LA Times, Wash. Post truncated Clinton's civil rights comments
SUMMARY: In an article, the Los Angeles Times joined other media outlets in truncating a comment by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton about civil rights, quoting Clinton's statement 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 omitting Clinton's reference to President 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."
In a January 15 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Richard Fausset and Janet Hook truncated a January 7 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 Times reported: " 'Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,' [Clinton] said, adding: 'It took a president to get it done.' " 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]
The Times also reported that Jarvis Jenkins, a transit system worker who is black, "was not offended by Clinton's recent comment that 'it took a president' to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964," but again did not provide the full quote. The article then stated that Clinton's remark was one "that some critics have found disrespectful toward the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." The article, which contained the subhead "Voters disagree over whether Clinton meant to target Obama with racially charged comments, but say the matter was bound to come up sometime," reported that "[t]he recent firestorm over Clinton's words ... has made for a tantalizing story line in recent days."
Additionally, in a January 15 Washington Post article, staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut also truncated Clinton's comments, reporting that Clinton had "said that 'King's dream became a reality when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,' " which Weisman and Kornblut called "the statement that helped launch the debate over the role of race in the campaign." The article later referred to "Hillary Clinton's statement on the roles of King and President Johnson in passing civil rights legislation, which she capped by saying: 'It took a president to get it done.' " Kornblut also co-authored an article on January 14 with staff writer Perry Bacon Jr. that similarly truncated Clinton's comments, writing: " 'Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President 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."
Several other media outlets, including The New York Times, have also previously truncated Clinton's comments, omitting her reference to President Kennedy.
From Fausset and Hook's January 15 Los Angeles Times article:
Jarvis Jenkins and Kytu Ivory are two black voters with two very different ideas about the racial tensions that have flared between presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Jenkins, a transit system worker, was not offended by Clinton's recent comment that "it took a president" to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- a remark that some critics have found disrespectful toward the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Ivory, however, thinks that those words are part of a concerted effort by Clinton to inject race into the campaign.
But like many other African American voters here, the men could agree on one thing: In a presidential contest featuring perhaps the most viable black candidate in history, it was inevitable that race would emerge. It was just a matter of time.
"They're always going to bring that up," said Jenkins, 53, as he helped tourists navigate a bus station Monday in downtown Atlanta.
"We knew it was coming," said Ivory, a 40-year-old construction worker, speaking in a food court a few blocks away.
The recent firestorm over Clinton's words -- as well as recent comments by her supporters seen as carrying racial overtones -- has made for a tantalizing story line in recent days. It also could influence the votes of some blacks in states such as Georgia, where African Americans are a key part of the Democratic electorate and where primaries will be held on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
Lolly Lovett, 49, a funeral home office administrator from Savannah, has had a hard time deciding between the two candidates, but said that Clinton's comments "were the first strike against her" and might make it "a little easier to choose."
Clinton made her comments in an interview with Fox News last week. She was supporting her contention that pragmatic leadership skills like hers are sometimes preferable to soaring oratory like Obama's.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said, adding: "It took a president to get it done."
From Weisman and Kornblut's January 15 Washington Post article:
But earlier in the day, surrogates for each seemed determined to continue waging the war of words.
"Someone said, 'You can't unring a bell' -- well, the biggest bell in American politics just got rung," said James Carville, a Clinton confidant.
Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an Obama campaign co-chairman, said yesterday that Clinton was "trying to score cheap political points on the back of Martin Luther King's legacy" when she said that "King's dream became a reality when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" -- the statement that helped launch the debate over the role of race in the campaign.
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.), a prominent Clinton supporter, raised criticism of Obama to a new level. In an extensive interview, Lewis, a King lieutenant and icon of the civil rights movement, called Obama "a friend" but added: "He is no Martin Luther King Jr. I knew Martin Luther King. I knew Bobby Kennedy. I knew President Kennedy. You need more than speech-making. You need someone who is prepared to provide bold leadership."
[...]
Both campaigns agreed they were entering uncharted territory at the presidential campaign level. [James] Carville, a longtime Democratic operative who grew up in the racially charged politics of Louisiana, described the debate as wholly unfamiliar. Other Clinton allies have conveyed similar distress that two champions of civil rights have, in essence, been swept up in allegations of racial insensitivity.
"I'm shaken by the whole thing," Carville said.
The controversy grew from a pair of comments in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary, when Bill Clinton called Obama's claims about his record on Iraq "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," a comment that some black leaders interpreted as belittling Obama, and Hillary Clinton's statement on the roles of King and President Johnson in passing civil rights legislation, which she capped by saying: "It took a president to get it done."















Would you also agree that most people didn't get all of the proper information from these papers?
Well it looks to me like including the Kennedy quote was an obscure compliment to Kennedy to the tune that Kennedy might have 'gotten it done'.
So leaving it out, doesn't really change the meaning of the statement for me.
It seems apparent to me that Hillary is implying Obama is black and can't get it done, but Hillary is white and she can even if you include the Kennedy segment.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why no discussion about the previous President? As I've stated elsewhere, Eisenhower presided over the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To say Eisenhower did not even try is flat out wrong.
Upon reflection, my guess is that the implied racial jab in Hillary's quote blots out everything else. She brought up the racial component falsely saying she was responding to Obama when he hadn't brought it up. It was similar to her saying, "I didn't call him a drug user," when nobody said she had. (Did you notice how the Clintons used Robert Johnson to try to deflect this storyline? Has anyone asked if Hillary will denounce his drug reference?)
I think Obama had every right to finally call her on it. If a Republican had said something so callous, they'd have beem run out of town on a rail and rightfully so.
I just don't understand why blacks are so enamored with the Clintons? What exactly did the Clinton's do to earn their loyalty?
We wouldn't expect any more thought from you, AA. You bought the twisted story because you are prejudiced, and now you are repeating the talking points. Good job, parrot !
And blacks can like whoever the hell they want to like. Maybe they don't just care about "black issues."
The full and correct quote shows that signing the act was not a simple and effortless matter. It in fact took three Presidents to get the job done.
I fail to see any point other than Hillary said she'll be a white President who can get it done and Obama is a black president who won't.
she made an ill-advised statement about Dr. King suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with the Civil Rights Act.
Tell me how Hillary's remark implies that Johnson "had more to do" with the Civil Rights Act ? I'll answer my own question ... it would only do so if you were already prejudiced against her.
I found no problem with her correcting Obama for comparing himself to Dr. King because Obama's no Dr. King! She was saying that it takes more than giving great speeches to compare yourself with a martyr such as Dr. King. I don't think she was being patronizing or anything, she was giving a reality-check to Obama that he shouldn't be comparing himself to a legendary figure who offered a lot more than grandiloquent speeches to the masses. King had substance and strategies to back up his speeches.
I don't think this will effect voters because for the most part this is based on media hype and a lot of statements taking out of context. However, as a black person I don't appreciate either camp using the legacy of Dr. King to score cheap political points with voters.
Right ! It could not have occurred without both people. No matter how hard King worked, he needed a President to sign equal rights into law ! And without King, I can imagine it would have taken many more years, perhaps even decades, to see any real change. To be honest it still blows my mind to think about segregation, I am not quite old enough to have witnessed it, I was born in 1960. But I have witnessed racism.
I found no problem with her correcting Obama for comparing himself to Dr. King because Obama's no Dr. King!
Thank you for writing that ! But he sure does try to make himself like Dr. King. His oratorial style, the name of his autobiography ("The Dreams of my Father") and other appropriations of MLK speech ...
What has Obama done so far to compare himself to one of the greatest people who ever lived ? He might do great things in the future, but right now all I see is that he's been an effective public office holder, just like Clinton and Kerry and many others. In fact at this moment I would put Teddy Kennedy well ahead of Obama as an agent of change.
I don't think this will effect voters because for the most part this is based on media hype and a lot of statements taking out of context.
I think it is affecting voters though. I'm afraid those who listen to a narrow range of media outlets are not getting the full story and can easily be led to think that Hillary is making racist remarks. I hope I"m not right.
I'm beginning to think that the candidates should put transcripts of every single word they say on their web sites ! Then the media and the voters can see for themselves.
Make it so!
Thanks for the clarification. See, I should have read or heard that quote in its entirely because I was mostly going on the snippets of her NH speech. I didn't know she was comparing herself to a Lyndon Johnson in that way. Now after putting that in the proper context her statement does come off very patronizing and dismissive to those grassroots activists who influenced and pushed Lyndon Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act into law.
For the life of me I couldn't understand why so many people were upset with Hillary Clinton when I thought she was only suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had an important role in the Civil Rights Movement. But the way she said that I can see how AnotherAmerican and Bruce interpreted it as a very condescending, dismissive and racially-insensitive remark.
Again, thanks for the clarification.
Here s the quote in its entirety (available from another MMFA thread). Notice that Hillary did not say anything about herself or what she will do, she said that LBJ said HE would realize (i.e., sign into law) King's work.
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.
Now if I'm missing a subsequent section of the quote, someone please fill me in.MSM have been pushing this for almost a week, in one venue or another. I don't really see that its getting much traction with the population that I run into.
Another area that no Republican candidate need fear stumbling over. Nobody would dare ask any of them to clarify their position with regard to racism and civil rights.
Hillary was booed at an MLK rally today. The stupid people who booed her (what I read, a "smattering") have swallowed the twisted story hook line and sinker.
Let's be honest about this. Think to yourself, why would any Democrat say something about the Civil Rights movement that would have the effect of lessening Martin Luther King Jr.s contributions to this cause.
This was a purely political tactic on Hillary's part and it backfired. Even if the press had covered this completely correctly and in her full context, she is still making the subtle point that MLK was but one player in a series of players needed to get the job done. That's not the narrative that we hear, especially from Democrats and especially around the holiday that honors the man.
No, this is Hillary pure and simple making a calculated move to try to lessen Martin Luther King just a little bit because the simple fact of the matter is that she is running against an African American male who might just remind people a lot of Martin Luther King. Barrack Obama is the perfect Democratic candidate, he stands for everything the Democratic party has fought for for the past 50 years. Hillary knows it.
Ask yourself, would any Democrat have gone down the road Hillary went down if there wasn't a prominent African American threatening HER DREAM to be the next President of the United States?
I think not.
Very well stated, and I agree completely. The Clintons never do anything, or at least hardly ever, that is off the cuff or not thought through six ways to Sunday for their poltical fallout, and how the benefits outweigh the negatives. They knew this might get them a little bad press, but they also knew the upside was to know Obama down a subtle peg or two, and for that it was worth it.
As I said, they have ace-in-the-hole husband Bill to do damage control to offset the perceived negatives, and they banked on his popularity......but I agree, it backfired and thus the truce was called, NOW. No good was to really come for Hillary as a result of this and I think they figured that out quick when Obama didn't take the bait, good for him. He has outclassed her from day 1, and continues to do so.
Nonetheless, the truce is welcomed, in my opinion......but Hillary may have shot herself in the foot a little, this coupled with Johnson's hideous remarks about Obama......sometimes even the Clintons miss one.
I'm no fan of Obama but that remark by Bob Johnson was a tacky low-blow. I didn't expect this primary season to get this dirty, especially on the Democratic side.
Which remarks of Johnson's were so horrible ? And do you think that all blacks are horrified ? You say "AA community" ... I think you are talking about one portion of it which 1) hates Hillary and 2) communicates via message boards.
he’s lost respect and he should come forward with a real apology for both the Obama statement and for the mess that BET has become.
Why should he apologize ? Because he criticized Saint Obama ?? Give me a break ! Maybe he's representing the voice of the people who aren't totally bowled over by Obama's PR.
He made millions of dollars hawking degrading hoochfied music videos on BET
MTV and VH1 are no better. It's not a race thing, this is what TV has become. It would be racist to expect better of BET than the other channels. BET is a BUSINESS, it's not a church.
so I wouldn’t talk about anyone’s past shortcomings.
Maybe Johnson was just trying to bring Obama back to earth, to remove this ever-growing divine aura that guy has developed around himself and remind everyone that Obama is a human just like the rest of us.
They had better keep this thing from getting too down and dirty because if it they don't stop this now (The Clintons) and she does win the Dem nod 2008 with these kind of tactics whether they be from her or surrogates 2008 will be the first election that I will not participate in.
What exactly are the Clintons doing ? Would you like Hillary to remain completely silent for the rest of the primary season ? You didn't like it when she mentioned Al Qaeda, you didn't like that she got teary, you don't like that she talks about MLK, you criticize blacks who support her ... it's ridiculous.
I always think about the hell that people who were in the vein of Obama (community activists) went through both Black and White to guarantee my right to vote.
Tell me SPECIFICALLY what Obama has done for black people. You lump him in with the great civil rights activists, I want to know why.
if she or any Democratic candidate adopts the Rove style slash and burn politics I’m not voting for them because they don’t deserve my vote.
I can't believe you are attributing the mess to Hillary ! It was the media and all of the people who latched on to the media reports and didn't see the fully stories, didn't hear the full quotes, or flat out had an existing prejudice against her who are claiming that she has committed these egregious errors ! I think she's done NOTHING wrong. I think Obama's a fake. A fake ! He's not representative of the black community, I truly believe he appropriated it for his own personal political gain. I believe he did the same thing with Christianity.
As David Strota wrote: "Obama certainly talks a great game--but then, so have many false prophets over the years. "
I actually agree with that statement. Paul Krugman has been pretty critical of Obama and Obamania, too. Paul Street is another astute writer that makes a lot of great points about Obama. I would love to support Obama, but his domestic agenda isn't as progressive as Edwards' or even Clinton's.
You have a tendency to get a little testy about Hilary don’t you? I certainly don't pretend to speak for the entire AA community because nobody can do that, so I should have said all the AA's I've talked to about Bobby boy's remarks where outraged and some of those people were actually Hilary Clinton supporters like my aunt and a very close girlfriend of mine. I know you know the remark I’m speaking of and it's a low blow for anyone to bring up adolescent indiscretions from 25-30 years irregardless of who the candidate is. I will soon be 50 years old and I know few people that didn't at least try marihuana. I did and I hated it, but for someone to bring that up now to marginalize me or my judgment as it currently is would be very unfair. BTW, I in no way hate Hilary Clinton and was long an admire of hers. As the campaign neared I delved a little more closely into HC’s Senatorial record and I take exception with some of the votes and stances she has taken while Senator and that is the reason why I currently support Obama and the reason my daughter who is even more Liberal than I am is an Edward's supporter. That said I will certainly stick by my intent not to vote for anyone who adopts the dirty political style of the past 2 presidential campaigns whether they be Black, White, or Female. I’m going to hold them all to a very high standard, so please don’t fall into that you're either with us or you're with the terrorist type sentiment when it comes to HC. Just because I don't support her doesn't mean I hate her.
The other thing is this what has Obama done for Blacks thing is a peculiar question. This isn’t about what he’s done for me as a Black woman specifically or what he will do specially for me as a Black woman because I believe that sound and fair policies benefit all Americans in the long run and his policies are that. In general the traditional Democratic policies of inclusion are espoused by all of the Democratic presidential candidates and those policies have indeed benefited me and all of society as a whole in my opinion. Moreover this isn’t a race issue or an issue of gender. My support of Obama is based on my personal beliefs and has nothing to do with his race; but I do know this “Saint Obama” as you call him could have taken a six figured salary upon leaving Harvard instead he took a low five figured salary to work as a civil right’s attorney so he’s civil rights credentials are solid with me. He walked the walk when he could have cashed in. Your contempt of Obama is unfortunate but I don’t have the same contempt for Hilary Clinton. It’s unnecessary and counterproductive to indulge in that. I want a worthy Democratic president who has fought campaign where they didn’t eviscerate their opponent. I hated that kind of behavior when the Repubs didn’t and I won’t support from my own party
You have a tendency to get a little testy about Hilary don’t you?
I feel like a battered person because of all of the ridiculous unfounded attacks on her. If people want to criticize her policies, I have no problem with that. But all of these twisted quotes and absurd expectations, many of them classic double standards, are driving me crazy !
<i>I know you know the remark I’m speaking of and it's a low blow for anyone to bring up adolescent indiscretions from 25-30 years irregardless of who the candidate is.</i>
I really do believe I understand what Johnson was saying. You think it's a low blow. Maybe I don't because I too smoked pot and did other drugs and I think it's completely inconsequential, and I think most other people think that too because most other people have tried or used drugs without any great harm.
<i>I will certainly stick by my intent not to vote for anyone who adopts the dirty political style of the past 2 presidential campaigns whether they be Black, White, or Female. I’m going to hold them all to a very high standard, so please don’t fall into that you're either with us or you're with the terrorist type sentiment when it comes to HC. Just because I don't support her doesn't mean I hate her.</i>
But you are blaming her and writing her off for dirty politics when she's done absolutely nothing of the sort.
<i>The other thing is this what has Obama done for Blacks thing is a peculiar question. ... I believe that sound and fair policies benefit all Americans in the long run and his policies are that.</i>
Then why be selective ? Why group Obama with the great civil rights leaders ? What has he done that makes him worthy of belonging to that group ? I've seen nothing yet. Potential ? Perhaps. But nothing done yet.
<i>Moreover this isn’t a race issue or an issue of gender.</i>
It really is, and I've decided I'm not going to be afraid or hesitant to admit it.
But the difference between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary did not chose her gender, while Obama chose his race. He chose to be a black man and engage in the kinds of activities and make the kinds of associations that solidify his blackness. And everyone seems to oblige, everyone calls him "black" even though he is half white. (The same is true for Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, and others.) Why can't we call him white ? Just because of the color of his skin ?
<i> “Saint Obama” as you call him could have taken a six figured salary upon leaving Harvard instead he took a low five figured salary to work as a civil right’s attorney so he’s civil rights credentials are solid with me.</i>
The Obamas aren't exactly hurting with their $2 million home. And what exactly did Obama accomplish as a "civil rights" attorney ? Here's what a boston.com article says: "Like many lawyers, Obama never took part in a trial. He spent most of his nine-year career working as part of a team, drawing up contracts, briefs and other legal papers." I'm not saying that this is not worthy work, I'm just wondering why this work makes him so very very special.
<i>He walked the walk when he could have cashed in./i>
I read that he had political aspirations very early on, and the office of President is as big as you can go. Cashing in and going the corporate route would not have made for as good of a resume. I think this was all calculated, planned in advance. And it's all fine, but if I'm right it kind of takes away from the saintliness of his work, you know ?
<i>Your contempt of Obama is unfortunate but I don’t have the same contempt for Hilary Clinton.</i>
I think you do, but you are hiding it behind pseudo-logical arguments to provide a more palatable reason for not wanting to vote for her.
<i>I want a worthy Democratic president who has fought campaign where they didn’t eviscerate their opponent. I hated that kind of behavior when the Repubs didn’t and I won’t support from my own party</i>
So I'm assuming that you mean that Hillary has already attempted to eviscerate Obama. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you blame her for something she hasn't done.
You're nuts, Bruce ! She was trying to take the MLK-wannabe (Obama) down a notch (to reality), not take MLK down a notch.
I don’t see how Clinton tried to diminish the legacy of Dr. King “just a little” when she stated many times that he was beaten, gassed, jailed, and ultimately killed, because of his strategic role in the Civil Rights Movement. The Clintons are calculating, I don’t dismiss that at all, but they’re not THAT calculating to make statements weeks before SC (dubbed the “black primary”) where HC potentially could lose black voters. I think with the Clintons' strong support among black Democrats, it’s political suicide to lessen the role of King before a predominately-black primary. Moreover, you have to keep in mind months before Obama won the Iowa Caucus, they were both tied among their support with black voters in SC (sometimes with Clinton leading in polls among blacks). And I’m sure there are still doubts in many black voters (I’m one of them) that Barack Obama may not hold up well against the Republican attacks if he’s the nominee. There’s still some ambivalence and uncertainty regarding Obama's candidacy. I’m not certain he has it completely in the bag with black voters yet. We’ll see.
I guess one could argue that Obama is a manifestation of everything the Democratic Party fought for in the 60s and 70s, but we could also make the same case for Hillary Clinton as well. Both owe their success to the Civil Rights Movement and Feminist Movement. Gender politics has as much ties to the Democratic Party as black politics. In fact, one could make a good case that both groups—blacks and women—are the backbone to the Democratic Party. So I think it would be important to the Democratic base whether we elect a woman or a black man as POTUS.
Look, I'm not trying to defend Hillary Clinton and be one of her surrogates, because to be quite honest with you, politically speaking, she's just not a candidate that I could back and feel proud of after casting my vote. But I think this whole thing has been taken out of context and sensationalized to the extreme. It plays right into the hands of the Right with the whole "white liberals are the TRUE racists" narrative that folks such as Limbaugh, Gingrich, Coulter, Sowell, Thomas, etc., been pushing for years now. The Clintons have their vices, but this story is overblown to the point where it has muddled the entire context of her statements. Clinton herself said, "Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement. 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." I don't see how she's diminishing Dr. King's legacy when she's only saying that he had partners in the movement that helped pushed civil rights legislations into law.
And I agree with Hillary Clinton: it takes more than giving good speeches to claim the mantle of Dr. King. I don't care what Oprah and Obama sells to the public, King's actions spoke louder than his words. Obama just strikes me as a shrewd politician whose vague messages of "hope" and apprehensive platform can be construed where anyone can project whatever they want in him so they can feel good about themselves. With King you knew where he stood with issues, particularly about race and injustice. You don't get that with Obama. He's as much of a triangulator that he accuses Clinton to be.
I guess I'm skeptical of Obama because I honestly don't know exactly where he wants to take the country. I just give vague messages from him, but I want detail on how he is going to "bring the country together." It just seems he wants people to vote for him based on his personality rather than detail strategies on how he'll fight for the people. Even when I went to his website and read his outline, I still didn't get the answers I wanted. Perhaps I'm conflicted with him because so far he doesn't seem to be the strong progressive I'd like to see in the White House.
While pretending to explain all of that "fairy tail" stuff, Bill Clinton made a racially divisive statement that probably resounded in the ears of some people, as a call to protect "their own." He said that for African Americans, a vote for Barack Obama is "a source of enormous pride . . ." Signaling that an African American vote for Barack is a vote for racial pride. Inferentially, if African Americans are voting racially, white Americans should do the same . . .
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/248854