Clinton's are again guilty of disparaging Obama for being a gifted speaker who also happens to be part African American.

        It is ridiculous and dumb for Hillary to liken herself to Johnson as one who can get legislation passed as President while likening Obama to King. The racial comparison is unsaid but implied.

        Duh? In case Hillary doesn't know it, if Obama wins, he too would be President and able to introduce and influence legislation just as she said she would do. For someone to be so smart, Hillary says the dumbest things. Why has nobody challenged her on this point?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 14, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
             
          AA. we both know that Republicans have a history of racial divisive politics. That is simply a fact.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MickD (January 14, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
               
            And PS, could you imagine an American press analyzing a Repub comment on civil rights this much? Oh yeah, they have no AA candidates.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
                 
              Although the Republicans have no AA candidate this year, do you not remember the firestorm around Trent Lott? He was crucified for his statements to Strom Thurmond at his 100th Birthday party.

              Getting back to my question to Pearlene, I wouldn't put Lott's statement in the "politics" category as it was a birthday party. For those that don't remember, the only reason Lott's comments became notable was due to Thurmond's past as a segregationist candidate and Dixiecrat.

              "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

              However he lost his position as a Majority Leader because of the appearance of support for Thurmond's then segregationist platform. (It was stupid of Lott to say what he did.)
              Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
               
            Pearlene,

            I am curious. What historically racial divisive politics do you attribute to the Republicans?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 14, 2008 6:22 pm ET)
                 
              AA, it’s no secret that the word “states rights” was a code word which DID NOT include civil rights for blacks. Goldwater along with Ronald Regan by his side gave speeches about ‘sovereign rights or individual states rights’. Goldwater called the civil rights act an attack on “The Southern way of life". Regan ran as the heir to Goldwater. Regan’s first campaign speech, which was held in Philadelphia, Mississippi where 3 civil rights workers were murdered, spoke strongly of “states rights”. Regan became the most anti-poor, anti-black President of the latter half of the 20th century. George Bush Sr and Willie Horton, need I say more? Jessie Helms in his race against Harvey Gantt and the famous “Hands” ad? And of course you’re familiar with Vernon Robinson, a black Republican recreating the Helms famous “Hands” ad but instead of white hands he showed black hands losing jobs to a Hispanic. Corker’s ad against Harold Ford Jr. ring a bell? George Allen’s “macaca” moment? And from the lips of former Press Secretary Tony Snow: “I mean, maybe I’m just quaint in this day and age. But no, I think there is always an attempt when you have got an African-American candidate to try to attribute something to the race card.”
              Report Abuse
              • Author by philib (January 15, 2008 8:40 am ET)
                   
                That's it?? "Code words" and insinuations? How bout the history of byrd(leader of KKK) and wallace(segregation now, segregation forever). What good did they do for the civil rights movement? Well, I'll tell you one thing, those 2 didn't waste time on code words, they let their actions speak for themselves. Many of those actions with the leadership and support of the KKK. Oh, yeah. Code words are a bad thing and causes unforgiving feelings towards those using them. But be the leader of the KKK and you're forgiven immediately. I like your philosophy on forgiveness.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by philib (January 15, 2008 8:23 am ET)
               
            "we both know that Republicans have a history of racial divisive politics."

            Wow! Now there's a statement that proves someone is wearing blinders. Don't forget to mention the democrats in your slam about political racism. What party did wallace belong to? Republicans may have a 'history' as you claim, but if memory serves me correct it was the democrats that tried throwing monkeywrenches into every effort to desegragate.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (January 15, 2008 9:16 am ET)
                 
              Keep living in the past.

              Are you really going to continue trying to argue that the Republican Party of 50, 60, 70 or 100 years ago is the same Republican Party of today? Likewise with the Democratic Party.

              Truth is that the Republicans of today appeal to the white power movement with their hatespeech tinged anti-immigration, torture/kill the Muslims message.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by philib (January 15, 2008 9:22 am ET)
                   
                "Truth is that the Republicans of today appeal to the white power movement with their hatespeech tinged anti-immigration, torture/kill the Muslims message"

                Oh? Give some examples of a republican politician giving one of those speaches. Pearly is living in the past with her/his use of Reagan as a racist, why shouldn't all racists of the past be recognized for what they did and what party they belonged to? Maybe the list would be a little longer on the democratic side? That could be why "I'm" living in the past, while Pearly is posting truths?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (January 15, 2008 10:04 am ET)
                     
                  There's no need to produce speeches, it's a matter of ideological dogma that Republicans and White Power types have in common, thus their appeal to radical rightwing racists:

                  The destruction of federal government power

                  Anti-welfare

                  Anti-public education

                  Anti-homosexual

                  Anti-abortion

                  Anti-immigration

                  I defy you to find a white power group that espouses the tenets of today's political left.

                  And this guy, Neal Boortz, he's no politician, but he is a right winger, "An election is coming in 11 months and millions of parasites, led by single females, are getting ready to accelerate the destruction of the concepts of individuality, private property rights, self-reliance, and this very country by putting a hideous, power-hungry, big-government socialist* into the White House.

                  You do know, don't you, that you have absolutely no constitutional right to cast a vote in this presidential election. No .. you probably don't know that. That would mean you are educated, but you're not. You were educated by the government ... and the government sure isn't going to disclose that inconvenient little fact to you. Somehow the media in this country has bought the politician's about this "right to vote." It's not there. Doesn't exist. And to save this country we need to figure out a way to get tens of millions the parasite class off the voter roles. Welfare? No vote. Illiterate? Stay home on election day. Begging for the government to be your lifetime nanny? Let the doers, the achievers cast the votes. Just stay away."

                  That kind of talk must make you so proud to be a rightwinger.

                  Then you have Bill White on Dec. 20, 2007, Commander of the American National Socialist Party, (aka American Nazi's) coming out in Support of Ron Paul. Sweet endorsement, dude.

                  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (January 15, 2008 10:29 am ET)
                       
                    And before any of you Boortz apologists pipe up and claim Boortz doesn't speak for the American right, I would remind you that Boortz's argument reflects Supreme Court Justice Scalia's argument in the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. Scalia contended, after that decision, that the Constitution doesn't gaurantee an individual the right to vote anyway.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by anotheramerican (January 15, 2008 2:24 pm ET)
                         
                      roundhouse,

                      By your reasoning I guess Cindy Sheehan speaks for the left.

                      It is an oversimplification to say any one person speaks for a whole group. Boortz is a right wing pundit no doubt, but he is to the far-far right just as Sheehan, or Sean Penn, or Harry Belafonte, or Danny Glover can be argued to be to the far-far left. Do they represent the left in the country or one faction of it? Same goes for Boortz regardless of Supreme Court Rulings by was Scalia or for that matter Ginsburg.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by philib (January 15, 2008 9:20 pm ET)
                       
                    "There's no need to produce speeches"

                    Considering 'hate speeches' were indeed claimed to have been made by right wing politicians, I think proof of those speeches should be provided. If you're just going to talk ideoloy, then there's hate on both sides and you have no point.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by brighthopa7588 (January 13, 2008 11:40 pm ET)
         

      with all due respect to HRC the dream was realized in 1955 when Rosa PRKS REFUSED TO GIVE UP HER SEAT ON A MONTGOMERY BUS. And MLK was asked and agreed to lead a boycott of the montgomery bus system. For 381 days the boycott held causing the loss of revenue to the city. With the success of every boycott .freedom ride.sit in and march the dream got bigger. Then came the March on Washington 1963. These people were shot at some killed,dos set on them .beaten.churches burned nad water hosed. and for her to say the dream was realized by the signing of the 64 act does  diminish what MLK and those he inspied did. No disrespect to Johnson but he could not sign an act that no thought was necessary if Black americans had not stood up . Remember the title of the 1963 speech I Have A Dream. And adding in the line about Kennedy does not make it any better.                                                                         AS for what bill said if he was talking about his campaign he was calling him a phony. And if it was about his war stance he was calling him a liar either of which is insulting.The majority of the people are for funding the troops because the afraid not to fund would put them in more danger . BUt were and still Against the war.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by brighthopa7588 (January 13, 2008 11:40 pm ET)
         

      with all due respect to HRC the dream was realized in 1955 when Rosa PRKS REFUSED TO GIVE UP HER SEAT ON A MONTGOMERY BUS. And MLK was asked and agreed to lead a boycott of the montgomery bus system. For 381 days the boycott held causing the loss of revenue to the city. With the success of every boycott .freedom ride.sit in and march the dream got bigger. Then came the March on Washington 1963. These people were shot at some killed,dos set on them .beaten.churches burned nad water hosed. and for her to say the dream was realized by the signing of the 64 act does  diminish what MLK and those he inspied did. No disrespect to Johnson but he could not sign an act that no thought was necessary if Black americans had not stood up . Remember the title of the 1963 speech I Have A Dream. And adding in the line about Kennedy does not make it any better.                                                                         AS for what bill said if he was talking about his campaign he was calling him a phony. And if it was about his war stance he was calling him a liar either of which is insulting.The majority of the people are for funding the troops because the afraid not to fund would put them in more danger . BUt were and still Against the war.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 10:31 am ET)
           
        Media Matters staff: I think some of the recent double posting is due to some of us posting, then not seeing our post displayed.

        I've had to clear my cache to read my own posts since Thursday. (well actually, had to resubmit my password to successfully log in; I finally did that Saturday)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (January 13, 2008 11:51 pm ET)
         

      While it's easy to blame ONLY the media for continuing to push the lie that Bill Clinton was suggesting that Obama's campaign was a "fairy-tale", it appears others are attempting to keep it alive as well---including Michelle Obama:

       

      Greeted by a standing ovation when she took the stage at the opening of the Trumpet Awards - an event celebrating black achievement - she went on to criticize anyone who would "dismiss this moment as an illusion, a fairy tale" in an obvious reference to comments made by Bill Clinton, the spouse of her husband's main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, who used the term "fairy tale" to refer to Obama's characterization of his position on the Iraq war.

      http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080114/D8U5B0EG0.html

      Report Abuse
    • Author by donovanlc8528 (January 14, 2008 1:49 am ET)
         
      It has long been obvious that HRC has learned a great deal about politics from her husband, who is undeniably a great politician.  Unfortunately, she also shares his lack of integrity and character.  Does anyone remember her commodity trading which helped finance Bill's first presidential campaign?  Overlooked the bundling in Chinatown?  Forgot the Marc Rich pardon?  Whitewater?  That small matter of Impeachment?  Many people see through the Clintons and judge their great performances for what they are - performances.  I'm constantly amazed that so many do not.  As my grandad used to say, "Gold and brass look a lot a like, but the difference shows with wear."  The Clintons have shown which they are, and enough independents see it to make Hillary the best candidate the Republicans could ever hope for.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edgarfield (January 14, 2008 10:05 am ET)
         

      The Civil Rights legislation in 1965 would not have passed if it was not for the heavy lifting by President Johnson. It would not have been iniated if not for the efforts of President Kennedy, who was the white first politician to nationally expose the fraud of separate but equal laws in the South. Hubert Humphrey in the 1950 party convention made rule changes that allowed the seating of black delegates from Southern states. For the Obama campaign to discount the great efforts of these men shows a serious lack of history or understanding of what it means to be a Democrat. But to smear King’s name as a political trick is over the top. Martin Luther King was an inclusive leader. He believed that they could not liberate the South from its archaic racist culture without the help of white people and especially white politicians. To him it was less about race and more about America and justice. Clinton understands this, Obama’s people do not. I take great exception to the Obama campaign attacking the Democratic Party.  He proclaims himself to be the new Kennedy, which is a bit of a Quaylish stretch,  and attacks President Johnson and Carter and Clinton. For Obama to twist Clinton’s words is as if to say that Clinton cannot utter King’s name because she is a white woman is a pathetic. For Obama, whose campaign promoted the fact that he is half-white, to hide his blackness in mostly white Iowa, is a bit over the top.  Now that we are in South Carolina he seems to be a black politican running for office because of the majority of African-American voters. This should not be about  race but about leading this party into the general election.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (January 14, 2008 11:12 am ET)
           
        What are you talking about? Where has Obama smeared King's name or attacked the Democratic Party?

        And I'm sorry, but the triumph of the civil rights movement belongs to the everyday people who had the courage to disobey and force political change. I give credit to the pliticians who followed the will of the people, but only in as much as it's their job.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 14, 2008 2:01 pm ET)
           
        The majority of the credit for actions on behalf of the civil rights movement do not belong to John F. Kennedy nor Johnson, they belong to his brother Robert F. Kennedy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 2:46 pm ET)
             
          Absolutely not -- the majority of the credit goes to the generations of people who fought for civil rights in this country. Overwhelmingly, they were Black. Without the work done by those who championed civil rights from the time of Emancipation through the signing of the Civil Rights Act there would have been no Civil Rights Act. Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, et. al. simply stood on the shoulders of those who had gone before.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 14, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
               
            Yellowdemocrat, I'm a 73 year old African American woman and quite aware about the struggle for equality. My comment was in regards to Robert F. Kennedy who did much much more in the fight for civil rights than his brother John, who many name when discussing the movement.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (January 14, 2008 4:46 pm ET)
               
            Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, et. al. simply stood on the shoulders of those who had gone before

            You should really, really do your research on Robert F. Kennedy before making that statement. Robert F. Kennedy stood side by side with blacks, used his position, power and influence to help black in their fight for civil rights.

            This is what he said during a 1961 speech at the University of Georgia Law School: "We will not stand by or be aloof. We will move. I happen to believe that the 1954 Supreme Court school desegregation decision was right. But my belief does not matter. It is the law. Some of you may believe the decision was wrong. That does not matter. It is the law."

            In May 1962 when fighting along side blacks for racial equality was not popular he was asked in an interview, "What do you see as the big problem ahead for you, is it Crime or Internal Security?" Robert Kennedy replied, "Civil Rights." He was there person Coretta Scott King called late at night when MLK was in jail for protesting. There is much more about this man but he did not stand on our shoulders, he stood by our side.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 9:56 pm ET)
                 
              Relax. You don't have to sell me on Bobby Kennedy; I have a picture of him hanging in my classroom. I was just trying to point out that the civil rights movement, like the women's movement, owes a lot of its success to the work of people who have been forgotten by history because they were not powerful, they were not elected officials, or because they were dead and gone before their work reached fruition.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
           
        Edgar,

        As I pointed out in another thread, Eisenhower should be included as his administration was instrumental in passing the Civil Rights act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. These two acts paved the way way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Act of 1965.

        I thought it disingenuous that Hillary said the president before Kennedy did nothing. Why she doesnt' know the history and why she couldn't remember or wouldn't use Eisenhower's name makes me wonder.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 5:39 pm ET)
             
          Eisenhower signed the bills. Congress was more instrumental in their passage.

          I'd like to add that Eisenhower was more progressive by far than any Republican candidate is today.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by edgarfield (January 14, 2008 12:14 pm ET)
         

      He smeared his name by politicizing his legacy. It seems very odd to me that the Obama campaign suddenly decries “racism” against Hilliary Clinton when they are coming into South Carolina, where a majority of the vote is African-American.  This has Axelrod, Obama’s chief stategist,  written all over it. He’s been very successful at playing the race card with his candidates.

       

      The Obama campaign has attacked Clinton, Johnson and Carter in various speeches. He has claimed he is the “New Kennedy” for the country, which is a Democratic party sacriledge to say. It is very clear that Obama has little respect for the party, which he wishes to run for President. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (January 14, 2008 12:34 pm ET)
           
        Fair enough, I guess. I don't see comparisons to leaders as an attack or an invocation of a legacy as a smear.

        It ain't real smart politics to make comparisons of oneself to great leaders, but it falls short of attacks and smears.

        Although I don't follow Obama's campaign much, I missed the accusations of racism coming out of his camp. Show me more about that.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by edgarfield (January 14, 2008 2:26 pm ET)
         
      The simple fact of the matter is Obama's campaign is twisting President Clinton's statement that Obama's anti-war stance is direct opposition to his votes and speeches on the matter and that in essence it is a "fairy tale." Axelrod is spinning this as if Clinton is saying Obama's run for the presidency is a "fairy tale" because he is black, which it is not even close to what happened. Secondly, it is Obama who brought Martin Luther King into this debate by suddenly likening himself to the Civil Rights leader. Clinton's statement is factual. That the Johnson Administration pushed for Civil Rights, even to the point of fracturing the party, taking the lead from Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights marchers. What I find so curious is that Obama's campaign brings up race when they think they'll benefit from it. Jesse Jackson when he ran for President in 1984 never used race of King's name in this way. This is over the top. 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by YellowDogDemocrat (January 14, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
         
      It probably means nothing but it is ironic that Sen. Clinton was a "Goldwater girl" in her youth, and Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 3:28 pm ET)
           
        Yellow,

        A small point.

        I do believe Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights act because he thought it unconstitutional remarking, "remarking, "You can't legislate morality."

        That vote and his remark about low level nuclear weapons in VietNam to defoliate supply routes probably did more than anything to cause him to lose the election in 64.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (January 14, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
         

      Speaking of Fairy tales, Bill said, "Former independent counsel] Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon."

      47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned.

      - Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

      Looks like Bill has an advanced case of Arkenhiemers Syndrome. :-)  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (January 14, 2008 5:43 pm ET)
           
        We could dig up indictments from Reagan's administration as well. Starr wasted lots of taxpayer money digging up minor crimes & misdemeaners.

        Today Bush/Cheney & Co are guilty of war crimes and go unpunished.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (January 15, 2008 1:24 pm ET)
             
          Mary,

          We could look up Reagan, and by all means please do.

          But that wasn't the point of my post. the point was that good ol' Bill distorted the facts in the speech cited by MMFA to the point of falsehoods. Bill and Hillary both have used illegal campaign contributions from the far East and both got caught.

          For Bill to say he wouldn't take a nickel when he has personally profited by millions, and to say innocent people were indicted when so many were convicted or fled the country during his 'stay' in the WH is the biggest laugh today.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bcvb1949a (January 15, 2008 1:25 am ET)
         
      Why doesn't Media Matters play the tape?  Are they afraid of the truth or just afraid the Clinton Power is going to stop their funding?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 16, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
         
      test
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.