Wash. Post truncated Clinton's civil rights comments
In a January 14 Washington Post article, staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr. joined other media -- including journalist Marjorie Valbrun in a January 13 Post op-ed -- in truncating a comment by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) 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. The Post wrote: " 'Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President [Lyndon] Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,' [Clinton] said, adding that 'it took a president to get it done.' Critics read that as playing down King's importance in the civil rights movement." But as Media Matters for America has documented, Clinton's full quote was:
CLINTON: 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]
Kornblut and Bacon excluded Clinton's reference to Kennedy despite reporting later in the article that "Clinton defended her remark about King" -- during a January 13 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press -- where "[s]he said she was responding to a speech [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] made comparing himself to both John F. Kennedy and to King":
Clinton defended her remark about King, made the day before the New Hampshire primary, in a sometimes contentious appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning. She said she was responding to a speech Obama made comparing himself to both John F. Kennedy and to King, and she elaborated on her view of King's role as a change agent.
"Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement," Clinton said. "But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system."
The Washington Post is really disgusting. This is a perfect example of how the media is trying to polarize an issue into a race issue, and it is not, Shame on the media.
On a side note, I think I've stopped caring. You ever see the South Park where Cartman sees something so funny he loses his ability to laugh? Yeah, kinda the same deal.
No doubt the media is to blame for continuing to distort this story, BUT don't forget that the origins of this controversy came from Obama supporters who somehow MIS-read Hillary's statement as demeaning to Martin Luther King.
I understood exactly what Hillary was getting at the first time I heard her remarks. She in no way meant to undermine MLK or anyone in the Civil Rights movement.
This is getting so ridiculous.
It never would have been a STORY for the media to hype & then distort just to hype it more,/i>, IF folks hadn't looked for something nefarious in Hillary's words to begin with.....
However, the lawsuit makes no sense, and will more than likely be thrown out right after it's read. The Strange One should be paid no mind as he is trying to derail the thread yet again.
I don't wanna suggest a conspiracy theory here but...
;-)
The whole "controversy" surrounding HC's remarks about Dr. King and President Johnson is nothing but thinly disguised, race-bating nonsense, carried on with the facilitation of the media. The usual suspects, meaning Sharpton and the sensationalist media, continue to hint, despite HC's language to the contrary, that she somehow is insentive to the civil rights movement. Give me a break.
Ironically, though, in this case the race-card is indirectly employed by dem's against dem's, rather than against the bogey-man right wing. Even if Clinton actually thinks Johnson was more indispensible to the passing of the civil rights act than King, that somehow means she's insensitive to African Americans or to the real (as opposed to Sharpton) civil rights leaders? Undoubtedly it seems that her comment was counterproductive, but at worse it was simply without merit.
This fabricated controversy is one of the problems with the left. One very innocuous remark exposes someone to the threat of being labeled as lacking sensitivity to certain groups, or worse. I like Obama, and don't care too much for Hillary, but I hope his campaign isn't abetting this crap.
I've cut out the following from Kornblut's and Beacon's article.
The primary source of the debate is a comment Monday from the New York Democrat: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done." Critics read that as playing down King's importance in the civil rights movement. Clinton said Sunday that the Obama campaign was "deliberately distorting this."
Maybe somone can point out where Kornblut and Beacon were trying to quote in its entirety Hillary's comment? Where are they deliberately trying to misinform? So what is the big deal about truncating Hillary's comments. Does it change her meaning? I think not.
It was a stupid thing for Hillary to say to begin with, besides being factualy incorrect about Eisenhower, just plain dumb to try to paint herself as LBJ and Obama as King. The inference that Obama is a gifted speaker but not a President and that Hillary is, is the implied racism.
I don't blame Obama's camp at all for highlighting this and using it against Hillary.
AA,
I gotta disagree. I see absolutely nothing racist in what Hillary said.
Me thinks you just dislike Hillary ;-)
this post is about the washington post missing context on her comments, (which in itself is unacceptable) and in my opinion is part of a wider attempt to cast them as something they are not. But you're simply talking about 'clintonian politics.'
The substance of your post as you well know, is an assessment of the clinton campaign and your obvious distrust and distaste for the clintons. What im saying is - thats fine, but this post is about the washington post and its treatment of Hillary clintons comments. I'm just pointing out that i think you have a tendency to avoid the subject, and the point of this site, to create tangential arguments for your own gratification. And i'm calling you on it.
"if you disagree, that's fine"
I gotta disagree with you. If anyone is playing the race card, & not so subtly, it's Obama's supporters.
And the media, most of whom seem to dislike Hillary, are eating it up & slanting their coverage or omitting just enough to make the Clintons look like the bad guys.
I can see that it is a matter of opinion, and I can certainly appreciate yours - I just think that Hillary was making a veiled inference not only of Obama's inexperience by saying that it takes a President to really affect the change necessary and she is better equipped for that, but I also think she was softening Dr. King's role a little bit by doing the same to Obama - it was a very subtle jab at Obama, his race, and his inexperience........but I could be off base, so your take could easily be correct. I guess we will have to see how this is played out, if at all. I just think the Clintons don't worry too much about getting accused of it, considering they have Bill, the first "black" President in their hip pocket - they play that card whenever it's expedient.
I think her suggesting she'd make a better President is in bounds & fair, after all everyone of the candidates are saying that about themselves.
I agree she was jabbing at Obama's inexperience [also fair], but I fail to see how she was jabbing at his race.
Obama brought up JFK & MLK, and seemed to be comparing himself to them, as were others based MOSTLY on his [Obama] eloquent speeches about hope.
She simply meant, IMO, that she would be the better of the two to sit in the Oval Office & turn hope into a real & tangible result.
It's a sad day in America where one can't mention MLK & civil rights & give several people credit without cries of racism.
I for one have already grown tired of it.
MLK and Obama - gifted black speakers but not able to get things done in Washington.
LBJ and Hillary - experienced white politicians who will get something done in Washington.
Whether it is deliberate or not, it is exceedingly insensitive. She is implying through comparison that Obama is black and not presidential and in the same breath that she is white and is.
Of course she is disguising it but it is the race card pure and simple.
ps. Yes Jeter. I won't be voting for Hillary.
LBJ and Hillary - experienced white politicians who will get something done in Washington.
I have to credit you for your appropriation of talking points. Good job, parrot !
Are you sure your dislike of Hillary isn't the driving force behind your opinion that this was somehow racist?
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.
Priceless.
Hey now don't be mean they were once the "Party of Lincoln" -- what the Hell happened I have no idea but those ideas seemed to have long gone by the wayside.
Of which ideas from the Party of Lincoln are you referring?
Typical.
I thought Johnny's comment was amusing and even though he didn't add much, he inadvertently made a good point. So far not many of our liberal friends are weighing in on this thread. Do they agree with you or Tommy?
I gotta disagree with you. If anyone is playing the race card, & not so subtly, it's Obama's supporters. Jeter
Could not disagree more with you Jeter. The one thing that you must say about Obama AND his supporters is his campaign has NOT been about race and it does not benefit his campaign to make it about race.
Hillary figured that a young, one term black senator with the middle name Hussein could not beat her in today's climate. She had money, power and a base full of people who had already ran a successful Presidential campaign and won. She was of course shocked beyond her belief that she lost Iowa. Both she and Bill were feeling desperate going into NH. We start with Bill Sheehan and Obama's "drug dealing". Then Hillary said that it took President Johnson to get the MLK dream done. She was speaking about the comparison some had made between Obama's speeches and the MLK/Kennedy speeches prior to making that statement. Her aid of course said she misspoke. Bob Kerrey on Obama's "Muslim heritage", Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment, Andrew Young's "Bill is every bit as black as Obama" remark. Finally and for me it was "the straw that broke the camels back" was Robert Johnson's comment. Unless and until both he and Hillary apologize, I will not under ANY circumstance vote for her, period.
I understand that Hillary and Bill counted on his popularity with African Americans but you cannot insult and disrespect Obama and expect continued support from African Americans. I expected this from Republicans, I did not expect this from the Clintons.
I agree with you on everything except the part about Republicans. :-)
I was pretty well shocked when I heard Robert Johnson's comment myself. I thought the Clinton's are looking like they are again tossing out the race card by having a black man serve as their front.
Maybe they didn't know what Johnson was going to say, but if they didn't, they should know better.
You'd think the Clinton campaign would not try tarnishing Obama again on the drugs issue when they had to fire the first guy for implying the same thing.
Johnson said, in part, "...when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book..."
Then to use the excuse that Johnson was refering to Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago "and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect,..."
Is simply laughable. How stupid does the Clinton campaign think the public is? To me it is like adding fuel to the fire. Unfortunately she is standing too close. I see Hillary going down in flames.
Johnson's "in the neighborhood" comment was bad but the Sidney Poitier Guess "Who's coming to Dinner" comparison was beyond belief.
Let me say that to me as an African American, I'm frankly insulted that Robert Johnson and Hillary think that I'm to stupid not to get what they were implying with the comments.
And that sorry a** apology will not do.
When Clinton admitted that he'd smoked pot he opened himself up to all sorts of comments, and I don't remember anyone being outraged by it.
The one thing that you must say about Obama AND his supporters is his campaign has NOT been about race and it does not benefit his campaign to make it about race.
I disagree with you. Some of Obama's supporters HAVE played the race card, with respect to Hillary's MLK statements. I'm beginning to agree with Clinton that Obama's campaign is feeding this so-called scandal to the media. I don't think the media acted alone.
Hillary figured that a young, one term black senator with the middle name Hussein could not beat her in today's climate.
Why would you think that ?? She knew that Obama would be a formidable opponent as she watched his rise in the Democratic party and witness his fabulous keynote speech at the 2004 convention. I suspect that she new that his blackness would be an asset, not a deficit.
Now his lack of experience is another matter, but I'm sure she knew that this would not override his other assets.
She had money, power and a base full of people who had already ran a successful Presidential campaign and won. She was of course shocked beyond her belief that she lost Iowa.
Was she shocked ? All but one of the pre-caucus polls showed Obama in the lead. I don't think she was surprised at all.
Btw, Obama isn't so poor (he's got a $2 million house in Chicago), and he's got quite a few connections himself otherwise he never would have been asked to present the keynote speech at the Dem 2004 convention.
Both she and Bill were feeling desperate going into NH.
Desperate ? Why do you use such an emotional and personal term ? I think they were clearly frustrated with the media's continual attacks against them and the practically reverant attitudes toward Obama.
We start with Bill Sheehan and Obama's "drug dealing".
Did you actually read the comments or just hear about them ? You need to read the actual comments.
Hillary cannot control the mouths of everyone who works on her behalf. Sheehan resigned (he would have been fired if he had not resigned) and Clinton apologized for his remarks even though she didn't need to.
Then Hillary said that it took President Johnson to get the MLK dream done. She was speaking about the comparison some had made between Obama's speeches and the MLK/Kennedy speeches prior to making that statement.
It DID take a President to get that done !! There was so much racism it was necessary to put equal rights into law to force the racists to comply, they wouldn't have done it no matter how many marches and speeches and boycotts. It's sad to say, but it's the truth.
Bob Kerrey on Obama's "Muslim heritage"
Bob Kerrey isn't part of Clinton's campaign !
Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment
Ditto my above comment. Plus, how many people know that "shuck and jive" is a racial phrase ? I didn't. I know the phrase from a Joni Mitchell song. Was there outrage when she sang it ? Was she denegrating blacks ?
Andrew Young's "Bill is every bit as black as Obama" remark.
Ditto again, Andrew Young is not part of Hillary's campaign. Why are you hanging Hillary for something that someone totally unrelated to her said ?
Finally and for me it was "the straw that broke the camels back" was Robert Johnson's comment. Unless and until both he and Hillary apologize, I will not under ANY circumstance vote for her, period.
What exactly is it that Johnson said that so offends you ? I'd like to see the exact statements. I've read his remarks and I cannot imagine why you are offended.
I find it really interesting that I'm finding the exact same things that you put in your post on other message boards. Seems like talking points to me. Where did they come from ? What are you listening to and reading to build up this Hillary-is-a-racist argument ?
And I'd like to ask once again, why is Barack Obama considered to be a black man ? His mother was white, and he doesn't seem to have had the same experiences as most other blacks in the U.S. I don't see how he "represents". I almost hate to write this because I know I'll get flamed, but I'm going to be honest ... it looks to me like he appropriated blackness and Christianity because he wanted to seek public office and he knew they would be assets. I think he played the race card from day one, aligning himself with blacks even though he's half white. Yes, I do believe being black is an asset in politics, especially high politics. I believe that the number of people who want to see blacks in high public office are greater than the number of people who don't. I'm a white who loves to see blacks in positions of power, as heads of companies, in public office ... I would be *thrilled* to see a black President. But if Obama wins I can't be thrilled because I don't see him as genuinely black.
And you don't consider Sen. Obama black because his mother is white? When did George W. retire and let you get to be the decider? I guarantee you, when people look at Barack Obama they see a black man.
You ask why is Obama considered black and I must ask you when in the history of this country would Obama EVER be considered ANYTHING other than black? Have you seen the way he looks? Have you seen his hair? What in god’s name WOULD you call him? There used to be an old saying that if you had a drop of black you were considered black. Years ago society would not allow a white women to acknowledge she had a black child. Heck years ago some white women would not even raise a child by a black man unless that child could pass for white. It has become more acceptable to acknowledge mixed heritage by white folks in later years. To most black folks I know I has never mattered that you were mixed cause due to slavery times black folks are mixed, period. So in short, based on the history of this country Obama is considered black.
Atheist, why would you assume that Obama’s life experiences are so different than “most other blacks”? Because he had a white momma? What do you consider life like for “most black folks”? Obama’s experiences are probably more like my children's. They went to college, traveled, got great executive jobs and doing quite well.
Atheist, honey you can’t “appropriate” blackness”. When you have a permanent tan and kinky hair, wide nose and a father from Kenya, you're black, no need to “appropriate”. Your biggest problem with Obama is YOUR lack of education regarding history and black folks. If you took Obama anywhere in the US there would be NO question as to what race Obama was from 99.9% of the people. YOU would not be questioning Obama “blackness” IF he hadn’t said his mother was white. YOU would have assumes he was simply a “light” skinned BLACK man. Oh and by the way, one of the MOST insulting things to say to ANY black man and even me as a black woman is ……”black boy”. Obama is many things but a boy he is not.
NEVER underestimate the power of oppressed people to force change.
I heard Hillary the first time she spoke. Her original comment was in response to those who were comparing Obama's eloquent speeches to those of MLK and Kennedy. She misspoke and her aid said she misspoke and she did. I accepted her aid saying that Hillary but I did see a pattern starting to emerge.
I was extremely insulted by Robert Johnson and after viewing a video of his speech, even more upset. You can't understand why and I'm sorry but I can't help you. It was uncalled for and inapporiate for a Democratic running against another Democratic.
When people come out and publicly endorse a candidate and then make negative and insulting comments about their candidates opponent the candidate has to take responsibility otherwise WHY publicly endorse anyone? Hillary is using her surrogates to play dirt politics. I have expected this from Republicans but did not expect this from Hillary. She is using her surrogates so that she can say, as you have, "I didn't have anything to do with it". If she had nothing to do with it why did HER campaign issue an explanation for Robert Johnson's comments? I can answer, because they knew he had crossed the line with his comments!
I was prepared to vote for her IF Obama lost but now, today, no way!