Playing the JFK and MLK, Jr. Cards

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:02:07 PM EST
Tags: New Hampshire 08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Barack Obama in New Hampshire:

In Lebanon, N.H., Obama criticized rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for chastising him in a weekend debate for raising "false hopes" about what he can deliver for the country. Obama said President Kennedy didn't look at the moon and decide getting there would be a false hope, and Martin Luther King didn't decide segregation couldn't end.

"If anything crystalized what this campaign is about, it was that right there," Obama said of Clinton's comment in the debate. "Some are thinking in terms of our constraints, and some are thinking about our limitless possibilities."

Hillary responded today -- making the point that it was a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, who made Dr, King's dream, the Civil Rights Act, a reality. here's the video, it's at 3:45 minutes in.

Obama also invoked Dr. King in Manchester today.

“When people ask me, ‘Why are you running?’ it’s not because of any long-lived ambitions. I’m not running because I feel it is owed to me. I’m running because of what Dr. King called the ‘fierce urgency of now.’ ”

Who does the media accuse of playing the card? Hillary. Go figure.

Update: Josh Marshall has the full quote ...More

"I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President 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 a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

Josh also puts it in context.

It's an ambiguous statement. But her reference is to different presidents -- Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it's not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ.

And, he takes the Politico, a media site, to task for distorting it.

My point was that Obama started it by comparing his hopes to those of MLK and JFK. He really hasn't earned that, in my opinion. And Hillary was responding to that.

< Men Yell "Iron My Shirt" at Hillary Campaign Stop | Is the Election Really Over? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Playing the JFK and MLK, Jr. Cards | 66 comments (66 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Invoking King (3.00 / 2) (#58)
by Tom Maguire on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:41:45 PM EST

I am puzzled by this:

...Who does the media accuse of playing the card? Hillary. Go figure"

"The fierce urgency of now" attributed to King has been a part of the Obama stump speech since early November (TIME, Rolling Stone).

I am not sure what double standard we are meant to note. I am pretty sure either candidate is free to invoke anyone they want, but if Hillary is daft enough to attempt to rally Democrats by suggesting that MLK and JFK were ineffective without LBJ, well, she should go for it and the press should cover it.

Hmm - is there enough time for her to tell New Hampshire that Tom Brady and Jonathon Papelbon might be using steroids?

Um (none / 0) (#1)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:07:52 PM EST

The dream didn't begin when LBJ signed legislation and LBJ wasn't responsible for making the dream a reality.

The moon is not made of hope. (none / 0) (#2)
by MarkL on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:12:52 PM EST

Try again, Barry.

How about Eleanor Roosevelt (none / 0) (#3)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:14:09 PM EST

She did more to get the Civil Rights movement started that any American President.

HA!

Is Obama overplaying it? (none / 0) (#4)
by MarkL on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:18:31 PM EST

He just doesn't have the record to be making statements like this.

: We'll see in November (none / 0) (#41)
by magster on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST

or February 5 if he blows it.

: So far he has prevailed in taking on the (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:46:47 AM EST

mantle of Abraham Linolcn when Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield.
P.S. Listening to am talk radio tonight, I heard a guy going on and on about HIllary using the words "spade work" today on national TV. Guy sd. she was playing the "race card" and Obama declined to respond. What next, I ask?

Neither Hypocrisy Nor An Insult (none / 0) (#5)
by Any D Over Any R on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST

First, I don't think Sen. Clinton said anything wrong today about MLK; it was just a quick throw away line trying to make the experience argument.

Second, however, I think the post has it wrong. The criticisms of the remarks I have been reading all day are not that Clinton "played the MLK" card, i.e., cited King or his words. Rather, it is that her comment was being interpreted as an insult of King.

There is plenty of actual cases of hypocrisy out there (on a variety of sides), but this isn't one of them. The best argument is the simplest-- what Sen. Clinton said simply wasn't and wasn't intended as any type of insult.

But it will be perceived as one (none / 0) (#6)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:24:14 PM EST

by a group that she was counting on. That's a problem that she doesn't need right now.


Her point is not untrue (none / 0) (#10)
by illissius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:40:01 PM EST

but she phrased it terribly. If she wanted to contrast JFK to LBJ, why bring MLK into it? Or if her point was that you need an LBJ to put a cap on the grassroots efforts of an MLK, just whose MLK is she planning to be the LBJ to?

And for the record, I do not think comparing your opponent to either MLK nor to JFK is a winning campaign strategy.


: Definitely phrased poorly if that was her intent. (none / 0) (#11)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:44:02 PM EST

I also don't see why she'd talk about MLK if she was drawing a comparison between JFK & LBJ. Personally I don't think she was at that point in the comment as she said it took a president to make the dream a reality. JFK was a president so that doesn't jibe.
I think she's saying that it takes a person in power not just a talker to implement real change.
However, as Obama is running for president that's a silly thing to say because she's basically saying he can implement his goals rather than just talk about them if you vote for him.

Thanks (none / 0) (#7)
by DA in LA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM EST

For reminding me of why I had stopped reading this sight a couple of weeks ago. Your absence was noted.

: who's absence? (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:34:45 PM EST

are you referring to?

: Stopped? (none / 0) (#61)
by mindfulmission on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:21:36 AM EST

If you stopped reading the site... how did you end up commenting on it?

I agree Jeralyn.. (none / 0) (#9)
by Joebasic on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:36:56 PM EST

The abundant double standard in the media is astonishing. This has been a sad day for "journalism"

josh over at tpm is right about this (none / 0) (#12)
by sammiemorris on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:53:59 PM EST

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063023.php

her comment had more to do about JFK and LBJ then MLK..

JFK hoped for civil rights legislation, while LBJ enacted it. Since both OBAMA and Clinton are vying for the presidency, and OBAMA compared himself to JFK, she was trying to compare herself to LBJ.

This had nothing to do with MLK hoped, LBJ acted.

: Hillary is making GREAT arguments (none / 0) (#14)
by MarkL on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:57:57 PM EST

but they're not getting across well.
I thought she completely dominated Edwards on the question of taking it personally in the last debate, for example.

: well, it had to do with both (none / 0) (#16)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST

but Josh says it well and I just updated the post to quote him.

its amazing how POLTICO (none / 0) (#13)
by sammiemorris on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM EST

misquoted Clinton and gutted her statement taking out a signifcant chunk to make it look like she was limiting MLK's role, and that LBJ had done everything. When I got over to DailyKos, all I saw was Hillary is a racist, it takes a WHITE VILLAGE, and disgusting comments like that.

Sad. Even though she is my first choice, I hope for her sanity that if loses by more than ten points tomorrow, she drops out even though she shouldn't because the media will just brand her as a sore loser, shrill, witch, etc...

sigh..

: I hope (none / 0) (#15)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST

she starts to laugh more. Just laugh. Hard to do but it will help.
At some point soon the viciousness will pop like the puss filled pimple of a daily kos poster's
chin. Or on Kristol's tush.
most Americans are not jerks.

: she won't drop out before (none / 0) (#17)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:06:54 PM EST

Super Duper Tuesday. Let's not have a coronation based on two states...or South Carolina. The rest of us should get to vote as well.

Whoever started it (none / 0) (#18)
by magster on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:20:13 PM EST

Hillary ended up on the wrong side of this. Somehow she is being seen as elevating LBJ over MLK before the predominantly African-American Democratic electorate in South Carolina votes next week.

It probably traces back to her "false hope" statement in the debate, which is in contrast to "I have a dream" speech of MLK.

Black people (none / 0) (#19)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:21:06 PM EST

arent stupid.


No. We're not. (none / 0) (#20)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST

We don't believe that change wouldn't have happened without LBJ.


Eleanor Roosevelt (none / 0) (#21)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:35:23 PM EST

would have done it so much sooner...but pssst...she was a woman...


Fortunately (none / 0) (#23)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:44:53 PM EST

it happened because of the movement (which started well before 1964) and not because of any politician. Unlike LBJ, Roosevelt was part of the movement so she gets props.


Right (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Natal on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:21:32 PM EST

Movements are the manifestation of the collective consciousness of the nation. And it alone will determinate who emerges as the nominee. Politicians are merely the instruments of the collective will. We always get the government we deserve. We are ultimately responsible. To think otherwise is to not accept our role in what is happening.


the civil rights movement (none / 0) (#42)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:36:31 PM EST

did not start as manifestation of the collective anything of the nation. If it did it wouldnt havent taken so gosh darned long to succeed.

Ain't that the truth. (none / 0) (#52)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:58:35 PM EST

The marchers (none / 0) (#53)
by Natal on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:13:43 PM EST

The civil rights marchers were the catalyst for the collective consciousness to coalesce and grow. It didn't happen instantaneously because I think the consciousness of the country was fragmented and not unified. It takes time and it's not complete yet. Still in process as the current campaign is illustrating.

: well that is a different (none / 0) (#55)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST

statement and makes more sense to me.
I have enjoyed reading your comments. Thank you.

thank you (none / 0) (#24)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:51:25 PM EST

for your nice comment. I agree.


No, but the media is dishonest (none / 0) (#38)
by magster on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:23:42 PM EST

and smart people get fooled. The media spin, as Jeralyn pointed out is Hillary = LBJ and Barack = MLK. And this message is out one week before South Carolina primary and 2 weeks before MLK's birthday.

Bad luck or bad politics or whatever, Hillary came out on the wrong end here.


: yeah (none / 0) (#46)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:45:00 PM EST

anybody can get fooled if she is misrepresented.
This really reminds me of the run up to the war - anybody who said anything the media mob didnt like got named called and threatened with execution.

Dr King (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST

Yes but she said MLK a black man didn't do enough, and a white president had to get it done. NOT A GOOD MESSAGE.

Besides she compared herself to LBJ and Barack to MLK.

In 2008 i'd vote for MLK any day of the week. I mean this is just a really really dumb remark.

LBJ and the screwed up a war, is HIllary Clinton saying she would do the same?

It was a funny remark, because she was making a case for Obama, he is MLK she is LBJ, like i said in the 60's odds would favor LBJ, not in 2008.

Ridiculous (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:56:02 PM EST

There is no question that Clinton was saying that she would be as effective in advancing important liberal movements just as LBJ did with the CIvil Rights Act in service to MLK. She clearly placed herself in a service role to MLK not a master role as you insinuate.

It is amazing how much the media hates Hillary. THe camerawork made her look as bad as possible. THat is poor.


: But so would Obama and Edwards (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST

so that statement doesn't distinguish her from her opponents at all. But what it does do is sound like she's saying that the civil rights movement needed a white guy to realize its dreams. Now I'm sure that's not what she meant but that's how it sounds.

: Well (none / 0) (#27)
by Jgarza on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:01:37 PM EST

if the world is conspiring against her now, I guess she can't win a general either, and if she did, once she got into office the world would be conspiring against everything she wants to do. If you believe all that has been said then she can't win a general,and shoe could never govern. Under your scenario if we vote for her it is suicide. Soo ohh well, still not a case for her candidacy.

: Your camera work complaint (none / 0) (#64)
by fabooj on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:34:42 AM EST

That's their mark. The big American flag is Clinton's set up. The camera people are on their mark because that's the way it's been staged. Don't blame Fox on this one. I just saw a live interview on MSNBC not to long ago where it's the same view. I saw an interview on CNN yesterday from the same angle.

You Suffer From (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:07:18 PM EST

An overactive imagination. Or are determined to spread false information to anyone who has not seen the video.

But what it does do is sound like she's saying that the civil rights movement needed a white guy to realize its dreams. Now I'm sure that's not what she meant but that's how it sounds.

You are FOS

What you say is offensive and your intentions are vile.

Thanks! (none / 0) (#30)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:13:08 PM EST

As a black man I'll note your comment and file it where it belongs.


it wasnt directed at you (none / 0) (#31)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:16:00 PM EST

if yoiu cant tell by the indentation, you need to hit "parent" and it will show what the response is to...

I learned that today.


It didn't appear to be directed to me (none / 0) (#32)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:19:21 PM EST

(on the screen) but it quoted my comment so I figured it was.


: my bad (none / 0) (#37)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:22:39 PM EST

sorry -

Sorry I Do Not (none / 0) (#34)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM EST

Value your opinion on the video no matter what color you think you are.


sorry (none / 0) (#36)
by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST

I thought you were quoting someone eles -


Duly noted (none / 0) (#40)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:26:19 PM EST

That's your privilege.


Just noticed this. (none / 0) (#44)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST

"what color you think you are."

What?


Better Said That (none / 0) (#49)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:55:08 PM EST

I don't care what color you are. Giving shrift to the notion that Clinton a racist based on that Video is bogus. Repeating that distortion even if you say you do not think it is true makes it seem like you have Obamafever.


Who said she was racist? (none / 0) (#51)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:57:22 PM EST

I don't think she's a racist.

Who repeated a distortion?

I said that's how her statement can be perceived.

It would seem beyond your power to decide for me how something can be perceived.


The Video (none / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:23:16 PM EST

Speaks for itself. I find it hard to believe that anyone who watched the video could ever come up with the idea that Clinton was saying the civil rights movement needed a white guy to realize its dreams. It is pure crated anti-Hilary spin meant to imply that she is racist.

But people could easily think that could be the case from reading an out of context quote that is spun in that direction. Repeating that nonsense appears to me to be low politics even with your disclaimer.

What an odd thing to say. (none / 0) (#56)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:26:40 PM EST

I didn't go on TV and say it as if it was true. I said it in the context of a post talking about her statements.

If you don't think this comment is already being perceived as a slight against MLK and the civil rights movement just take a look around the internets.


I Agree (none / 0) (#59)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:44:37 PM EST

That it is the spin that Obamaniacs are working. Her words can not taken that way from watching the video. It is a dishonest and low move.

You say that is what it sound like she's saying even though you disagree. I believe it has nothing to do with what it sounds like she is saying but only what the political spinmeisters turned it into. Not a small distinction. That spin now has a life of its own and is slimy.


I don't believe it's just (none / 0) (#62)
by JayR70 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM EST

Obamamaniacs. I've seen it at various African-American centered blogs that aren't a big part of this rabid primary thing that I'm seeing at other sites.

Politics is perception. You don't say anything remotely like what she said no matter how she said it.


: Yes (none / 0) (#65)
by squeaky on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM EST

The spin is what sticks, even if it bears little reference to the original source. Also I believe I overreacted a bit to your comment. I lumped you in with jgzara who can be a very annoying obamaniac.
After looking at your comments in general I realized that you are new here, and it there is no evidence that your mind is addled by any campaign fever. So sorry for overreacting and welcome.
It is true that there is a lot of posts by Jeralyn on immigration which you may find interesting.

Her words (none / 0) (#66)
by fabooj on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:41:20 AM EST

I saw the link at Jack and Jill Politics and gasped. I had to head over to Politico because I think the blog is usually dishonest and always full of crap, especially when it comes to Democrats. I needed to see the video or read the transcript myself. Well, Ben Smith managed to put the video up to the wrong clip, and I finally found the video. I watched it rewinding back and forth before I put up my own blog post on it.

If it did not sound like, "You need a white person to save you." I would have blogged that the whole thing was taken out of context. No matter how much I listen to her statement or read it...I'm getting the same message that the truncated version gives.


: OK (none / 0) (#67)
by squeaky on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:34:13 PM EST

It did not sound that way to me. Do you think that she was appealing to the right wing white supremacist vote? That is a nutty idea if you ask me. Why do you think she would say such a regressive thing?
I get it that you think she is a racist MF but to base it on the video is really a stretch. Do you have other evidence that she thinks Black people in general are inferior?

Curious. (none / 0) (#33)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:20:48 PM EST

Do you think Hillary can deliver where Edwards or Obama can't? If so, why?

Timeline (none / 0) (#39)
by Any D Over Any R on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST

The late '60s saw riots, and the escalation of the War and mass protests, and Johnson ultimately was completely overwhelmed, but the Civil Rights Act was passed BEFORE nearly all of this occurred.

Well... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM EST

Brown was 1954.

Till was murdered in 1955.

Bus Boycott was 1955 or so.

Little Rock was 1957.

Lunch counter sit-ins started soon after.

Then the freedom riders.

Meredith was 60 or 62.

63 was explosive and the images coming from the South were incredibly powerful. The march on Washington was that year as well. Evers was murdered that year too. 4 little girls were blown up in a church bombing.


Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:39:58 PM EST

for the information you have been providing here today, particularly on history. I really appreciate it.


You're quite welcome! (none / 0) (#47)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:49:04 PM EST

Thanks for your posts and the excellent forum!

I particularly like your posts on criminal issues. That's what brought me here in the first place. I was almost a criminal defense attorney but the PD's office had a hiring freeze and I became an immigration attorney instead.


immigration (none / 0) (#57)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:41:19 PM EST

that's probably my second most blogged about topic here. I hate mandatory removal (deportation for non-lawyers), the broadness of aggravated felonies and howt this country treats the undocumented.

Please stick around as I'll be moving back to these issues soon.


: The system is inhumane. (none / 0) (#63)
by JayR70 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST

It absolutely devastates families. IIRIRA and welfare "reform" are two major pieces of legislation that Bill Clinton signed that made me less than enthusiastic with his legacy once it was all said and done.
Lots of damage has been done and needs to be undone. I don't think welfare will become better but I hope immigration will.
I'll definitely stick around.

Agree (none / 0) (#48)
by Any D Over Any R on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:50:03 PM EST

with all of this. All true.

I was simply responding to the idea that Johnson pushed for passage of the Civil Rights Act "When the riots were every where, and everything was on fire along with the controversial Vietnam war, Johnson was totally overwhelmed."

The riots came later. The escaltion in Vietnam and almost the entirety of the anti-war movement came post-65, and Johnson was anything but overwhelmed in 1965. In '65 he was riding high, fresh off his landslide victory in late '64. He certainly ended up overwhelmed (the released tapes of his Oval Office phone conversations prove it beyond any doubt), but this wasn't until 1967.


: I see what you mean. (none / 0) (#50)
by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:55:31 PM EST