Saturday, January 12, 2008

A bitch has nothing to add to this...Brilliant!!

This bitch yields the floor to dnA of Jack and Jill politics, who breaks down then drops the mic on the Clinton's 'LBJ made the dream of the Civil Rights movement a reality' argument.

I have nothing to add to this.



Anonymous said...

Let it go, Bitch.

Clinton did not dimish MLK, he simply pointed out what being president is about--not what MLK was NOT about.

Obama & Hillary are, in fact, running for the role LBJ held. Not the one MLK held... Right or wrong??


...Returning to being the most suspicious, anti-white white man on Earth now. (After this issue has made me question whether I myself am racist. That cannot be a good thing.)

Anonymous said...

Isn't it strange what truths the Obama candidacy brings from within. Bill and Hill are showing the same old inbread rascism that we are used to seeing from the old jim crow era. No doubt that the more she and Bill try to 'explain' themselves the rascist underpinning will rear its' ugly head again and again. Assholes, I say!

Red Seven said...

I think Hillary's word choices were extremely unfortunate -- but I can't believe she was actually minimizing the work of MLK and claiming that LBJ did all the work.

I don't know ... debates are really valuable, but they're unscripted and spontaneous -- and yet, once words are spoken, they're transcribed and scrutinized beyond measure. And I'm sure if she could go back and choose a different way to express herself, she would.

Whether Clinton or Obama (or, if he manages to pull off a miracle, Edwards) is the nominee, I will stand on my head to get him/her elected over a Republican. And I don't want to start hating on the Democrats now, when there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Clinton has been, is, and will be an ally to people of color in America ...

Shark-Fu said...

I just don't know anymore. This on top of Bob Kerrey's middle name obsession and Muslim baiting on top of Shaheen's he must be a drug dealer campaign makes me question whether Senator Clinton has been an ally and wonder if she has been pandering to a powerful voting base all along.

So here we are...people of color, progressives, anti-war advocates, LGBT people...being asked to swallow hard and support the lesser of two evils.

How uninspiring can this get?

Shark-Fu said...

Let it go?

I think not.

This is about my vote and I take that shit serious as hell.

And this mess has done nothing to soothe the pain of years of Democratic candidates assuming the black vote and manipulating Civil Rights history to suit their purpose.

Personally, I think letting it go is how we got here in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this battle of the insulting quotes is uninspiring as all hell.

However, I want my daughter to grow to maturity in a mature nation, one in which we can all debate policy options, candidates and even versions of the past, with the argument being made trumping the race of the speaker.

And from that position, I say: Hillary said that she'd be more like LBJ than MLK, and that's a fact. Not an act of racism. She didn't say that LBJ was better or more powerful than MLK, but that he was the President when the rubber met the road, and that too is a fact.

She implied that Obama provides hope but not a plan, which is an act of campaigning, not racism. It's not strictly true, but she lies on Edwards all the time and it's not because he's white.

The fact is that all three campaigns have more policy papers than you can shake a stick at, and functionally they would all get about the same results IF delivered.

So the issue of this campaign is, Who is most likely to deliver on the plan as stated?

It's not a manipulation of Sixties history to say, The civil rights movement reached some legal goals because history graced this flawed country with an East Texas schoolteacher with enormous political capital and a developed sense of lack of entitlement to set his own agenda.

Do we want another LBJ, in the sense of a master collaborationist who is riding on the coat-tails of someone else's vision and sees the job entirely in terms of what can be pushed through Congress? Or do we prefer an inspirational short-time lawmaker whose life story and delivery bring to mind the unfinished business of the CRM? That is the shit that affects MY vote.

Anonymous said...

I chose not to caucus for Clinton because she is the Democratic candidate least likely to support the goals of the peace movement. She can't recognize a war of aggression. She voted several times to fund the occupation, and she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Right now she's a target of the peace movement, not a strong ally.

Red Seven said...

I think I'm having a hard time with this because, after months of liking all the candidates equally and being okay with voting for whichever Democrat got the nom -- around November, I finally just decided that Hillary was my pick above all others, with Obama as a close second.

And now I have this knee-jerk tendency to defend her because a) a lot of stupid shit gets thrown her way, and b) I don't like to admit that I'm wrong.

I've been thinking about this all night, and you're right -- she might have been TRYING to communicate many of the ideas in this comment thread, but what she actually said was "MLK talked about it; LBJ got it done." And that was a terrible, awful, dumb thing to say.

All the same, taking the measure of her entire career up to that moment, I'm going to need to see more than one poorly worded argument before I label her a racist.

And ... does she have latent racist tendencies? Of COURSE she does; she was raised white in America. Do Barack Obama and John Edwards carry some latest sexism? Of COURSE they do; they were raised men in America. Do all three of them believe, in some corner of their minds, that they're just a little bit better than gay people? Of COURSE they do; they're heterosexuals in America. And yet, the real question for me is, how will they govern? I personally think all three would be friends to people of color, women, and GLBT people -- especially when you compare them to the folks on the other side ...

Blue said...


There was never any way I was going to vote for Hillary (or Obama for that matter) and neither has demonstrated any leadership thus far and I don't see that changing but I don't like to see people attributing motives or unfairly characterizing people's statements.

The way I interpreted Hillary's statements (which doesn't mean I'm right either but I think an entirely consistent interpretation) is that JFK and MLK could indeed give a speech but it wasn't there speeches that moved things forward - they both had specific goals (moon, civil rights) behind their words and actions that moved their goals forward. LBJ not so much of an orator but he still was able to accomplish goals.

I think she's saying she may be an LBJ rather than a Kennedy or a King but Obama isn't any of them ... all he has is a speech (all talk no action).

I don't believe either Clinton are racist and I don't think her comments were either - they just weren't very artful.

Jonzee said...

Along the line but different. Are resident black billionaire Mr. Bob Johnson has something to say.

Can I tell you that I immensely dislike Bob Johnson. Even more so, after meeting and conversing with his elitist, head in the cloud, wife.

Anonymous said...

In any movement there are the dreamers, the true believers, the doubters, and the policy wonks; Change requires all four. We currently HAVE an idealist in office - he simply has (in my opinion but not millions of my brothers' and sisters' or he would never have been reelected) the wrong ideals.

Look - we are all products of our society (Red7eric expressed it nicely).... but if the issue of Change and What Is Right was simply solved through passion and belief, Nelson Mandela would not have spent decades in a South African jail cell. It took the (old white) men in power feeling the pressure and the will of the people for a long, long time for change to occur. Did MLK's unsurpassed eloquence light fire within the nation? Yes. But LBJ, the (old white) man in power, effected formal change. Bare fact of history... LBJ signed the legislation. He was the president at the time. MLK was not.

Was that right or wrong? Why does it have to be one or the other? Isn't the dream we all share for both the people and the party to move in the same direction? Equality isn't a competition. Otherwise we fall into the same trap - "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Hillary is at her core an intellectual (STOP IT! I am not suggesting Obama isn't...) and regretably assumes an intelligence in her reader/listener that is dangerous in this soundbite deconstruction age. I challenge each of us to read and ponder what each candidate says (not just what splinter of fact the Media feeds us) before coming to sound conclusion. Divisiveness is a tool of the enemy, and if we are to work together toward change, we must avoid the trap.

AOB said...

I remember when Rosa parks was arrested.

I remember the bus boycott.

I remember the civil rights workers that were killed.

I remember when a white person was called a n***** lover for being friends with an african american.

I remember the high school I went to where the school district threw 2000 children of all races and religions together in an experimental high school and then tried to segregate them in the school by racial class.

I remember that an Illinios Republican Senator Everett Dirksen prevented the filibuster by the SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS who did not want to see civil rights legislation passed.

I remember that LBJ was forced by the situation itself to pass civil rights legislation.

I know that civil rights would be a moot point had it not been for Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King and all of the people that died making it a reality.

The Gumdrop Stage of Grief ...

So many of you have shared condolences and support after the death of my beloved brother Bill from COVID-19. I wish I could thank you indiv...