Could Race Destroy the Democrats?

[Midnight Mike]

The mess began - as these things almost always do - in a normal tit for tat between the candidates. After Obama was poised to surge past Clinton after Iowa, Clinton charged that Obama was raising "false hopes" with his soaring rhetoric that emphasized ends over means. Obama skewered Clinton right back in New Hampshire, asking where the nation would be if both JFK - in making a manned mission to the moon a goal - or Martin Luther King Jr. - in his 1963 Lincoln Memorial speech - had instead shut down their visions and told America they were simply too hard to achieve. Delivered with humor and always to soaring applause, Obama's was a devastating rejoinder.



But then Clinton came back and, far less artfully, said that King's visions were great, but it took an experienced politician like Lyndon Johnson to get them enacted. At the very least, Clinton had equated the sometimes crass master of the legislative backroom with one of America's patron saints. (The real problem is that Clinton seemed to put LBJ on a pedestal higher than King's.) That was probably not her intention, but neither was this her best example in the deeds - not - words crusade she was on. In any case, at that point, things began to unravel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080114/u ... edemocrats (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080114/us_time/couldracedestroythedemocrats)

[Tom_Turner]

It was foolish of HRC to site the LBJ example to make her point.

First of all, she is wrong on the merits here. Sure LBJ had to pass the legislation after King was martyred (and should've anyway of course), but the "I have a dream" speech cannot be overestimated. There is no speech comparable to it in contemporary America.

Secondly, she is risking the health of the Democratic Party for at least a generation. Public Schools, immigration, crime - are not typically issues where "black" america is in lockstep with the precincts of the Left. But Democrats get the benefit of the votes anyway. Turn off their black constituents now, and there will be a very steep price to pay come future elections. Look for HRC to recruit Obama as VP if she makes the cut as top candidate.

Tom

[Midnight Mike]

It was foolish of HRC to site the LBJ example to make her point.

First of all, she is wrong on the merits here. Sure LBJ had to pass the legislation after King was martyred (and should've anyway of course), but the "I have a dream" speech cannot be overestimated. There is no speech comparable to it in contemporary America.

Secondly, she is risking the health of the Democratic Party for at least a generation. Public Schools, immigration, crime - are not typically issues where "black" america is in lockstep with the precincts of the Left. But Democrats get the benefit of the votes anyway. Turn off their black constituents now, and there will be a very steep price to pay come future elections. Look for HRC to recruit Obama as VP if she makes the cut as top candidate.

Tom

Personally, I believe Clinton was spot on. Though she did not articulate it clearly enough. It was not enough for Martin Luthor King to have a dream & lead protests, there are protests all the time & not all of them lead to change.

Perhaps, it would have came out a little better, if she would have said that change started with MLK & then spurred change in Congress & the Whitehouse. Through the experience of LBJ & the ideas of MLK, brought about the civil rights act.

Wow, it is not everyday that I defend a Clinton.

[adam613]

I think for Clinton to saying was at best, incredibly stupid, even if she was probably right.

People (well, people who aren't overtly racist) are not talking about Obama's race as something that affects his ability to be president. Obama is on a roll because liberals (and moderates) like the way he thinks. Clinton is having issues because the Clinton name only goes so far; when liberals look at her, they don't see her husband, and she was banking on that.

The issue is, MLK is a deity in large swaths of the Democratic core constituency, and rightfully so. And liberals don't want to hear about backroom deals; we had enough of that with Bush. The media wants to play this up as internal Democratic strife, but it's going to end up being a unifying moment if Obama plays it right.

[Tom_Turner]

JFK supplied "leadership" when he spoke of putting a man on the moon.

LBJ did more or less what he had to do as a custodian of the office when he presided over the civil rights legislation.

If she had touched more on the example of LBJ's "Great Society" in general, Medicare/Medicaid and the "War on Poverty" and contrasted that record in office, to the callow Obama making campaign speeches, she would've made more sense. I suppose she might've referenced Roosevelt or Lincoln if it was okay to go back that far in time.

There are indeed "protests" routinely and many of them are unsuccessful or trivial to the average person regardless of the outcome. The significance of MLK speech transcend this, and the Civil Rights Movement most other causes. It's a social upheaval, and for her to attempt to subordinate it in this case to the prevailing politicians was foolish in my view.

MLK had only just begun to speak out on the War shortly before he was assassinated; LBJ, on the other hand, went in another direction.

Shall she attribute that as well to LBJ's "experience"?

Later, well known lefty peaceniks Nixon & Kissinger helped end the Vietnam War. Now why do we suppose they did that? Its not leadership or change in the context that Obama is speaking about it. For better or worse, the country did not want to send its sons to bleed in Asia. But by Hillary's statements, if one wanted to end the Vietnam War, you just elect Nixon. (yeah, he did have a "secret plan" after all - probably didn't involve helicopters scrambling in a panic to crash off the side of the last carrier leaving the theatre, but whatever...).

Its seems most politicians will do either what is nakedly expedient (The Clintons certainly come to mind here) or unavoidable difficult decisions when circumstances dictate. if she is promising to do the latter and considers it a virtue, then good for her. Perhaps she will. She just got caught up in a bad example or didn't explain herself too well.

Tom


[quote="Tom_Turner":8ff43]It was foolish of HRC to site the LBJ example to make her point.

First of all, she is wrong on the merits here. Sure LBJ had to pass the legislation after King was martyred (and should've anyway of course), but the "I have a dream" speech cannot be overestimated. There is no speech comparable to it in contemporary America.

Secondly, she is risking the health of the Democratic Party for at least a generation. Public Schools, immigration, crime - are not typically issues where "black" america is in lockstep with the precincts of the Left. But Democrats get the benefit of the votes anyway. Turn off their black constituents now, and there will be a very steep price to pay come future elections. Look for HRC to recruit Obama as VP if she makes the cut as top candidate.

Tom

Personally, I believe Clinton was spot on. Though she did not articulate it clearly enough. It was not enough for Martin Luthor King to have a dream & lead protests, there are protests all the time & not all of them lead to change.

Perhaps, it would have came out a little better, if she would have said that change started with MLK & then spurred change in Congress & the Whitehouse. Through the experience of LBJ & the ideas of MLK, brought about the civil rights act.

Wow, it is not everyday that I defend a Clinton.[/quote:8ff43]