by Teh Nutroots | More on the "racist" back and forth sniping between Clinton and Obama. Where will it all end? It seems pretty evident that the candidates and the whole country need a refresher course in what a racist comment really looks like.
On the King remarks, a controversy blew up after Clinton told Fox News: “Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon 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.” (The Politico)
Would Dr. King himself have disagreed with this? Is it necessary for Clinton and other Democrats to pretend that the realization of Dr. King's movement wasn't assisted by Kennedy, Johnson, and the members of Congress who voted for the essential legislation? How is his influence in any way diminished by Clinton's description of the process?
Obama has called Clinton's remark "ill-advised." (The Politico) Why? What's ill-advised about it? Does he mean he disagrees with her statement? If so, what, specifically, did she say that he thinks is wrong, untrue, "ill-advised," offensive? If he feels that the facts as relayed by Clinton need to be amended, he should say how. I'd like to know myself. Does the fact I can't see the problem make me a racist?
Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina has said, "“We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics. It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal." (The Moderate Voice)
But why? Why do Democrats who admire Dr. King have to be "very, very careful"? What, specifically, is has bothered Dr. Clyburn a great deal about Clinton's remark? How was she disrespectful? I don't understand. What is he bothered about, afraid of, offended by? I thought that we all agreed that JFK and Johnson had made a significant contribution to the civil rights of African-Americans?
Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, speaks for me.
At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.
Dr. King had led a “moral crusade,” Mr. Johnson said, but such crusades have to be “written into law.”
“That is the way the legislative process works in this nation and that takes political leadership,” he said. “That’s all Hillary was saying.”
He then added: “And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book – when they have been involved.” (New York Times)
Debasing the word "racist" to the extent that it gets applied to Hillary Clinton is not only absurd; it is also dangerous. To call someone a "racist" is a serious charge and the word shouldn't be bandied about except in circumstances where there are strong grounds for believing that it is true. In this instance, the "charge" has all the earmarks of a political tactic.
Shouldn't all of us Dems be focusing on questions of differences in policy? Shouldn't Rep. James Clyburn be concerning himself about which candidate's platform is most likely to be beneficial to his constituents rather than on questions of semantics? Shouldn't we stop worrying about Hillary's dialectical tactics and start looking into the changes she proposes to implement?
Shouldn't we stop asking which one of the two was most wrong about Iraq and start looking at the feasibility of their plans for picking up the pieces? Shouldn't we stop worrying about which one is more likable or prettier or better spoken and start thinking about which one is most likely to get the job done effectively? Shouldn't we stop analyzing every word the candidates say for offensive implications and get on with the business of analyzing their platforms? Sure, it's not as much fun, but wouldn't it be more productive?
This is so self-evident that it shouldn't need to be said, so why does it keep needing to be said?
RELATED POSTINGS
- Maureen Dowd's Vicious Attack on Hillary: Internalized Misogyny or Something Much More Basic?
- The Reports of Their Deaths Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
- Hillary & The Politics of Change versus The Politics of Gender; Update: Bill Clinton Strikes Back
- MSNBC on the Media: Gunning for Hillary, Worshiping Obama
- Andrew Sullivan: The "Really Ground-Breaking" Aspect of Obama's Campaign....
- That Certain Unhinged "Segment of American Political Life"
- About Obama: A Lesson in Bipartisanship?
You keep putting quotes around the word "racist" without actually quoting anyone who said she's a racist. I don't think she's racist either- I think she's just saying that the will of the people doesn't matter because we ultimately need the state to solve all of our problems for us. Frankly that's what most of the candidates are saying. But I'm guessing that's what upset people who still believe that popular movements actually change things.
Posted by: rufus | January 14, 2008 at 05:34 PM