home

LBJ, MLK And The Civil Rights Acts

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Via Left Coaster, Joe Califano's terrific piece discusses the historic partnership between LBJ and MLK. It is a great history lesson:
The greatest fairy tale of the 2008 campaign so far is the accusation that there is some tint of racism or putdown of Martin Luther King Jr. in Hillary Clinton's comment that "it took a president," Lyndon Johnson, to realize the civil rights leader's dreams. The visionary preacher and the tough-talking master politician would be the first to say that they needed each other. I know how they came to work together, in a complex partnership, to produce a social revolution that has saved this nation. . . . LBJ appreciated King's powers of persuasion and ability to attract media attention. He decided to "shove my stack of chips into the pot" to push for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in education, employment and public accommodations. To break a filibuster, Johnson had California Democrat Clair Engle, who was dying of a brain tumor, wheeled onto the Senate floor. Engle couldn't speak, so LBJ had him signal his aye vote by pointing to his eye.

More...

Oh by the way, Barack Obama and his legion of fans may want to remember that their new favorite pol Ronald Reagan OPPOSED the Civil Rights Acts:
"Ronald Reagan, it is fair to say, was really an anathema to the entire civil rights community and the civil rights agenda,” [said] Ronald W. Walters, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland . . .
< Hillary Still Compelling: Highest Rated MTP In Years | In Nevada, Obama Loves 527s, Hated Them In Iowa >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    LBJ, MLK And The Civil Rights Acts | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thanks I am (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    an old school Democrat and an even older type Hippie....I got out and demonstrated for the civil rights act and against the Vietnam war and How dare Obama take all that and cheer for the other side.....I don't get it....Almost like when one of your kids grows up and then takes you for granted thinking that they got there all by themselves....

    I really don't think he's for the other side (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Obama said he got into community organizing in Chicago in 1983 to "pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds."

    In his comments on Reagan now, he was looking at how Reagan accomplished change, not admiring what he did. But it was foolish for him to use an example that was going to be so misunderstood. It's not the first time he's talked theoretically about something where you could just see the distinctions he was making were going to be glossed over and misconstrued. Sometimes I think he's not cut out to be a pol at all - too cerebral.

    Clearly he was thinking out loud here about the how Reagan accomplished what he did, and pandering to the independents who still think of Reagan in terms of a culture hero, the Great Leader Who Brought Down the Soviet Menace, the one who returned optimism and self-respect to a country sick with division and self-loathing over Vietnam.

    But the whole thing has sparked a great reaction that I think has been very good for progressive thinking and how to move it forward. Even if Obama himself doesn't manage to pick up a clue on it.

    Parent

    It would be great if (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:57:27 PM EST
    he actually campaigned like Reagan.

    He does not.

    I have only written that 8 million tmes.

    Parent

    I don't believe he ever will (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:08:00 PM EST
    But I do think he'll progress in terms of advancing progressive ideas with more confidence if he wins.

    My read is that he's basically non-ideological himself - he believes that practical solutions can be negotiated on a purely pragmatic basis, and that ideology can be left outside the process. I think that will not always be so. I think he'll hit a wall where he realizes ideological choices must be made, and he'll make them, the right way. But that time isn't here yet. He's apparently hoping to enlist the non-ideological masses in ensuring that practical progress happens, by opening government decision making to public scrutiny through the internet - public commenting on legislation before signing, video of negotiation with lobbyists over legislation, etc etc.

    Parent

    He won't have a mandate to (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Did GWB? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:52:29 PM EST
    A mandate is whatever you can spin it as.

    If he wins more than a paper thin majority he'll have a mandate...for "change."

    Parent

    9/11 gave Bush his mandate (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:53:40 PM EST
    Am I the only person who knows anything here?

    Oh BTW, the GOP does not roll over like the Dems do.

    Parent

    Are you the only person who knows anything here? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:10:50 PM EST
    Apparently so. It must get very lonely.

    Parent
    Not lonely (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:10:24 AM EST
    Frustrating.

    Parent
    I agree with most of what you have to say.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by ConcordiaDem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:19:26 AM EST
    But you are just factually wrong on this assumption... Now while the politics of fear, which stemmed from 9/11, is how bush got his "mandate" it is not directly the cause of his "mandate"... the lack of a big third party performance gave bush over 50% of the popular vote, aka the majority of the nation...aka bush's "mandate"...at least thats what the press and his administration claim it stemmed from... I think in such a close election no person can claim a  mandate... but thats just me...

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:09:54 AM EST
    Bush did not get over 50% of the vote in 2000. What are you talking about?

    The 3rd Party candidate, Nader, was part of the reason bush won.


    Parent

    Big tent... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ConcordiaDem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    He did in 2004, and that is the premise he claimed his "mandate" on...

    Yet again I agree with most of what you've said but keep your facts straight.

    Parent

    the masses could be & would be (none / 0) (#50)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:09:41 PM EST
    ideological about

    ... their miserly paychecks to support the thieving at the top,

    BUT

    their 'advocates', their 'champions', their 'leaders' are too busy wining and dining with the bosses and whining to the masses

    so you get no compelling message and you get OVER 40% of the eligible voters voting 'to hell with all of you' every election, and you get 10s of millions voting fascist instead of self interest,

    under this lie about there being no passion and no ideology out there,

    and RayGun's lies win.

    rmm.  

    Parent

    At what point (none / 0) (#52)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST
    is it people's responsibility to educate themselves about what's really happening so they don't keep foolishly giving away their own interests? When it comes right down to it, people get the government they deserve.

    Parent
    I can't dispute that point, my 8th (none / 0) (#55)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:55:04 PM EST
    Presidential is coming up on 4 Nov.

    I see 28+ years of dismal failure from Dems

    -- I see the thugs doing what they should do, cuz, they're thugs, and thugs lie, cheat and steal. (See The Prince or Richard III if you need more complex statements of my simplicity)

    and I see that failure as a result of doing everything wrong that they were hired to do.

    Should more people vote than watch the Stupor Bowl every year? YUP.

    Are we getting what we deserve? YUP.

    Do I see Obama as a REAL agent of change? F$$K NO.

    rmm.

    Parent

    He definitely is dissing you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:35:44 PM EST


    Parent
    who is dissing whom? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:42:35 PM EST
    is somebody pointing to me?

    Parent
    Not me (none / 0) (#15)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    I love ya Judith......:)

    Parent
    okie dokie (none / 0) (#17)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:45:22 PM EST
    thanks!

    Parent
    The 60's began 48 years ago (none / 0) (#16)
    by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    that is 50 years... half of a century.

    We have to move on from this argument.  The idealism and hopes of the 60's were destroyed by the realities of inflation and energy embargoes and monetary disequilibriums.  And fights that we lost because the momentum was altered.

    That isn't to say that the vision wasn't the best... it just means that we have to find another path to reach those visions.  

    Or we can keep going around in circles casting blame.

    We have to find another way.

    Parent

    Say what? (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    Move away from this argument? How pray tell? did the GOP concede the arguments?

    The only way to do that is to CAPITULATE.

    What in blazes are you talking about?


    Parent

    The 60's argument Armando... (none / 0) (#40)
    by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    The world has altered in 50 years and the paradigms have shifted and technology has usurped and blown out methodologies.  

    We have to restructure the path to our platform.

    I am NOT a capitulator.

    Parent

    Oh really? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    so there is no racism, sexism, assaults on civil liberties, government abuses, etc anymore?

    We live in Nirvana now?

    What are you talking about?

    Parent

    Heck (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    if thingds are so much better, what do we need Obama for anyway? The transformational change has already happened right?

    Parent
    oooh snap! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:57:14 PM EST
    well done!

    Parent
    We Need Obama (none / 0) (#45)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:57:21 PM EST
    Because he will bring us together.  Or, at least he'll bring Republicans and Independents together, he doesn't mention Democrats in these ads.  

    Parent
    We need Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:57:47 PM EST
    to end the bickering in Washington. It's noisy and giving us a headache. But other than that, everything is just dandy, now that we've moved away from the battles of the 60's.

    Parent
    End washington bickering? (none / 0) (#68)
    by ConcordiaDem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:38:51 AM EST
    your joking right... we can't stop the bickering on a liberal blog... where we all share similar values and ideals... washington isn't as friendly and audience... good luck Barack... wishful thinking...

    Parent
    And which candidate... other than Edwards... (none / 0) (#47)
    by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    and not even him... have adequately addressed the FISA issue or the assault on our civil liberties, or the unitary executive overreach.

    None of them suit my fancy.

    But, to be fair to Obama, he did address the issue of government corruption in that video and he has enacted that bill that gives us more transparency and accountability in government.

    Parent

    You mean like Osama bin Laden's son (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:37:57 AM EST
    wanting to work for peace?

    Parent
    Mr. everything (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by koshembos on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    Of additional interest is the fact that Obama implicitly claims that he carries hope which he equates with a dream, as in "I have a dream," but he is also running for Johnson's job. In other words he is Martin Luther King and he is also Johnson. Then he is Reagan and also JFK.

    He is superman or a world class megalomaniac. If you don't agree, you're a racist!

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:58:54 PM EST
    Now the funny thing is if he is all that, he is surely going to win right?

    And if he does not? It means we are all racists I think.

    Pretty clever.

    Parent

    It's not clever (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:04:16 PM EST
    at all but it's incredibly cynical.  What kind of mandate do you get when you run on air?  


    Parent
    Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:33:52 PM EST
    That article is amazing.  Forget the ridiculous semantic debate over MLK or LBJ or whatever.  What's amazing is the toughness of both men and their allies and their determination to get things done.  

    I cannot imagine the Democrats of today fighting like Johnson and his Congressional allies did back then.  Can you imagine them fighting like that for any piece of legislation, let alone one that would cost them as much politically as that one did?

    They don't even force the Republicans to filibuster now, much less roll in dying Senators to vote to break one.

    And, of course, the bravery of Dr. King and his followers to put constant pressure on the government and society, no matter the personal cost, to do the right thing.

    What a different world we would live in if we had leaders - political, religious and civic - who were that tough and brave today.  

    facts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    that do not support my opinion will be ignored.

    Thank you.

    Why are you ignoring the facts?? (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    why is Obama trying to turn our great party into something none of us recognize?? Seems to me like he is hell bent on turning us all into non liberals....bigggggggggg mistake...but glad he is making this mistake BEFORE he gets this nomination....

    r u (none / 0) (#3)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:20:27 PM EST
    talking to me?

    Parent
    He is snarking (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:22:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Or she is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:23:22 PM EST
    I am not sure.

    Parent
    I was making a joke (none / 0) (#14)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    in my first post - I couldnt tell if the second post was to me hence my question.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    Judith (none / 0) (#18)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM EST
    is a gir;'s name.  Nice.

    Parent
    never mind BT (none / 0) (#20)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:53:38 PM EST
    you meant you didnt know the other poster's identity.  

    sorry.

    Parent

    Like, Duh!!! (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM EST
    I've said from the beginning that Hillary was right.

    what is snarking and it is she :) and no I am not (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:26:00 PM EST
    Judith....

    joking (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    in a facetious manner.

    Tongue in cheek.

    Parent

    No doubt about it (none / 0) (#11)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:36:50 PM EST
    Talk about total arrogance....Wow!!!

    "Public sentiment is everything" (none / 0) (#12)
    by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:39:15 PM EST
    Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.

                        --Abraham Lincoln

    The long term credit rating of the United States is on the verge of being downgraded.

    We have overspent and face retrenchments. This means struggles over what to cut and whom to stick with the bills.

    As Atrios says... we have "solvency problems."

    Obama's interview... if you will review the video again and take a long view on this... you will catch the glimmers of structural change that Obama wants to implement.  He uses his oratorical skills to construct the political pathway to do so.

    This is sheer nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    Barack Obama's political style has absolutely NOTHING in common with Ronald Reagan.

    Ronald Reagan was a FIGHTER  for HIS BELIEFS. He fought for them for 25 years before he became President.

    He ran on them and AGAINST Dmeocrats.

    He was perhaps the most divisive, ideological, paranoid candidate of the 20th Century.

    Frankly, it is stupefying to read some of this from people who sould know better.

    Now Kid Oakland says Obama's "methodology" is of the Netroots. It is entirely the antithesis of the Netroots and Howard Dean.

    Frankly, if it was not so pitiful, it would be hilarious. Up is down because  you love Obama the person?

    Look, I am for Obama but this complete revision of history, politics, Reagan, the Netroots is the most ridiculopus thing I have ever seen.

    You know why I am for Obama? Because he is the BEST CONVENTIONAL choice to win. He is theMedia darling and he agrees with me on the issues. His positions are almost identical to mine. In case you have not noticed, I am not nearly as left as most of you. Heck, I am a Centrist. On trade policy alone, the  Left wing should have been howling. Obama has sold you out already. He agrees with ME on trade.

    He agrees with me on most everything.

    He does not agree with you!

    So why do I not love him? Because he is not uising the proper poltical style to effect the transformational change he COULD achieve!

    He is NOT running a transformational campaign. He is NOT adopting Ronald Reagan's political style. There will be no realigning election in 2008. And the reason is Obama refuses to run the campaign that could achieve it.

    It bothers me no end.  

    Parent

    It's as if k/o were describing (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:32:00 PM EST
    a different person. It often feels that way with Obama.

    Parent
    Often? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    Try 'always'.

    His supporters really have been hoodwinked into thinking that Obama is just cleverly trying to get stupid Republicans to vote for him, whom he will then slough off without a second thought after he is elected, and tack hard to the left as a fighter for progressive values.

    Based on what? That he was against the Iraq War, which he wasn't in a position to vote on anyway, and which he has funded ever since?

    I almost want to see him elected just so I can do an 'I-told-you-so' to all his supporters after he prolongs the Iraq war and compromises and capitulates to the GOP day after day.

    Parent

    Hey... did I say anything about not liking trade? (none / 0) (#33)
    by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    Nope.  I'm a free (and fair) trader.

    Don't like tariffs, don't like walls.

    Though I do NOT agree with one of Obama's economic advisers, Jeffrey Liebman, on privatizing social security (he co-authored a paper on the "feasibility of privatizing social security" with a Reagan economist, Martin Feldstein.)

    Problem is... the research was flawed and grotesquely wrong.

    Feldstein's research was fatally flawed. Two staff economists at the Social Security Administration asked Feldstein for his supporting data. After three years of repeated requests, he sent the data to them. When they tried to use Feldstein's numbers to replicate his results, however, they could not. They uncovered an error in the computer program Feldstein had used, and when they corrected the error, the results were exactly the opposite of Feldstein's. That is to say, the social security system actually encouraged savings and, according to Feldstein's cherished "free market" theory, facilitated capital formation and economic growth.

    Now, I'm a Gore supporter. Looking at Obama now because... well, time is not on my guy's side. So, I am just now familiarizing myself with Obama's policies and advisers and such.

    Obama is the only Democratic candidate who has the only PhD economist as an adviser, Austan Goolsbee.

    As long as Obama agrees with letting the tax cuts expire and universal healthcare... I'm a happy camper. Well... include green energy and alternatives and the carbon cap and trade.

    And he's already noted that he is an advocate for education/investing in human capital.


    Parent

    Austin Goolsbee (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:37:32 PM EST
    is a privatizer of Social Security proponent.

    Parent
    Austan Goolsbee (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    is a Chicago-school Friedman-loving neoliberal...no progressive. Nowhere near. He is not a plus for Obama with progressives.

    Parent
    Wonder if the Obama supporters will have (none / 0) (#69)
    by bronte17 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:00:18 AM EST
    answers to the questions raised about this.

    Krugman has already ripped Obama over the stimulus issue.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:20:11 PM EST
    Goolsbee's been forcibly distanced from the Obama campaign lately, or so I've read. No reasons why given. Maybe they've been monitoring the negative online reaction to him from progressives.

    Parent
    Perhaps you should write a kid oakland-esque (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:28:53 AM EST
    testimontial to Barack Obama specifying on which issues you agree w/Obama.

    Parent
    Why yes, of course he is. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM EST
    How could I have missed that obvious connection between praising Reagan and constructing a new political pathway for progressives.  What a crock!

    More likely he's an empty vessel going for whatever might work for his audience of the moment.  This is long term damaging to the democratic party and liberal values, but I don't think that's Obama's concern.


    Parent

    geezzzzzzzzz (none / 0) (#21)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST
    I dont know about other Liberals but I would bet you big money if they hear this, they will be upset too....You dont take years of demonstrating etc and throw them away and the reason we are in the mess we are in now is not that liberal attitude it is the republicans and their mess...they should have thought about this before they declared an illegal war and doubled the deficit....by the way, Reagan tripled it....

    question (none / 0) (#27)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    Just read this on another site and wonder who knows the answer to it......

    ....Do some of the well known super delegates watch such interviews and read about these before they endorse? Is there some kind of a grapevine among party bigwigs that sees all this and do they react? How do they react? Whose responsibility is it to adhere to party principles and values? All this looks like a terrible joke being played on concerned party loyalists who believe in its core values.

    whatever (none / 0) (#31)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:16:01 PM EST
    the heck he is, he is definately not a democrat, but come to think of it, Reagan started out as a democrat too....HMMMMMMMM

    He's in the (none / 0) (#35)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    AmericaForObama Party.

    Parent
    Just read this on another site..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    Obama is like a rock star without any hits....
    :D Hope the media wake up and realize their darling star stands for nothing....

    Fot Big T: (none / 0) (#41)
    by koshembos on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    So Obama is a centrist same as you are, so what is all the talk about him being progressive? Can you be a progressive centrist? I thought that a center does move while progress has a direction.

    I'll go back to Mars where I belong.

    The talk that he's a (none / 0) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:04:29 PM EST
    progressive is just that, talk, coming from his supporters on the netroots, particularly DailyKos.

    If you actually listen to what Obama is saying, he is a centrist. That's what reaching across the aisle and courting Republicans with his warm and fuzzy Reagan talk is all about. He's never deviated from that message.

    His supporters job in the netroots is to convince us progressives that Obama really is a progressive because they say so, and he either doesn't really mean what he says or does, or that he's just misunderstood, misquoted, or quoted out of context.

    Parent

    Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#49)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    even Mr Krugman, says that Obama's ecomonic policies are a disaster....I see no saving grace for Mr Obama...

    The guy's whole "change" theme (none / 0) (#51)
    by jen on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:19:14 PM EST
    is a sham. If people would realize that, the rest of his rhetoric falls into place and make perfect sense.

    Consider:  We know Obama was considering a YEA vote for Roberts but was talked out of it in 2005 by his chief of staff Pete Rouse who reminded him it could cripple a future presidential run. (which shows caving for personal political ambitions but we won't go there)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html?nav=hcmodule

    Note the irony here though--

    Keeping within the famous Obama themes of "CHANGE" "Out with the Old DC Status Quo, and In with the NEW" - He hires as his number one guy, the insider's insider, Pete Rouse to be his chief of staff....  Rouse is known for his three decades as a Washington DC insider, beginning in 1971 when he worked as an aide to Senator Tom Daschle, later with Dick Durbin, etc. Hardly someone you'd glom onto to craft a spanking new image of freshness and departure from the "Same Old Same Old" style of beltway politics. Yet Obama selects him out of a slew of other younger less experienced offerees (per the article)  And puts him in the Decider's seat, the driver's seat --of his career.

    With that in mind, lookie here how Obama applauds the senior old time codger who's helping him form some of the most important career decisions of his life.

    ------------

    "Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview.

    KEY PHRASES HERE -----> "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."  "His familiarity with Washington makes him somebody whose judgment I trust," Obama said.

    -----------

    So,' been around long enough' had real value in Obama's book when picking his leader -- And longtime familiarity with Washington DC equates with 'judgment you can trust'.  Sounds like Obama wants experience running his world instead of all that change/hope stuff that's supposed to be good enough for the rest of us.  The guy reminds me of those really smooth talking salesmen that place you momentarily into a semi - trance, next thing you know you've bought a car you don't like.

    h/t ms in la

    Except (none / 0) (#73)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:03:54 AM EST
    there is no 'lemon law' for elected officials.

    Parent
    The point of this post (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM EST
    baffles me.  NO one criticized her for saying LBJ and MLK worked together.  Her offensive comment was MLK had a dream but it took a president to get it done.  the comment isn't taken out of context.  She actually diminished MLK.  Later on she back tracked, to the above argument.

    Also Obama never said he liked Reagan's policies, he said he liked that he fundamentally changed the direction of our country to the right and he wants to do the same to the left.

    So argue against what people actually say, not what you want to argue against.

    You are not telling the truth (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:05:37 AM EST
    Please do not do it again.

    I wil delete untruths.

    Parent

    If you are (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:13:19 AM EST
    going to accuse me of writing untruths, I think you at least owe me the decency of disproving it. per TPM

    "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 people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

    Where in this full quote does she talk about MLK and LBJ working together, she said the hope of JFK failed and the dream of MLK failed until LBJ got it done. IMO that diminishes King, now I don't think she meant to say that.  I think her words game out wrong, but that is what her words say.

    If the second part is false please furnish a quote, where Obama says he admires Reagans policies.  

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:07:41 AM EST
    You falses stated Hillary diminished MLK and that is plainly false. PLAINLY false.

    As for Obama praising Reagan's policies, I accept that he does not admire Reagan's policies. But I certainly can find a segment where he professes admiration for Reagan's philosophy. I will not do that because I do no think it reflects Obama's views. But it is there.

    My bringing up Reagan's opposition to the civl rights acts is related to the unbelievale way peopler decided that giving credit to LBJ was some sin but that giving credit to Reagan was somehow the smartest thing ever.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    we disagree on her statement, but if it is plainly false, why not just put up the full quote and let it stand rather than someones interpretation?

    Parent
    I would also add (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:18:33 AM EST
    that your quote is someones description of what she said, if that description is accurate, why wouldn't they just post her words.

    If that is truly what she said, why does someone have to tell my that is what she said, shouldn't the quote, with the actual words she said, make it clear?

    Parent

    but dude (none / 0) (#83)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST
    the quote you put up there does not show her dimininshing MLK in any way. You are misunderstanding if you think what you quoted does that.

    Parent
    There is disagreement on (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    that subject and we can have a debate on that.  Several people, including Donna Brazil, who are not affiliated with either campaign, agree that the way she phrased it diminishes King, and like i said I'm happy to debate that. What is ridiculous is to write things based on others interpretation rather then the actual words she used.  

    IMO that way she framed it diminishes King, I'm sure she didn't mean to, but she does.

    SO what is your interpretation of what she said?

     

    Parent

    It is clear - (none / 0) (#85)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    MLK had a dream and a moral power.  That moral power persuaded a President, who had the legal power, to get the law passed enacting a civil rights bill.

     

    Parent

    See, I know my history (none / 0) (#86)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    MLK got thrown into jail a number of times for doing nothing illegal so he clearly had no legal power.  Why the hell do you think we needed a civil rights bill in the first place?  And why would he need to go to Washington and give the "I have a dream" speech if all he had to do was go pass a bill all by himself? He was speaking to the heart of the Nation and that speach is so beautiful yoiu just know a politician didnt give it.  But to enact the civil rights bill it took somebody who had the power and the courage to do it - and that was LBJ (for wahtever reason you want to give.

    Cleary her point is that there is room for both -the visionary and peprhaps moral authority and then the person who the paperwork.

    Parent

    This isn't (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    an argument about history it is an argument about someones words.

    Parent
    bull (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    it is ALL ABOUT HISTORY!!!!!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    I'm not saying you are wrong,in fact i agree with you, but i don't see how you get that from what she said.

    Parent
    chuckle (none / 0) (#91)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    I am getting what you agree with from her words.
    You just want to find something negative in a positive statement.

    Parent
    Well see (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    you talk about the things MLK did to get public support for Civil rights legislation, I fail to see that in her quote.  She simply states the "dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

    well that president was forced to do it by Civil rights activists, and they also layed the ground work, for it to get done.  So I think the quote is problematic.  I'm sure that she agrees with yours and my take, and she has said she does since, but that isn't what she said that day.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    the law made it real.

    Parent
    does she (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    mention MLK's contribution to getting the law that made it real?

    Parent
    oh please (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:46:17 PM EST
    enough already. You just want to try to make the comment negative any way that you can.  This is now formaly a waste of time.

    Bye.

    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#99)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    I am going to give you the bennie of the doubt and answer this.  

    The reason she didnt spell it out is is because she thought YOU ALREADY KNEW. She assumed it was a GIVEN.

    Her point was about how laws get enacted in real life.  

    No effort to diminish MLK. None.
     

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:16:30 PM EST
    Most obviously, if she is elected as president, she would continue to fight for the kind of things that MLK stood for.

    To call HRC a racist MFer is absurd. MLK was an important influence in her early life.

    Parent

    AND BILL MOYERS (none / 0) (#102)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    said the exact thing I did on this on his show Friday night.  

    Only somebody who has no cluse about history or who has a deliberate agenda for Obama and anti-HRC could have read this or heard this any other way.  I will debate with you any further as you either do not kknow your history or choose to ignore it when it suits you.

    Parent

    clearly you are late to the story (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:04:59 AM EST
    Clinton was asked SPECIFCALLY about Obama;s remarks regarding MLK and LBJ.

    She could not very well inject Ralph Nader into the question.

    Now what say you?

    LBJ (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:04:12 AM EST
    was the pertinent person on the political side to MLK.

    Saying she should have talked about Ralph Nader, which was your point, was not possible.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#64)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:06:38 AM EST
    Barack Obama has not been comparing himself to or quoting Ralph Nader in his speeches.  Also, the woman who asked the question she was responding to, I believe, asked about MLK.  In other stops in NH, she didn't mention MLK and instead compared JFK (who spoke about passing the civil rights act) to LBJ (who wasn't as great a speaker, but actually got the bill passed).

    It was Majort Garrett of Fox News (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:12:07 AM EST
    who asked about specifc Obama remarks regarding LBJ and MLK.

    She could not make up her own scenario.


    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:03:00 AM EST
    The question was about Obama's MLK statement.

    But you were WRONG when you said Hillary injected MLK.

    Which is the main point here.

    Parent

    Obama's response (none / 0) (#81)
    by popsnorkle on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:40:56 AM EST
    could have been that this is why, after being a community organizer, he got into politics and is running for president.

    Obama is still talking about HRC's (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    statements re MLK and LBJ:

    SF CHRON INT OF OBAMA

    my take (none / 0) (#90)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    "I think it was illustrative of how she thinks change happens," he said. "She was arguing that Lyndon Johnson, his skill set was what was critical to getting the Civil Rights Act done - as opposed to a movement on the streets. And that indicates a difference in emphasis on how change occurs. But I don't think the comments were racial."

    To get laws passed you need people whose job it is to get laws passed.  THAT is what she is saying.  Not skill set, ROLE.  That SOMEBODY has to do the legal persuading and the paperowrk.  Obama wants to call himself a visionary. Fine.  be a visionary. We need somebody who does the actual legal work.

    outrage equality (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    Oh by the way, Barack Obama and his legion of fans may want to remember that their new favorite pol Ronald Reagan OPPOSED the Civil Rights Acts:

    Hillary praised Barry Goldwater last year

    I expect to see a post with 60 comments of condemnation... ohh wait i forgot, she can do no wrong.

    LBJ, MLK And The Civil Rights Acts | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment