<p>“As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” </p>
<p>Where is the lie?</p>
<p>It’s not a lie but…having heard Dr. King, and having listened to her youth minister, and having been touched by the call of the civil rights pioneers…she worked for Goldwater a year later. </p>
<p>(Hey, I was for Louis Abolafia - “What have I got to hide?” ;))</p>
<p>She didn’t lie.</p>
<p>“However, it is willfully naive to think that Obama’s campaign was not involved with the accusations of racism against her for that comment. Maybe not Obama, personally, but his various affiliates? Certainly.”</p>
<p>No more naive than to think that Bill Clinton was not “using the race card” to paint Obama as the polarizing “black candidate” ala Jesse Jackson. One is criticizing Obama over words he NEVER SAID. The other is criticizing Bill Clinton for things he actually did say.</p>
<p>“Firstly, Clinton’s comment was not a blunder, it was an entirely fair and totally true statement, if you stop short on the rush to accusations of racism and actually consider what she said.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, anything a candidate says, however innocuous, is a blunder if it can be later used against him/her. I’m already on record as believing that the criticism leveled against her was reactionary and unfair. (Does anyone ever actually read what I write? Post #139). But it’s also patently unfair to crucify Obama for racially loaded things he never said, while giving Bill a pass, despite the racially loaded things he does say.</p>
<p>“She didn’t lie.”</p>
<p>No. She just manipulated the truth. She purposely tried to make people believe she has been in their corner from her earliest youth. You can get all technical if you want, but we both know where the truth lies in this case.</p>
<p>She heard Dr. King speak in 1963, but went on to support Goldwater in 1964. Them’s the facts.</p>
<p>Goldwater, stood against communism. He was against the New Deal. He was for states rights. In favor of small federal government. Strong defense. Very capitalistic.</p>
<p>Her parents were republican. I don’t know what attracted Hillary to Goldwater.</p>
<p>You don’t either.
Novak doesn’t either.</p>
<p>Nope, you’re right. Don’t know what attracted her to Goldwater. But I do know what it was about Goldwater that must not have particularly bothered her: His stand on Civil Rights.</p>
<p>Otherwise, she could not have enthusiastically supported his candidacy.</p>
<p>Nice Straw man, though;)</p>
<p>If you are going to question a 15 year olds behavior, why don’t you question smoking-inhaling-snorting of the other guy.</p>
<p>Obama is just an empty suite.</p>
<p>for what it’s worth, the MAN is speaking in 30 minutes at American University, with Ted and Caroline Kennedy. 4400 Massachusetts Ave. is pretty pumped this morning!</p>
<p>I can’t wait to watch the rally at American U. Unfortunately I will have to watch it on television but I think it’s going to be historic and emotional.</p>
<p>You gotta love this!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Associated Press: Morrison Endorses Obama for President](<a href=“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNFNSBD7RqPWEFvrLgJVeNouekKgD8UEUDQ80]The”>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNFNSBD7RqPWEFvrLgJVeNouekKgD8UEUDQ80)</p>
<p>And this!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/28/kennedy_poised_to_endorse_obama/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/28/kennedy_poised_to_endorse_obama/</a></p>
<p>Hopefully Obama won’t let Teddy boy drive any of Obama’s buses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a number of ways to look at the numbers. I, for one, would have voted for Edwards on Saturday, had I lived in SC. My second choice would have been Obama. Most of the Edwards supporters I know feel the same way. I like Obama a lot, but I prefer Edwards’ health care proposals (well, actually prefer Kucinich’s). Race and gender have nothing to do with my preferences.</p>
<p>I’m with you, nceph. I’m a big Edwards supporter. I think if people actually looked more at the issues and his detailed proposals, instead of looking at race and gender (at the “celebrity candidates”), he’d be doing a lot better in the polls. </p>
<p>Interesting article in a local paper today, “Edwards Can Pull a McCain, staff says.”
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility for either Clinton or Obama, or both, to simply implode. As I’ve said before, I sure look forward to more debates, where Edwards will continue to shine. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course the point here is moot. One may just as legitimately claim that Hillary was dead wrong in saying MLK’s dream did not begin to be realized until LBJ acted. Indeed, one may think, legitimately, that the comment was a slap in MLK’s face, especially since a large part of MLK’s dream had to do with uniting large segments of both the black and white public, a remarkable accomplishment that began taking place without LBJ.</p>
<p>I didn’t take Hillary’s comments as racist. But MANY of my friends did. I had to explain that she was trying to underscore the need for competent leadership that had understanding of black issues. But even that explanation fell on deaf ears as the days went by and Hillary failed to respond. I even questioned whether I was correct on the issue when Bill began race-baiting. Obama had nothing at all with any of this because it took place all on its own, almost immediately. There are very many blacks who when they hear a white person claiming MLK’s dream had not even begun to be realized until a white guy moved his hand with a pen, will get legitimately offended. Hillary’s blunder is that she did not consider this, did not understand it (I knew it was a blunder the very second she said it), and did not respond to address her constituents so that the matter could be promptly laid to rest. Instead, she claimed Obama was to blame for it, though having not a shred of evidence for the claim. And whites jumped on the man, without evidence, even whites on this forum, simply because of what the white person claimed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only one who wants to believe this can claim it is ‘certain.’ You have no evidence of this. The fact is I witnessed many blacks having a negative reaction to Hillary’s statement. I saw it before Obama had even registered his view of it. No one from his campaign had contacted any of us and yet we still had the reaction. We are not so much different from so many blacks all across America that only we were able to have the reaction independently. I think the reaction was wrong, though I do have doubts. Yet you are blaming Obama, even claiming ‘certainty’ about your unsubstantiated views, for something we are doing. I think you would not do this were Obama white.</p>
<p>It is the historical race-card, the Big Fat Mama of All Race Cards—the one responsible for vast numbers of injustices against innocent blacks all across America down through history. If you have no evidence against Obama, you ought to be fair and not be prejudiced against the man simply because we are both black and I choose to act in a way you do not approve of.</p>
<p>I think voters- particulary Democratic voters who remember her father as president- will be moved by the very private Caroline Kennedy throwing her support behind Obama.
That means more to me, than her uncle jumping on the bandwagon actually.</p>
<p>Iv’e been supporting Obama for months, and the two-headed Bilary is certainly justifying my decision to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He lacks real vision. Lotsa fluff , nice speeches– no vision, and no power to show us how to reach a vision even if he had one. Also, I do not think whites would generally support his presidency because race still matters too much in America. After the honeymoon, we would see the worst of America raising its ugly head. The very minute something should go wrong during an Obama presidency, millions of whites would claim it was because of Obama’s race, though not even one of them would ever do this were Obama to have a fantastic presidency. I don’t think America is yet ready to go through this. Indeed I think she is unworthy to experience it and incapable of rising to her best self so that she can endure it.</p>
<p>Hillary is just as visionless as Obama. Indeed, she is worse than Obama. She’d be the Witch in Chief, though one may just as well replace the W with a B.</p>
<p>I once liked Ron Paul because, for all his faults and high pitched wackiness, the man has vision and could show us how to accomplish it. I like many of his views on the economy, on the war, on drugs (though I detest illicit drugs myself), on abortion, and other social issues. Unfortunately, I have discovered he is a right-wing, racist neo-confederate flake for whom I have no respect.</p>
<p>The entire GOP is worthless in my view. So that is enough said there.</p>
<p>That leaves Edwards. He too lacks real vision and power, though I think he is probably the kindest of all the candidates, and would also probably do the least harm. I do not yet support him, but am increasingly inclined to do so.</p>
<p>I like Edwards, and would vote for him in the general election, but he has no chance.</p>
<p>I would like to think better of America when it comes to Obama.</p>
<p>“There are very many blacks who when they hear a white person claiming MLK’s dream had not even begun to be realized until a white guy moved his hand with a pen, will get legitimately offended.”</p>
<p>why are African American so super sensitive that they read racial overtones to any reference to MLK and the Civil Rights movement?</p>
<p>If they are that offended by a lone comment, wait till what the Republican Smear Machine will throw at Obama if he gets the nomination. Many in Republican party are eagerly waiting for that moment. Remember Willie Horton and the ads against the guy in TN? It may even deal a blow to the entire race progress by several decades.</p>
<p>"Drosselmeier, why aren’t you supporting Obama? Who are you supporting? </p>
<p>He lacks real vision. Lotsa fluff , nice speeches– no vision, and no power to show us how to reach a vision even if he had one. Also, … After the honeymoon, we would see the worst of America raising its ugly head."</p>
<p>That I agree with you. I call Obama empty suit, but will have no hesitation supporting him against any Republican nominee. Personally, I think he jumped gun. He should have waited at the most 8 years and done some work like sponsoring useful legislation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because, of course, race veritably defines MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. Were race not a defining issue here, neither MLK nor the Civil Rights Movement would have meaning at all for the public. So when one speaks of them, one necessarily speaks of race. And when one speaks of race, one must be sensitive to the history behind race in America if one wishes to reach certain constituencies here. It is just historical fallout. However much chagrined you may be about it, America is just not ready to act as if it does not exist.</p>