Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Obama campaign has misunderstood a comment by Senator Clinton about MLK's role in the civil rights movement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Obama Needs a History Lesson about Hillary and King

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media. Posted January 14, 2008.


The Obama campaign has misunderstood a comment by Senator Clinton about MLK's role in the civil rights movement.
Advertisement

The Obama camp did it again. They manufactured yet another issue out of a non issue when they pounded Hillary Clinton for supposedly defiling Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by minimizing his role in the civil rights struggle. Here's Hillary's terrible sin per the Obama campaign crowd: She said that Dr. King's dream was realized when President Lyndon Johnson shoved the 1964 Civil Rights Bill through Congress. This was anything but a put down of King.

Hillary paid tribute to King for laying the groundwork for the civil rights bill and gave justifiable credit to Johnson for ramming the bill through a bickering, divided and very recalcitrant Congress. Her point was that presidents that have their public policy priorities screwed on right can make changes, monumental changes, for good.

If Hillary could be faulted for anything it's that she didn't go far enough. If Johnson hadn't forcefully intervened and jawboned, prodded, arm twisted, and embarrassed the slew of wavering and hostile Congressmen to the bill into supporting the bill, or at least tempering their opposition to it, King's dream would have remained just that, an empty dream. King recognized that.

In a Playboy interview in 1965, he said this about Johnson: "He has demonstrated his wisdom and commitment in coming to grips with the problem (racial discrimination). My impression is that he will remain a strong president for civil rights." History amply proved that, and Johnson despite his Vietnam War tumble from historical grace, still is regarded as the president that did more for civil rights than any other president.

But I'd go even further still. King gets much deserved praise and is much honored for igniting the national fervor for civil rights and galvanizing thousands to put their bodies on the line in the civil rights battles. Yet, there's an ugly side and often forgotten note to that. The street marches and demonstrations also stirred the first tremors of white backlash.

The George Wallace surge in the North, the open hostility of many Northern whites to housing and school integration, and the Republican reawakening in the South was a direct outcropping of the civil rights push. This stiffened the spines of Southern Democrats and conservative Northern Republicans who dug their heels in and flatly opposed the bill, piled amendment after crippling amendment onto the bill initially, and employed every legal and parliamentary dodge and stall tactic they could dredge up to delay a vote on it, if not to kill it outright.

King could do nothing about this. JFK who introduced the bill couldn't do anything about it either. He was at his wits end after months and months of Congressional ducking and dodging on the bill about how to get it moving. By the time Johnson took office, following JFK's murder, the bill was still born in Congress. There was every chance that it could be shelved.

However, Johnson would have none of that. He was a Southerner and he knew the mood and temper of the South. From his decades in the Senate he knew where the political skeletons were buried and how to rattle them. He did what King and Kennedy didn't have a prayer of doing, he got the sympathetic ear of enough Southerners to take some of the steam out of their vehement opposition to the bill. The rest of course is history. The Civil Rights Bill, not King's marches and demonstrations, broke the back of legal segregation in America and became the watchword for progressive, visionary social legislation for decades to come.

King and all the top civil rights leaders knew that history had been made with the passage of the bill, and that the man that played the towering role in making that history was LBJ. At the signing ceremony for the bill, King and the other civil rights leaders beamed when Johnson handed them the pens after the signing. They effusively praised him for his tireless effort.

Hillary's statement was a simple, honest, and respectful nod to Johnson for his indispensable part in making civil rights a legal fact and reality in America. This was the same nod that King and the civil rights leaders made more than four decades ago to him.

This is a nod that the Hillary haters have forgotten or deliberately distorted in their clinical obsession to smash mouth every Hillary utterance. This is a history lesson that Hillary got right about King and Johnson, and one that the Obama campaign flunked badly.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: king, election08, barack obama, hillary clinton, mlk, martin luther king jr.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
wrensis
Posted by: wrensis on Jan 14, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank You, now if you could just get the MSM to report that

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, no and no
Posted by: g50 on Jan 14, 2008 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are such a hack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No, no and no Posted by: aethr
» RE: No, no and no Posted by: g50
Obama's history lesson
Posted by: minjiwe on Jan 14, 2008 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was happy to read the piece on LBJ's contribution to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As powerful as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was as an individual and the civil rights movement, as a movement, Dr. King and the movement could not legislate anything. So, we need to give credit where credit is due.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LBJ?
Posted by: sg on Jan 14, 2008 2:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You got to be kidding me. People: if American history has taught us anything it's that politicians should never, ever, be given credit for signing legislation that a movement made possible. And this is why brother Earl and Hillary are dead wrong. Progressive legislation only gets signed when elites are forced to give something up AFTER a movement has raised the social costs to such a degree that it becomes in the elites best interests to get on board. And that point is waaaaaaaaaay more important than what any one individual did. Period.

Enough with this Hillary ass-kissin'! The Clinton campaign was the one who brought this up and it has even enraged many Hillary supporters. Why? Because either she is intentionally trying to play the race-card, as it were, or she's just plain stupid!!!!! Obama's point wasn't to compare himself to King but to make the undeniable point that MOVEMENTS create change; not electing the right leader. Anyone who doesn't understand that is missing a HUGE point. Hillary must have understood that intellectually, otherwise she would not have changed her rhetoric after Iowa. Pre-Iowa it was all about HER and HER miserable record. After Obama won Iowa, she cried and started talking about "we" and "us," just like Obama was doing i.e. movements create change; not politicians!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LBJ? Posted by: Deep
» RE: LBJ? Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: LBJ? Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
Justification for your support
Posted by: hay12 on Jan 14, 2008 7:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think some blacks are torn. When the Clinton's were trying to bring about more fairness and equality (and they were doing that before Bill was President and Hillary was a Senator) they were applauded and cheered by most. Now that there is a black candidate there is selective and convenient amnesia. So the whole LBJ rhetoric is just what some were waiting for...A reason (any reason) to demean Senator Clinton. Now there is justification for supporting the black candidate, Senator Obama.

Democrats should not fragment their party around race. Stick to the issues -- health care, Iraq, the economy, a stalled Congress.

Dr. King's righteous movement was the catalyst for change...However, President Johnson kept the pressure on Congress and ultimately was able to sign the Civll Right's Bill. And, in America legislation brings about legal change.

Thank you Earl...You nailed it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Justification for your support Posted by: newtype_alpha
MLK Not Relevant In Today Elections
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 15, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a minority can become Governor of Louisiana and he is not black but of Indian heritage and he didn't mentioned MLK. I don't remember Richardson mentioning MLK either.

People want to hear solutions to todays problems. The only way something will get done is to elect someone younger than Obama for President. Huckabee and Paul carry the message of youth but they don't have the youthful carisma to take the fight to the next level.

The Louisiana governor would be a better president than all these people running currently for the position. But right now everyone is focused on controversy between Clinton and Obama. Big deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough already Earl, we know where you stand.
Posted by: Axiom69 on Jan 15, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All I needed to see was a title that included Hillary and Obama and I knew the slant your article would take. You have made it quite clear that you are a Hillary supporter. My only question is are you getting paid to try and pass off campaign ad's as journalism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Be Objective
Posted by: YeshuaAD on Jan 15, 2008 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know what Sen. Obama did to deserve the kind of vitriol he is receiving from some segments of the African American community. For Earl Ofari Hutchinson and Bob Johnson to be somehow blaming Obama for this firestorm is insane. Obama's only comment on the issue was that Sen. Clinton needed to clarify her remarks. He never once accused her of being racist, dismissive of Dr. King or anything else.

If black politicians and others choose to support Ms. Clinton, that is their right. But for black people to be accusing Mr. Obama of injecting race into the campaign is ludicrous. Rep. James Clyburn and Donna Brazile were the ones who were offended. If Mr. Hutchinson wants to attack anyone, he should pick on them.

It's one thing to support one candidate over another, but to have one's head so far up one candidates' rear that all reason and objectivity cease to exist is pathetic, especially for someone as intelligent as Mr. Hutchinson.

By the way, Robert Johnson was expelled from Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity in the late 1960's at the University of Illinois for hazing. At least we know what Mr. Johnson was doing while the Clintons were out making the world safe for Black people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More crap from Hutchinson
Posted by: progdem on Jan 16, 2008 2:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LBJ did what he did out of political calculation. That the political calculation worked out the way it did was because of the movement that King built out of a bunch of poor beaten up people. That Johnson was effective at whipping congressmen into voting for the Civil Rights Act doesn't make him all that admirable. He used those same political skills to send a disproportionately black army to southeast asia to die for no good reason.

The idea that somehow our admiration for MLK should be tempered because a bunch of white racists reacted violently is pathetic. We should admire him more because he surely knew this would happen, and anyone fool enough to beleive you could break Jim Crow and not get White Southerners angry doesn't deserve the sacrifice MLK made for them.

And since we are doing a history lesson, what did the Civil Rights Act do by way of addressing substantive racial inequality? How many minds did it change in the struggle against racism? And what did change minds? Could it be the work of Dr. King? What had a chance to address substantive inequality? Was it the anti-poverty anti-Vietnam fight King was waging before he got shot? And LBJ was where for this? Oh yeah, taking money and political capital away from his Great Society so that he could kill him some vietnamese.

We should thank Hillary for providing us a nice little litmus test for democrats. If you prefer LBJ to MLK you deserve to have your ass kicked to the curb. Not becuase you are a racist (The Clinton's are a lot of repugnant disgusting things, but racists they are not), but because you fundamentally do not understand what is necessary to fix the country's problems and because you are fundamentally morally confused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More crap from Hutchinson Posted by: left_libertarian
Earl: Prove To Me Hillary Is Not Racist
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 16, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm waiting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

issue out of a non-issue!
Posted by: rnagisetty on Jan 18, 2008 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of sophistry here. Facts are

1. Without MLK and other fighters, there would not be any civil rights for blacks or for that matter any minority.
2. Without LBJ, it would not have happened in 1964.

But real question is: what is Hillary saying and why is she saying it? Did someone say that LBJ should not get any credit or did someone say that MLK could have delivered civil rights legislation without the support of white folks? So Hillary has put up a straw man and is insinuating that someone in the Obama camp has said something to that effect.

I think Olaf is a pseudo-intellectual and light weight. Let us move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whose Friend Are They?
Posted by: desidid on Jan 18, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is safe to say that Bob Johnson, Earl, Bill, Hillary, Obama, Bush and a host of other political figures are all friends of upwardly mobile middle-class Blacks. I don't know that any of them are friends of low income people of any color. When Bob Johnson had a huge forum in BET, he did little to address the problems or solutions that faced Black people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton:Pro Iraq War Pro Drug War
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 18, 2008 3:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is Hillary Rodham Clinton in December 2003: “Now that we’re [in Iraq], we have no choice. We own this issue. There is no doubt that we’re going to be there for years,” and “Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option.”

The war on drugs' war on minorities

Democratic presidential candidates crave the Latino and black vote, but ignore the Drug War's unfair toll on people of color.

By Arianna Huffington

March 24, 2007

THERE IS A subject being forgotten in the 2008 Democratic race for the White House.

While all the major candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed "war on drugs" — a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.

Consider this: According to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, African Americans make up an estimated 15% of drug users, but they account for 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted and 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: The U.S. has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70%) of them are black or Latino.

Such facts have been bandied about for years. But our politicians have consistently failed to take action on what has become yet another third rail of American politics, a subject to be avoided at all costs by elected officials who fear being incinerated on contact for being soft on crime.

Perhaps you hoped this would change during a spirited Democratic presidential primary? Unfortunately, a quick search of the top Democratic hopefuls' websites reveals that not one of them — not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not John Edwards, not Joe Biden, not Chris Dodd, not Bill Richardson — even mentions the drug war, let alone offers any solutions.

The silence coming from Clinton and Obama is particularly deafening.

Obama has written eloquently about his own struggle with drugs but has not addressed the tragic effect the war on drugs is having on African American communities.

As for Clinton, she flew into Selma, Ala., to reinforce her image as the wife of the black community's most beloved politician and has made much of her plan to attract female voters, but she has ignored the suffering of poor, black women right in her own backyard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well damn earl.
Posted by: Joe on Jan 20, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let ron paul have said the same thing and you'd be telling a different tale.

"Excuse me sir...excuse me.. I don't know if you know it but your bias is showing"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moyers agrees with EOH
Posted by: sliver on Jan 21, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't really care for this discussion, but Bill Moyers agrees with Earl Ofari Hutchinson, and Moyers was there at the time.

See http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch4.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's get real Earl
Posted by: Whistler on Jan 23, 2008 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay Earl. Let's get real. It is no coincidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed as that evil government was plucking the black community dry of its able-bodied young men to be a part of the murder machine in Viet Nam. Riots in the cities were the order of the day. The natives were restless and it was the PEOPLE that gave Johnson and congress the choice: Civil Rights Bill or anarchy and chaos in the streets and mutiny on the Viet Nam battlefield.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]