Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps the only assessment of yours that I agree with, is that it's simple.
Senator Clinton's foolish statement of comparison viz-a-viz Dr. King and President Johnson may not fall under the commoner's definition of racist--and perhaps it shouldn't--but it illustrates a keen lack of awareness and appreciation of historical signifance of the very people she claims to enjoy kinship.
To millions of Americans, Dr. King's decades of a tireless (and self-less) pursuit of claims to American liberty and democracy can never be rationally juxtaposed to the signing of a bill, any more than a biological father can show up at a hospital and be credited for the birth mother's delivery of a child.
Clinton's remarks were typical political puffery, and she had no idea that she was offending millions of people who shared in and sacrificed in the name of Dr. King's and his efforts. But when you insult or offend someone, you own up to it; apologize; and move on. She hasn't quite owned up to it, nor has she apologized, but hopefully she and Senator Obama have moved on.
She's no racist, but she's a person with questionable political character who isn't worthy of very much trust.
She NEVER compared MLK to Johnson in their life works. Johnson would sign nothing without MLK's self-less and tireless hard work as you say for all Black and White alike...to bring togetherness. Hillary said MLK dream was realized by the signing of civil right's act. It's important for the average uneducated to know that this dream was indeed made into a civil rights act by Johnson, a simple historical statement Hillary made. I am not for either candidate but I know right and wrong when I see it after many decades on earth.
If you think Hillary's comment (one) was designed to sound like Dr. King's work took a back seat to Johnson, you need to re-read a few more times, plus go to school and learn fact from fiction.
Gosh, I go back to school every day of the school year...and teach quite a bit about fact and fiction in my high school English courses.
Go to youtube and listen to: Sen. Hillary Clinton: LBJ vs MLK
She is saying "false hope"...MLK was offering false hope just like Obama is, that's how I take her comments.
Then she says that it took a president to make his dream a reality.
That president wouldn't have had a dream to make a reality if it hadn't been for those men and women who were "down in the trenches." Was civil rights LBJ's passion, or as another poster wrote, he went with public sentiment?
Yes, it took a president to sign the civil rights act...but again I say that it was Dr. King who got it up to that point.
Back to my original point: if Hillary Clinton was trying to honor the work of Dr. King because the anniversary of his date of birth is approaching, then she needed to keep it at that.
If she was trying to honor MLK's memory then she should have just left it at that...praised his hard work/commitment/vision.
I think she was trying to point out that many people think Obama is a good orator that brings people together with passion, just like Martin Luther King, Jr...but then went on to say that it took a president to turn his hard work into legislation, like she will be the president (the one with the ability to get things done) to Obama's MLK. Anyone else think that was the subtle message?
You have read very much into a simple fact statement she made approaching MKL's birthday. For her 'not' to mention that MLK's hard work and dream was realized by a civil rights act (that was needed to change America!) would have been absurd to say the least. The dream is always realized by legislation to be successful!
Gosh, I go back to school every day of the school year...and teach quite a bit about fact and fiction in my high school English courses.
Go to youtube and listen to: Sen. Hillary Clinton: LBJ vs MLK
She is saying "false hope"...MLK was offering false hope just like Obama is, that's how I take her comments.
Then she says that it took a president to make his dream a reality.
That president wouldn't have had a dream to make a reality if it hadn't been for those men and women who were "down in the trenches." Was civil rights LBJ's passion, or as another poster wrote, he went with public sentiment?
Yes, it took a president to sign the civil rights act...but again I say that it was Dr. King who got it up to that point.
Back to my original point: if Hillary Clinton was trying to honor the work of Dr. King because the anniversary of his date of birth is approaching, then she needed to keep it at that.
Ok a HS English teacher, great. How could a teacher teach American History without starting with MLK's great dream and works that was eventually realized by a President, Johnson, signing of what changed America, the civil rights act. The two go very much together!
Of course they go together, but she wasn't speaking about the civil rights act, she was talking about MLK. If her true intentions were to praise MLK she would have spent 95% of the time speaking about his work adding brief statement saying something like, "His hard work and dedication led to the civil rights act which was signed into law by Johnson."
To me, I think we have gone back and forth on this enough. We have differing perceptions of what her message meant. I have voiced my belief that she was trying to make a point that MLK was inspiring, but that it takes a president (not just a good speaker) to make actual change, and that Obama is an awful lot like MLK (he can give you pretty words of "false hope" but won't be the one to get things done in Washington like she can) and I still feel that is why she is running a negative, desperate campaign.
Historical records are facts, especially MLK's documented great works and his big dream to change America, and also the legislation that had to be signed by a President to sign all this into action, which is the civil rights act (out of King's works).
There is no fiction in the record on this subject, and Hillary's statement does not say anything but the facts. I'm unbiased, I'm not for Hillary as a nominee.
Of course they go together, but she wasn't speaking about the civil rights act, she was talking about MLK. If her true intentions were to praise MLK she would have spent 95% of the time speaking about his work adding brief statement saying something like, "His hard work and dedication led to the civil rights act which was signed into law by Johnson."
To me, I think we have gone back and forth on this enough. We have differing perceptions of what her message meant. I have voiced my belief that she was trying to make a point that MLK was inspiring, but that it takes a president (not just a good speaker) to make actual change, and that Obama is an awful lot like MLK (he can give you pretty words of "false hope" but won't be the one to get things done in Washington like she can) and I still feel that is why she is running a negative, desperate campaign.
So, how long did she speak on MLK and how long on Johnson? That counts too. But what she actually said counts. I don't see her inferring that Obama is like MLK in any way, shape or form, because MLK was in a time of history ripe for equalization and further freedoms for Blacks and he accomplished that was thought impossible at the time. Obama is a newer Senator that has done some good things, he is young and I personally thinks he needs more maturity and experience in life so he can make his own sound decisions without relying on his cabinet to make decisions for him.
It comes down to all voters will have to decide for themselves what her intentions were. I for one think they were negative, and I believe they will backfire.
It comes down to all voters will have to decide for themselves what her intentions were. I for one think they were negative, and I believe they will backfire.
You think her intentions were negative? She MEANT to disparage MLK? For what possible benefit do you imagine THAT would have had? Especially in a primary!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
