Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary doesn't get Martin Luther King or the civil rights movement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:18 AM
Original message
Hillary doesn't get Martin Luther King or the civil rights movement
Before people get into the race thing I'm gonna preface this by saying that Hillary's misunderstanding (or whatever we want to call it) is not racist. It's a common miconception of those that don't understand peoples movements and how those in power react to it.

In essence, MLK did not need LBJ. As a matter of fact, it was the other way around. The civil rights movement scared the living shit out of WASPy politicians and their cohorts. These folks saw the million man march and fucking shit their pants.

Guess what, LBJ didn't sit there and say like a cheezy used car salesmen, "C'mon Martin, ya need me."

MLK was not about that shit. His passive resistance was clogging up the south and white folks were afraid of that happening in their own hometowns. LBJ literaly held no fucking cards at the table and MLK fucking knew it. SNCC and the rest of those working within the civil rights movement were excellent Poker Players.

As were others like EV Debs, Emma Goldmann, Helen Keller and various other rabble rousers. MLK was not an endorser of a political party either. His aims were about complete institutional reforms and government was going to have to tow that line.

Those that know history are much smarter than to buy the myth of what Hillary is selling. It's not a racists or a partisan thing either. It's typical of those that hold a statesmen view of history and not suprising that a politician won't cop to the fact that ruling class was really terrified of the masses in this instance.

Hillary has a bad poker face on that one as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. It does not so much matter what reason/motive you attibute to LBJ--but the
fact that the WH had the political will to seek change in the direction of equal rights. An analogy is present today. Look at the antiwar movement or those who wish to change the executive powers that Bush/et.al has pushed--.
Nothing much happens--- One needs the WH to say yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. What anti war movement?
There isn't one of any real significance. It's figure head, Cindy Sheehan, has literally been decapitated by the party faithfull as whole because she refuses to tow their line.

That much is proven false anyway in the Hillary is not anti war. She is the front runner. Right now that anti war movement has been run aground by a bunch of loopy 9/11 conspiracy theorist dickheads who happen to be heavily alligned with the right wing.

LBJ did not have the political will to do King's bidding. He was backed into a corner as was every other politician on capital hill. At the same time you had the anti war movement and that didn't phase LBJ one fucking bit.

As a matter of fact, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not the end of MLK's movement. It was a fucking bread crumb. His movement was stopped just as a lot of other peoples movements have been in our history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
34. not now that is for sure--movement was too generous of a term
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. LBJ voted against every single civil rights bill while he was in the Senate.
The Civil Rights Act was forced on him by the people. And that's just a matter of fact.

Hillary Clinton is trying to rewrite history. Unfortunately, some of us who were around then are still here to notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's not just exclusive to Hillary
There are a lot of people that believe this bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
42. What I really object to is Hillary OR Obama using this
to aggrandize themselves or to sell themselves in any way.

Unbelievable disrespect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. so?--He changed his mind when Pres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I guess you say had an offer he couldn't refuse.
Hillary also leaves out that it was LBJ that destroyed MLK in the end. As King started attacking the war Johnson defered to Hoover to "take care of him".

LBJ's role in this was to hem in King and keep control. When LBJ soon discovered that it wasn't possible he tapped one of the biggest sociopaths working in the fed gov, Hoover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LowerManhattanite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Exactly!
And few are aware of his old-school arm-twisting during the '64 convention to prevent the MFDP (the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party) from knocking any of his Dixiecrat buddies out of the box. The Mississippi rank and file Dem party excluded Blacks from Black delegate membership (Sens, Stennis and Eastland repped the status quo) and found itself at odds with the national party. When it became apparent that some members of the MFDP might unseat some rank and file Dixiecrats (who were backing Hillary's boy Goldwater) the southern bloc threatened to side with them for Goldwater if LBJ didn't let them seat their Whites Only slate.

LBJ twisted arms, trying to pre-empt a speech by the MFDP's Fannie Lou Hamer, then offered powerless non-voting delegate “seats” (while allowing teh segregationists their full voting power and televised seating), tried to twist MLK's arm to have him “get them in line” and then finally sicced Hoover and the FBI on 'em where they were put under, “ahem!” surveillance.

Go watch “Eyes On The Prize II” to get a grasp of just what LBJ was really doing insofar as MLK and the civil rights movement at the time. Verrrrrry interesting....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
41. He did what he was forced to do. And he did well.
He deserves credit for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #41
56. You are engaging in revisionism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #12
37. That's not true.
LBJ actually supported most civil rights laws and in fact twisted arms as Senate Majority Leader to get them passed.

Hillary's point was correct, but she stated it inartfully. It takes a combination of public and moral pressure such as that applied by the civil rights movement AND action by the political leaders to implement change. Dr. King, Rev. Lowery, Roy Wilkins, John Lewis, C. Philip Randolph, Whitney Young, Dorothy Height, etc. etc. marched and fought and risked their lives and spoke truth to power to force a change. They turned up the heat under the president and Congress to finally take action and pass the Civil Rights Law, the Voting Rights Act, and other important civil rights legislation.

Sadly, many people seem to have forgotten (or never knew) that the 1963 March on Washington was organized by A. Philip Randolph, the NAACP, SCLC, National Urban League, John Lewis, Bayard Rustin and other civil rights leaders and organizations for the specific purpose of pressuring President Kennedy and Congress take action on the Civil Rights Act, which President Kennedy had sent to the Hill in June of that year, but had gone nowhere and was seen by many as DOA, as well as to more strongly support civil rights overall. Much of this has gotten lost in the focus on Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which seems to be all that many people remember about that day.

The civil rights movement was a powerful force - and one of its primary purposes was to force the president and Congress to enact civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and other important civil rights laws could not have been enacted without both sides - a movement that pushed a president and a president that pushed Congress.

Hillary was right, she just said it wrong. But she certainly knows her history (more than many others seem to), and understands that it DOES take a president just as much as it DOES take a movement.

It's not an either/or thing - it's both/and.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. I'm going to look up the record. And Hillary was wrong and stupidly
wrong.

First, she was wrong to wade in thoughtlessly as she did. This is one of her habits and it will continue to get her into trouble. She comes off as a privileged opportunist which is not helpful to her public image. This is her biggest negative.

Obama has done little better. He should never have used this as a way to forward his campaign.

Second, the Civil Rights Act was not a gift from a presidential patron. It was hard won. It cost lives and careers. To minimize that in any way, let alone to use it as a talking point in a campaign, is an egregious trivialization of those lives.

Johnson does deserve a world of credit for the Civil Rights Act, especially considering that in his private life, he was a notorious bigot. But he in no way can be said to share equally with the multitude that put their bodies at risk for civil rights. That anyone, let alone someone who believes she is entitled to lead this nation, should posit such an equivalence is disgusting.

I sincerely hope that both Clinton and Obama find some way to apologize for their insulting behavior towards the heroic people who gave their lives that the lives and rights of others be valued and respected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. Why don't you look up the record BEFORE you attack Hillary as "stupidly wrong?"
You also might want to consider that Hillary never said that Johnson should "share equally" the credit for the Civil Rights Act. She said no such thing. But she WAS absolutely right in pointing out that there would have been no Civil Rights Act had Johnson not taken the baton from the Movement and putting the law into effect. That is not the same as saying the credit should be shared equally - it DOES correctly note the critical combined effort that is necessary in every instance in which a movement is trying to give its mission the force of law.

The Civil Rights Movement and the people who led it are incomparable. They strategized and marched and bled and died and shamed the nation into correcting its course. They marched that ball down the field to just outside the goal line. But they could not, no matter what they did or how hard they tried or how much they bled, take the ball into the endzone to the goal - i.e., enactment of the law - since they weren't in Congress, they weren't president and they did not have the authority to pass a law. It took a president to take the handoff and take the cause the last few steps over the line.

Pointing this out is not an insult to the civil rights movement or the brave and brilliant men and women who gave it life. And, when you finally do look up the record, you will no doubt find many of them have made the exact point that Hillary was trying to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Johnson did no such thing. He did everything in his power
to undermine King. Read something.

And for you to continue to defend this stupid mistake on Clinton's part is useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. No - YOU read something
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 10:21 AM by EffieBlack
I'm already extemely familiar with and knowledgeable about this topic. You, on the other hand, need considerable educating about it before you deign to lecture anyone on the issue:

Here's something to start with::


I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of Democracy. I urge every member of both parties, Americans of all religions and of all colors, from every section of this country, to join me in that cause.

At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. There, long suffering men and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as Americans. Many of them were brutally assaulted. One good man--a man of God--was killed.

There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our Democracy in what is happening here tonight. For the cries of pain and the hymns and protests of oppressed people have summoned into convocation all the majesty of this great government--the government of the greatest nation on earth. Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country--to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man. In our time we have come to live with the moments of great crises. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues, issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression.

But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself. Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, or our welfare or our security, but rather to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue. And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For, with a country as with a person, "what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.

And we are met here tonight as Americans--not as Democrats or Republicans; we're met here as Americans to solve that problem. This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose.

The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal." "Government by consent of the governed." "Give me liberty or give me death." And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives. Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny Americans and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom. Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. This most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of the right to all of our people.

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument: every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to insure that right. Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.

Every device of which human ingenuity is capable, has been used to deny this right. The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent. And if he persists and, if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name, or because he abbreviated a word on the application. And if he manages to fill out an application, he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex provisions of state law.

And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write. For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin. Experience has clearly shown that the existing process of law cannot overcome systematic and ingenious discrimination. No law that we now have on the books, and I have helped to put three of them there, can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it. In such a case, our duty must be clear to all of us. The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color.

We have all sworn an oath before God to support and to defend that Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath. Wednesday, I will send to Congress a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote. The broad principles of that bill will be in the hands of the Democratic and Republican leaders tomorrow. After they have reviewed it, it will come here formally as a bill. I am grateful for this opportunity to come here tonight at the invitation of the leadership to reason with my friends, to give them my views and to visit with my former colleagues.

I have had prepared a more comprehensive analysis of the legislation which I had intended to transmit to the clerk tomorrow, but which I will submit to the clerks tonight. But I want to really discuss the main proposals of this legislation. This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections, federal, state and local, which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.

This bill will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenious the effort, to flout our Constitution. It will provide for citizens to be registered by officials of the United States Government, if the state officials refuse to register them. It will eliminate tedious, unnecessary lawsuits which delay the right to vote. Finally, this legislation will insure that properly registered individuals are not prohibited from voting. I will welcome the suggestions from all the members of Congress--I have no doubt that I will get some--on ways and means to strengthen this law and to make it effective.

But experience has plainly shown that this is the only path to carry out the command of the Constitution. To those who seek to avoid action by their national government in their home communities, who want to and who seek to maintain purely local control over elections, the answer is simple: open your polling places to all your people. Allow men and women to register and vote whatever the color of their skin. Extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land. There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

There is no issue of state's rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights. I have not the slightest doubt what will be your answer. But the last time a President sent a civil rights bill to the Congress it contained a provision to protect voting rights in Federal elections. That civil rights bill was passed after eight long months of debate. And when that bill came to my desk from the Congress for signature, the heart of the voting provision had been eliminated.

This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, or no hesitation, or no compromise with our purpose. We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in.

And we ought not, and we cannot, and we must not wait another eight months before we get a bill. We have already waited 100 years and more and the time for waiting is gone. So I ask you to join me in working long hours and nights and weekends, if necessary, to pass this bill. And I don't make that request lightly, for, from the window where I sit, with the problems of our country, I recognize that from outside this chamber is the outraged conscience of a nation, the grave concern of many nations and the harsh judgment of history on our acts.

But even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

And we shall overcome.

As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil, I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society. But a century has passed--more than 100 years--since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight. It was more than 100 years ago that Abraham Lincoln--a great President of another party--signed the Emancipation Proclamation. But emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact.

A century has passed--more than 100 years--since equality was promised, and yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise, and the promise is unkept. The time of justice has now come, and I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come, and when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American. For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated? How many white families have lived in stark poverty? How many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we wasted energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?

And so I say to all of you here and to all in the nation tonight that those who appeal to you to hold on to the past do so at the cost of denying you your future. This great rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all--all, black and white, North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They are our enemies, not our fellow man, not our neighbor.

And these enemies too--poverty, disease and ignorance--we shall overcome.

Now let none of us in any section look with prideful righteousness on the troubles in another section or the problems of our neighbors. There is really no part of America where the promise of equality has been fully kept. In Buffalo as well as in Birmingham, in Philadelphia as well as Selma, Americans are struggling for the fruits of freedom.

This is one nation. What happens in Selma and Cincinnati is a matter of legitimate concern to every American. But let each of us look within our own hearts and our own communities and let each of us put our shoulder to the wheel to root out injustice wherever it exists. As we meet here in this peaceful historic chamber tonight, men from the South, some of whom were at Iwo Jima, men from the North who have carried Old Glory to the far corners of the world and who brought it back without a stain on it, men from the east and from the west are all fighting together without regard to religion or color or region in Vietnam.

Men from every region fought for us across the world 20 years ago. And now in these common dangers, in these common sacrifices, the South made its contribution of honor and gallantry no less than any other region in the great republic.

And in some instances, a great many of them, more. And I have not the slightest doubt that good men from everywhere in this country, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Golden Gate to the harbors along the Atlantic, will rally now together in this cause to vindicate the freedom of all Americans. For all of us owe this duty and I believe that all of us will respond to it.

Your president makes that request of every American.

The real hero of this struggle is the American Negro. His actions and protests, his courage to risk safety, and even to risk his life, have awakened the conscience of this nation. His demonstrations have been designed to call attention to injustice, designed to provoke change; designed to stir reform. He has been called upon to make good the promise of America.

And who among us can say that we would have made the same progress were it not for his persistent bravery and his faith in American democracy? For at the real heart of the battle for equality is a deep-seated belief in the democratic process. Equality depends, not on the force of arms or tear gas, but depends upon the force of moral right--not on recourse to violence, but on respect for law and order.

There have been many pressures upon your President and there will be others as the days come and go. But I pledge to you tonight that we intend to fight this battle where it should be fought--in the courts, and in the Congress, and the hearts of men. We must preserve the right of free speech and the right of free assembly. But the right of free speech does not carry with it--as has been said--the right to holler fire in a crowded theatre.

We must preserve the right to free assembly. But free assembly does not carry with it the right to block public thoroughfares to traffic. We do have a right to protest. And a right to march under conditions that do not infringe the Constitutional rights of our neighbors. And I intend to protect all those rights as long as I am permitted to serve in this office.

We will guard against violence, knowing it strikes from our hands the very weapons which we seek--progress, obedience to law, and belief in American values. In Selma, as elsewhere, we seek and pray for peace. We seek order, we seek unity, but we will not accept the peace of stifled rights or the order imposed by fear, or the unity that stifles protest--for peace cannot be purchased at the cost of liberty.

In Selma tonight--and we had a good day there--as in every city we are working for a just and peaceful settlement. We must all remember after this speech I'm making tonight, after the police and the F.B.I. and the Marshals have all gone, and after you have promptly passed this bill, the people of Selma and the other cities of the nation must still live and work together.

And when the attention of the nation has gone elsewhere they must try to heal the wounds and to build a new community. This cannot be easily done on a battleground of violence as the history of the South itself shows. It is in recognition of this that men of both races have shown such an outstandingly impressive responsibility in recent days--last Tuesday and again today.

The bill I am presenting to you will be known as a civil rights bill. But in a larger sense, most of the program I am recommending is a civil rights program. Its object is to open the city of hope to all people of all races, because all Americans just must have the right to vote, and we are going to give them that right.

All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship, regardless of race, and they are going to have those privileges of citizenship regardless of race.

But I would like to caution you and remind you that to exercise these privileges takes much more than just legal rights. It requires a trained mind and a healthy body. It requires a decent home and the chance to find a job and the opportunity to escape from the clutches of poverty.

Of course people cannot contribute to the nation if they are never taught to read or write; if their bodies are stunted from hunger; if their sickness goes untended; if their life is spent in hopeless poverty, just drawing a welfare check.

So we want to open the gates to opportunity. But we're also going to give all our people, black and white, the help that they need to walk through those gates. My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas, in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English and I couldn't speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast and hungry. And they knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice. They never seemed to know why people disliked them, but they knew it was so because I saw it in their eyes.

I often walked home late in the afternoon after the classes were finished wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that I might help them against the hardships that lay ahead. And somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child.

I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students, and to help people like them all over this country. But now I do have that chance.

And I'll let you in on a secret--I mean to use it. And I hope that you will use it with me.

This is the richest, most powerful country which ever occupied this globe. The might of past empires is little compared to ours. But I do not want to be the president who built empires, or sought grandeur, or extended dominion.

I want to be the president who educated young children to the wonders of their world. I want to be the President who helped to feed the hungry and to prepare them to be taxpayers instead of tax eaters. I want to be the President who helped the poor to find their own way and who protected the right of every citizen to vote in every election. I want to be the President who helped to end hatred among his fellow men and who promoted love among the people of all races, all regions and all parties. I want to be the President who helped to end war among the brothers of this earth.

And so, at the request of your beloved Speaker and the Senator from Montana, the Majority Leader, the Senator from Illinois, the Minority Leader, Mr. McCullock and other members of both parties, I came here tonight, not as President Roosevelt came down one time in person to veto a bonus bill; not as President Truman came down one time to urge passage of a railroad bill, but I came down here to ask you to share this task with me. And to share it with the people that we both work for.

I want this to be the Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--which did all these things for all these people. Beyond this great chamber--out yonder--in fifty states are the people that we serve. Who can tell what deep and unspoken hopes are in their hearts tonight as they sit there and listen? We all can guess, from our own lives, how difficult they often find their own pursuit of happiness, how many problems each little family has. They look most of all to themselves for their future, but I think that they also look to each of us.

Above the pyramid on the Great Seal of the United States it says in latin, "God has favored our undertaking." God will not favor everything that we do. It is rather our duty to divine His will. But I cannot help but believe that He truly understands and that He really favors the undertaking that we begin here tonight.


President Lyndon B. Johnson - March 15, 1965

Hardly the words of a man who was trying to "do everything in his power to undermine King."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Johnson had no choice but to deal with the civil rights movement
MLK in many of his protests was able to shut down large sections of the south and gain national attention.

There was not "Baton Taking".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EffieBlack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. You really need to go back and study history before trying to teach the rest of us about it
LBJ was not forced into "dealing with the civil rights movement." He was extremely progressive on race and, while not perfect, was far ahead of many other Democrats on the issue long before Dr. King "in many of his protests shut down large sections of the South" (he did?). Among other things, as Senate Majority Leader he successfully outmaneuvered the racist Southern Democrats (including Strom Thurmond who mounted his famous filibuster) to secure the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act. And, in fact, he was much more progressive on civil rights than was JFK through most of his term, although JFK eventually saw the light and began stepping up to the plate before he died - partly because of Lyndon Johnson's efforts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. LBJ strode the line between the integrationists and the Dixiecrats
His only interest in the 1957 Civil rights act (Which was not enforced and a very weak bill) was his own electoral success and to keep segregationists (Who also knew the bill was a joke) in the party.

LBJ in his time in the senate had a strong history of voting down other civil rights provisions. The Acts that were passed under his administration were weakly enforced as well by the federal government. It wasn't LBJ himself but the pressure put on by folks like the Black Panthers, Maalcom X, SNCC and MLK that forced the fed gov to get involoved.

LBJ did not act on any of these things on his own intiative. His hand was heavily forced and he was far from a willing participant. He had absolutley no fucking choice. MLK's idea of passive resistance as well as Maalcom X's idea of armed resistance terrified a lot of people.

In todays political enviornment LBJ would be calling for us all to work with Racist Dixiecrats and Right Wing Republicans on the issue. Instead of MLK taking the whole pie as he advocated, Johnson would have plea bargained these rights away (As he did with his weakly enforced 1957, 1964 and 1968 civil rights acts) to the bigots in the party.

As a matter of fact, these pieces of legislation are fucking weakly enforced today. Hillary Clinton wasn't looking to hold up the 2004 election after it had been found out that blacks were being discouraged to vote by racist right wingers.

Same can be said of much of the party and every Democratic senator following the 2000 election where blacks were disenfranchised in Florida.

The Fed Gov including LBJ were only interested in offering peicemeal legislation.

At the end of the day LBJ set out to destroy King.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
50. That is blatantly untrue.
Not only did LBJ vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first since Reconstruction, but his support was vital to its passage.

1957
"Steered through to passage the first civil rights bill in 82 years (Civil Rights Act of 1957). As Chairman of the Senate Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee he began hearings on the American space program following the launch of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, on October 4. Johnson considered the highlights of his Senate career to be the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the vitalization of the United States space program."

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

I don't know that he ever voted against a Civil Rights Bill, but he may have. If so, however, it was out of what he felt to be political necessity. He was definitely too much of a pragmatist for many DUers, but saying that he was an opponent of Civil Rights is nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. That's what I recall ~ am I dreaming with all of this
talk about LBJ really caring about Black people?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you.
That's the point exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'll take John Lewis's opinion
about Clinton's knowlege of MLK over yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. You beat me to it!
I was just going to post the same thing. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. I'll take the word of Howard Zinn and Alice Walker.
They are much smarter than Hillary.

They were there and very active in the movement.

Hillary was too busy sucking up to Goldwater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. So will I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
58. Lewis never offered agreement with Hillary's statement. MLK's son was disgusted by it
He found it humiliating and stated the Hillary was largely mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. The real point is that Hillary and Barack are running for PRESIDENT
If they were running for moral leader then LBJ's contributions might be less relevant.

But since they are running for President, it makes all the sense in the world to shine a light on LBJ's part in things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. That's not the point at all
and if you're willing to excuse distorting history for votes that's just as bad as the lies the Bushies and their right wing cohorts like to advance.

The civil rights movement and MLK owe absolutely nothing to LBJ or any other politician. And claiming that MLK NEEDED LBJ doesn't do Hillary any good as that is just plain ignorant of history.

I'm not out to bash Hillary as this misconception about the power of people is not attributable to one person. A lot of people really believe that shit and I can understand the lazy fucking media turning it into a racist thing.

Although it does have some underpinnings of racism but the sentiment in regards to peoples movements are not exclusive to just Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. You are clueless: civil rights not owing any politician.
I have to ask how old are you? Were you in the middle of this in the 60's? Why do you think the civil rights movement owes absolutely nothing to any politician? If you were there 40-50 years ago, please share what you saw.

It was a struggle, it required courage and sacrifice for too long by too many - black, white, and "red". Without diminishing in any way the role of MLK, one must recognize those other leaders within the movement, ordinary citizens black and white, and even politicians - willing to use troops, enact laws and then enforce them, to do what was right and just and moral while aware of what it would cost them personally.

I will be glad to provide some details of what I saw and remember. With a little about your experience, I can be better focused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. Politicians quite often choose to turn a blind eye to civil problems
until they either have become so in your face that it is dangerous to ignore them or so long as they serve to consolidate their power or as a campaign issue. We continue to have glaring problems in this nation because it is in the interest of these parties to preserve them as issues for election campaign. Now, as I recall from the 1960s, millions of people were so distressed on either side of the issues, that Congress and the President could not ignore them any longer. The other poster who referred to no meaningful peace movement now is correct. The media was with us then, and media has been coopted by a corrupt government. It speaks volumes that this idiot in power was not impeached for blatant crimes because Congress abdicated its powers. True change must come from the people because the people must own it. That is what happened in the great struggles that came together in a half a century ago. People sent leaders like MLK and stood behind them. The politicians came around later because they could not longer ignore the strife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. The million man march happened in 1995.
It was lead by Louis Farrakhan. Johnson had been dead for over 20 years so I doubt he shit his pants over it.

A historian you are not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I never claimed to be a historian
I also forgot what the march was called. It was 250,000 and King recited the "I have a dream" speech.

Hillary is defintly far from a historian if she really strongly believes that MLK NEEDED LBJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
49. ANY movement has to have elected officials support it for that movement to become "law"
Even if it's under great reluctant duress, like Wilson and women's voting rights. And, elected officials who want a movement have to get "dreamers" behind it to make it reality. It's symbiotic. One can't make it without the other, whether it's Dr. King, the "Iron-Jawed Angels," or even Lenin and Hitler. You need both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. from an article i read
"hillary was never a bomb thrower" ...in my opinion she believes that the government effects change not the people. she never built a people`s movement for healthcare reform,she remained silent as her husband`s welfare reform did more harm to those it was meant to help and her silence on rwanda is inexcusable. in my opinion she would not be an agent of change that we need at this time. i understand what obama is talking about but i`m not sure if he`ll overcome even those in his party. edwards does have an understanding of the american people but i`m not sure if the media will give him a chance.

but one thing i do know for sure is that any candidate the democrats choose is better than anyone the republicans have
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl_interrupted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. God Forbid She should praise a Democrat instead of Reagan
Truth be known Dr. Martin Luther King & President Johnson needed each other. How were civil and voting rights going to be passed without a Prsident willing to fight to get them through. As for "whites being scared shit" as one poster has posted on this thread, Baloney. Scared? Democrats lost the south after LBJ got this through. It took courage for LBJ to do what he did. IT took courage for MLK and all civil rights activists to do what they did. They all needed each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
15. Helen Keller was a rabble rouser?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes
Keller went on to become a world-famous speaker and author. She is remembered as an advocate for people with disabilities amid numerous other causes. She was a suffragist, a pacifist, a Wilson opposer, a radical socialist, and a birth control supporter. In 1915, she founded Helen Keller International, a non-profit organization for preventing blindness. In 1920, she helped to found the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Keller and Sullivan traveled to over 39 countries, making several trips to Japan and becoming a favorite of the Japanese people. Keller met every US President from Grover Cleveland to Lyndon B. Johnson and was friends with many famous figures, including Alexander Graham Bell, Charlie Chaplin and Mark Twain.

Keller was a member of the Socialist Party and actively campaigned and wrote in support of the working classes from 1909 to 1921. She supported Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs in each of his campaigns for the presidency.

Newspaper columnists who had praised her courage and intelligence before she expressed her socialist views now called attention to her disabilities. The editor of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote that her "mistakes sprung out of the manifest limitations of her development." Keller responded to that editor, referring to having met him before he knew of her political views:
“At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him...Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent.<7>”

Keller joined the Industrial Workers of the World (known as the IWW or the Wobblies) in 1912,<8> saying that parliamentary socialism was "sinking in the political bog." She wrote for the IWW between 1916 and 1918. In Why I Became an IWW<9>, Keller explained that her motivation for activism came in part from her concern about blindness and other disabilities:
“I was appointed on a commission to investigate the conditions of the blind. For the first time I, who had thought blindness a misfortune beyond human control, found that too much of it was traceable to wrong industrial conditions, often caused by the selfishness and greed of employers. And the social evil contributed its share. I found that poverty drove women to a life of shame that ended in blindness.”

The last sentence refers to prostitution and syphilis, a leading cause of blindness.

Keller and her friend Mark Twain were both radicals whose political views have been forgotten or glossed over in their popular perception.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Political_activities
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. a great response, very eduational but even more important
is it reminds how radically far right this country has become. I have to laugh when somebody talks about the far left in this country. (I lived abroad for 20 years.) If you take Kucinich's platform who arguably is the farthest left in our party and put it side by side to the most conservative parties in Europe, Canada, Australia etc. they would be very similar. Universal not for profit health care, for example, recieves complete support by the conservative parties in the rest of the world. No conservative party in any other developed country in the world wants to reverse what they have and opt for the 'American Plan' whatever that chaos might be described at.

When asked if I am for socialized medicine I always respond saying I will be for privatized medical care when the questioner opts for privatised fire departments. Socialized fire departments seem to work pretty well and whatever rationale that is applied to the fire station (i.e. Public interest, prevention, lack of unnecessary duplication, neighbor's lack of coverage would be dangerous to me, etc)should be applied to the medical practitioners.


Am I a liberal democrat? Well by contemporary American Standards but in American historical context like Wobblies like your citation of Helen Keller we are moderates at best in Europe most of us would be considered rather conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. It's amazing how socialism has become a bad word in this country
People don't know what it is, or who supported it (Like Einstien or MLKjr) they just know it's bad, bad, bad, and equate it with Soviet Union style governance and oppression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Hellen Keller fucking kicked some serious ass!!!!
Something that many folks don't what to know.

Look it up.

She was fucking awesome!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. I had actually read quite a bit about her when i was a kid but
somehow the political stuff was not there I wonder why? lol

Oh god I wish I knew that when I was rebelling from my conservative Goldwater family back in 68
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
47. She was a Socialist and a rabble rouser -- very much a Commie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
16. Well put
I think that it is with good reason that we recall the suffragists like Susan B. Anthony most saliently when we consider the 19th Amendment.
Although much about that movement is unrecognized, not many people know who signed that Amendment into law.
It was by the way, the women who were gathering the votes to get it passed in congress in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tulkas Donating Member (592 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
18. I tend to agree with the original post
It was the civil rights movement that allowed LBJ to pass civil rights legislation.

It was not the legislation that en powered the civil rights movement.


You do need to give LBJ credit, he showed courage standing up for what was right. Not the type of courage that MLK showed, risking and then ultimately sacrificing his life for what he believed.

I think the point is: that if someone else was president and supported civil rights then the legislation still would have been passed. Although, without MLK to lead the movement none of this ever would have happened.


MLK deserves more credit than LBJ.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. He does. No LBJ day.
Would civil right movement happened without MLK? Of course, although it would have been different and possibly taken longer. And MLK was not the only leader at the time; there were ongoing jostling among the various organization and leaders over goals, methods, power, money, egos, and all the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
29. Obama doesn't get Ronald Reagan or the "trickle~down theory" of Reagan's America...
Obama just finds it easier to pander to the *sswipe repugs and to take swipes at Democrats like Bill Clinton. Obama should spend more time securing his democratic base before he starts throwing Democrats under the bus in lieu of the repig vote. Just sayin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. This isn't an Obama vs Hillary thread
So please keep that shit out of this.

I don't support either of those two (nor do I Edwards).

As a matter of fact, if anything, it's pro history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. I'll post anything I want...
as long as it is within DU rules...if you don't like it go pound sand. If you want to limit the interchange of ideas go PM people you agree with.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Yes you are free to post what you like
I fully support you in that and totally agree with you. Not that I am in any position to limit you anyway nor would if I was.

Now on the point that you've actually exchanged ideas or brought any into the discussion.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Thanks...at least we can agree on one thing.
A "discussion" that attempts to stifle "ideas" and questions their validity, ceases to be a discussion and becomes a monologue. If you are only looking for people who agree with you then have fun in your quest.

I bid you peace, fellow DU'er.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
35. another "progressive" spin.
Seemingly ignoring what the legislative process means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
39. John Lewis of inthebrain...hmmm
Tough one!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
40. I think Obama doesn't get the civil rights movement. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. That's doubtful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
59. It is a fact that Hillary doent's understand it at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
48. History is managed and retooled by everyone......
I know a little about political activism. Among others, I had to work a state legislature and its leadership to get it to listen and pay attention to what I was saying and doing.

Activism without goals is useless no matter how well you prepare demonstrations and present speeches. And the primary goal is, indeed, to make sure that those in power, those who control the governance you are trying to change, are listening and paying attention to what you are saying and doing. But you don't do it with poker.

You are saying that Hillary Rodham didn't understand the movements in which she participated? Sorry, that is wrong. She was inspired by MLK, as was Bill Clinton. Evidence of that has been posted elsewhere. From two of their prominent biographers...

Carl Bernstein...

“If there is a single defining thread of Hillary’s political, religious and social development, it is her belief and determination, from her teenage years onward, that the tragedy of race in America must be made right.”


And David Maraniss, who chronicled Bill Clinton’s life before becoming president in “First in His Class,”


“Clinton was the house liberal on civil rights — ‘a Martin Luther King man, through and through,’ Jim Moore called him. He had memorized King’s famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and when the mood struck he might recite whole stanzas right there during dessert.”

Look at both those movements and you will see that the primary movers, the women and MLK, negotiated with the presidents in power at the time. Hillary Clinton says that exactly. Because she knows what those particular activisms, especially the one she participated in, involved.

You don't like Hillary? That's OK. Lots of people don't like her. But don't dismiss elements in her biography, especially in her early years, that made her the person she is today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cmkramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Youth pastor
Wasn't it the new youth pastor at her church who got her interested in civil rights and took her and other young members of her church youth group to see and meet Dr. King? Also, while her dad was definitely a conservative Republican, her mom was more liberal Democrat leaning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican
and president of her college republicans.

I highly doubt that she was down with MLK at the time.

Secondly, her statement that MLK needed LBJ is absurd and ridiculous. LBJ needed MLK was more the case.

LBJ refused to pass the voting rights act and MLK told him to go fuck himself. He later took Selma, Alabama and FORCED LBJ's hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC