Clinton's King Comment 'Ill-Advised,' Obama Says

[Herman Munster]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011303624.html?hpid=topnews

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 13 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her recent remarks on civil rights Sunday, as Sen. Barack Obama weighed in on the controversy for the first time, describing Clinton's earlier comments about the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. as "unfortunate" and "ill-advised."

Obama had previously tried to sidestep direct engagement in the debate over race. But the recent controversy has touched a nerve with many African Americans, including some sympathetic to the Clintons, and Obama chose to address it Sunday.

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."

Asked whether he had taken offense to Clinton's remarks, the Illinois Democrat said he had not been the one to raise the subject.

"Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "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."

[jackson_dem]

1. The audacity of Barack Obama

"the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Obama campaign memo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/read-obama-campaign-memo-_n_81220.html
Obama's spokesperson: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_spokesperson_asks_is_there_something_bigger_behind_bill_and_hillarys_race_comments.php

[BeyondGeography]

2. Think she'd like to take it back?

I do.

[Supersedeas]

13. Take what back, there is no "it" there. In response to the Bush Admin, we have heard many

activists, both in and out of Congress, but as we have learned -- activism needs to be backed up by courage leadership to tackle real legislation. If you want some 'it', there IT is -- and I'm an Edwards supporter.

So, no.

[jgraz]

3. "What Senator Clinton said was...inappropriate"

He should have let Kerry make the statement for him...

[dkf]

4. He can't even back MLK up?

Sad indeedy.

[karynnj]

9. Kerry has too much class to do that

He handled it beautifully on This Week, saying that he would not comment on the back and forth of the campaigns. He then transitioned to the underlying question - who creates change. He used both the Civil rights and the environment as examples of where activists unhappy with the status quo pushed politicians for change - and got it. Those of us who listen to Kerry speeches have heard the same words before - in every graduation speech I've heard where he pushes students to be activists in the future. He then neatly transitioned to saying that in Obama, we have some one who can be both the activist and the President.

HRC's comment was not racist. It was at worse crediting government over non-governmental leaders. Had it been another issue and the pivotal MLK figure been white, she would likely have said the same thing. (transpose it to where a President joins the fight against global warming by signing legislation, which will happen - does credit go to the President or Gore? Obviously both - none of the current candidates were long term advocates of addressing global warming - Gore couldn't get the Clinton to invest "polital capital" in it. Without Gore making it an issue, as Kerry credited the 1970s environmentalists and MLK doing for their issues, it likely would still not be a voting issue and might not command the President's attention.)

[Rageneau]

5. Obama is falling down without anybody hitting him.

The Obama campaign memo makes it clear that his supporters are supposed to take every possible misconstrued statement from the Clinton campaign and do their best to label it as racist. Then call the press and feign insult.

His people are painting bruises on their own arms, then complaining that Hillary hit them.

[fightindonkey]

8. He's Imploding

[niceypoo]

12. This is manufactured outrage

[Karmadillo]

6. The trouble with running on hope and not substance is you're forced to resort to this sort of thing

when things don't go your way.

[fightindonkey]

7. And Here Obama Interjects And Pulls The Race Card

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. K&R!

[niceypoo]

11. I am curious why Obama has to say this

In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and got Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act. Mentioning this fact is somehow racist? I just dont get it. This is manufactured outrage.

[MethuenProgressive]

14. Obama's Swiftboating of Clinton on Race will sink him.

Obama should just come out and hire Rove openly.

[suston96]

15. Common sense........

Political activism has goals - most of the time they are for new legislation or sometimes to repeal flawed or bad legislation. But the activism is futile without action by the legislature or those in charge of government.

When the women of the times were campaigning for their right to vote their goal was an amendment to the US Constitution.....

The 19th amendment was specifically intended to extend suffrage to women. It was proposed on June 4, 1919 and ratified on August 18, 1920.

The amendment was the culmination of the work of many activists in favor of women's suffrage. One such group called the Silent Sentinels protested in front of the White House for 18 months starting in 1917 to raise awareness of the issue.

On January 9, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson announced his support of the amendment. The next day, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the amendment but the Senate refused to even debate it until October. When the Senate voted on the amendment in October, it failed by three votes.

In response, the National Woman's Party urged citizens to vote against anti-suffrage senators up for election in the fall of 1918. After the 1918 election, most members of Congress were pro-suffrage. On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a vote of 304 to 89, and 2 weeks later on June 4, the Senate finally followed, where the amendment passed by a vote of 56 to 25.<1>

It was ratified on August 18, 1920, upon its ratification by Tennessee, the thirty-sixth state to do so. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920.

On February 27, 1922, a challenge to the 19th Amendment was rebuffed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Leser v. Garnett

Their efforts would have been for naught were it not for the President and the Congress. These facts are NOT sexist, are they? Do they diminish the efforts of those brave and courageous women - those "Iron Jawed Angels"? (Download or rent the HBO movie).

Or go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution