Clinton vs. Obama: Lest We Forget

The Clinton vs. Obama contest for the Democratic ticket of the upcoming residential race raises some provocative issues when reflecting on the Women's Movement and the African American community. So much so that a recent comment by Senator Hillary Clinton about it taking President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Dr. King's dream to be realized ("It took a president to get it done," stated Senator Clinton) was viewed by many as racially insensitive and a major gaffe. The comment has further sparked a national debate and has become, for now, a focal point of an already white hot, volatile political contest. It's no surprise that Dr. King's name and the Civil Rights Movement have been invoked into this discussion. I suspect that it won't be the last time either. Aside from Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. King, with whom I worked closely as personal counsel, advisor and draft speechwriter for much of the Civil Rights Movement, may have done more to achieve social, political and economic justice in America than any other event or person in the previous 400 years. So, as we approach November 2008, the burning question has been and will remain: What will it be? The historic opportunity to elect the first woman or first African American male as president of the United States.

There are few white women for whom I have more respect than Gloria Steinem, an ideological Godmother of the women's movement. In a recent op-ed column in the New York Times about the Obama vs. Clinton contest for the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States ("Women Are Never Front-Runners," January 8, 2008), Ms. Steinem's lifelong advocacy for gender equality appears to have become politically transformed into an advocacy of gender preferential treatment or implicit "female entitlement."

I am 77 years old, male and black. My experience in our country, as an African-American, and the reality of American history contravenes the assumption underlying Ms Steinem's thesis: women in the United States have been equally or more oppressed, excluded and discriminated against than African American men, writing in her op-ed, "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House." As evidence she cites the historical fact that "Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot..." That historical anomaly standing alone, however, obscures the reality that white middle class women, as a group, have been one of the principal beneficiaries of Dr. King's legacy of struggle for racial justice and gender equality.

Further, the forefathers and foremothers of white middle class women in America did not endure the Middle Passage, chattel slavery by predecessor governments to our current government, the failure of Reconstruction, segregation, and years of racial injustice in our country. African-Americans are the heirs of a past of rope, fire and murder, sanctioned by institutionalized racism throughout the history of our country. As such, the election of an African American male to the presidency of the United States, under the reality of this unique American experience, is or would not be any less of an event or "historical first" than the election of a middle class white woman as President of the United States.

Which brings me to Senator Clinton's recent comments, presumably, to contrast her qualifications for president with those of Senator Obama, comparing herself to President Lyndon Johnson with the words, "It took a president to get it done." My longevity as a personal counsel and a draft speech writer for my beloved friend, Martin Luther King, Jr., has blessed me with the memory and the obligation of a living witness. The challenge confronting me and others, who worked with Dr. King, is how to set the record straight without appearing to third parties, especially the media, to be playing the so-called "race card". The absence of such raced based politics is what may be part of the unexpected broad appeal of the Obama candidacy.

I would like to remind all the candidates that this is the week of Dr. King's 79th birthday. Distorted application or misappropriation of his legacy for self serving political purposes by any candidate besmirches this legacy. Less there be some question about the roles of Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson, let me "make it plain": the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not principally because of President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was because of Martin Luther King, Jr. LBJ was only responding to what Martin often said, quoting Victor Hugo in Les Miserables, that "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come." The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was "an idea whose time had come"; a direct result of those hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets across our country under Dr. King's leadership and not because "it. took a president to get it done."

Often during municipal, state or federal political campaigns, various parties seek to appropriate one or more excerpts from Martin's speeches or writings in support of their immediate political objective. This is understandable. Dr. King left such an extraordinary imprint upon our nation's DNA. Without proposing or recommending any choice between Senators Clinton or Obama and the other remaining candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination, one would have to be brain dead or suffer from amnesia not to see the haunting parallel between Senator Obama's candidacy and the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. On April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple in Memphis, TN, in support of the sanitation workers' strike against the city of Memphis, in his last public speech and the day before his death, Dr. King told those assembled on that historic occasion: "I've been to the mountaintop... And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land."

The candidacy of Senator Barack Obama may just be part of the Promised Land that Martin believed we as a people would get to, even though he prophetically said he may not there with us. The possible election of Senator Obama in 2008 as President of the United States may very well be more powerful than the march of mighty armies -- an idea for which the time has come.

Finally, a caution, if not a warning, to President Clinton, Senator Clinton and their campaign advisors: You run the risk of dissipating, corrupting, if not destroying, the justifiably deserved and accumulated positive capital and goodwill you have earned among black people from President and Senator Clinton's own history of struggle for racial justice. Few public officials, especially President Clinton, like Senator John Edwards, a son of the white south, have transcended the segregationist's racist conditions of their southern upbringing, and committed their lives to racial justice. As such they have earned their "credentials" among black people. Prior to the current election contest, President Clinton was belovedly characterized by many African Americans as "America's first black president". However, the Clinton presidential campaign's apparent blind ambition for power runs the risk of destroying Clinton's reservoir of earned political integrity and affection among black people.

I suspect to some African Americans, especially older parents and grandparents, Senator Obama is symbolic and/or represents their sons and grandsons, for whom most have sacrificed to get them an education and succeed. Good faith questions about qualifications and experience are always appropriate about a candidate who seeks the nomination of his party to be president. However, gratuitous attacks against Obama or sarcastic paternalism dismissing his "qualifications" to be President of the United States are offensive and carry a tinge of "we know what's best for you" racism. This only serves to embolden Senator Obama's younger supporters; as they appear to resent such condescension and respond by saying "Yes we (he) can!!" Despite perhaps knowing less about the legacy of Dr. King, these young people nonetheless sense that Senator Obama's campaign for president may also be "an idea whose time has come."

In the name of my beloved friend Martin, I beseech all candidates to pause in a moment of reflection and consider whether what you do and say to get elected as president either enhances or diminishes the ultimate sacrifice that Dr. King made so that you are in a viable position to be in the presidential race in 2009.

Clarence B. Jones is the former personal counsel, advisor, draft speech writer and close friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is a Scholar in Residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Institute at Stanford University. His forthcoming book titled What Would Martin Say will be published by HarperCollins in April 2008.

Comments

[New Vera City]

How about we say it took both Johnson and King!

[apcalc]

Democrats, remember, Repugs are posting inflammatory remarks here all the time, trying to create division within in our party.

If you see a post that expouses hate for either candidate - please write it off, it could be from a Repug.

Whoever is our candidate must beat the Repugs in November. Repugs - the common enemy.

[scottarino]

"So, as we approach November 2008, the burning question has been and will remain: What will it be? The historic opportunity to elect the first woman or first African American male as president of the United States."

If either is the democrats choice on a Presidential ticket it will be neither as the public won't buy what their selling.

[BUSHsurvivor]

With all due respect, it is the media that is waging this race baiting and you really should give them the credit.

And from what I get from your words as long as Obama's "appearance" of not using the race card, then that is ok?

And, I also believe you made your choice when you said "the Clinton campaigns blind ambition." This is a fight for the democratic nomination and when lies and smears are used the Clintons have every right to address them.

MLK's dream was to do anything and everything based NOT on skin color, yet your words seem to go against that.

[itsnotmyfault]

By saying you are going to analyze Hillary's statement by avoiding playing the "race card" is mere cover for that is exactly what you have done. And your asserting the halo effect of having worked with MLK does not elevate the quality of your comments if they are so patently antithetical to what MLK had himself said regarding the important partnership of effort between his indispensible efforts and LBJ's indispensible efforts as well.

While MLK put his life on the line and eventually paid the ultimate sacrifice, Johnson joined in partnership with King, taking on enourmous sacrifice to himself and the democratic party.

""We have lost the South for a generation" said President Lyndon Johnson after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which officially ended the Jim Crow era of racial segregation by law and by custom throughout the South. What Johnson meant was that because of the larger Democratic Party's support of the Civil Rights Act and his signing of it -- that southern white Democrats would abandon the party – and he was right; except the change seems to be permanent instead of generational."

By reigniting the race issue coupled with a threatening posture toward Clinton and a virtual deification of Obama, you entirly sacrifice any credibility.

With the 1964 and 1965 civil rights acts, King told Johnson, "You have created a second emancipation." The president replied, "The real hero is the American Negro."

[m4rk0]

I find it odd that Bill is bashing, attacking, and smearing more now against a Democrat than he did in 2004 towards George Bush. And they say that Obama wanted to be president since kindergarten? Ha! It's obvious the Clintons wanted Kerry to lose in 2004 because Hillary wanted 2008 for herself. If Bill was half as vicious back then vs a Republican than he is now, Kerry would have beaten Bush. What a joke.

[zull2]

The problem is this sense of entitlement...this sense of ego that some in my own community (the white community) develop when they convince themselves that they're not racist.
One thing this primary has really opened my eyes up to is how people who would vehementally deny that they're racist would then turn around and make a decision to support a candidate on the basis of race rather than merit or quality of character.
Too many people think the face of a racist is someone who lives out in the sticks, has a lot of guns, and calls into Rush every day. This just isn't true. If you think that the Democratic party needs to nominate a white person for President because you're afraid racists will make your party lose, then you're making a decision predicated on race, therefore, a racist decision.
There are things that could be good that are based in making a racial decision about a president. The notion that by electing a black person as president gives the black children someone to look up to as a hero is a good notion. But it's also a racial based decision, see? If you don't want to be a racist (or sexist), then you can't be letting race (or gender) play into your decision for whom to support AT ALL.

[CHARLESTHETENTH]

It just boggles the mind that a statement made by Hilary regarding the Civil Rights passage can so offend the Black people when she and Bill have done so much to help. But then again it is not surprising since no matter what Bill and Hilary have done or even if Hilary would have given full credit to King the Blacks would still give their support to Obama because of Color and not substance. Long winded rhetoric on trying to justify Blacks turning away from Hilary is all nonsense. Pure and simple it come down to Race preference and nothing more. Read the stats...Black voters are overwhelmingly giving their support to Obama...not because of what he proposes to do for this Country if elected...but strictly because of his Color. That's human nature..did we really expect anything different??

[CjAzure]

Thank you, Mr. Jones ,for such an insightful article. Your wisdom is greatly needed now. The vision , fortitude, and grace of Dr. King is a driving force for the pursuit of social justice worldwide. Senator Obama does exude a similar sense of inspiration and longing. I believe that his(our) dream is at hand. I hope our country can wake up enough to grasp it. May God bless you sir for your service and your voice. You remind us of the strength of our history and guide us towards the future we will all share. May we be true to the dream.
YES WE CAN!

OBAMA 08!!!!!

[LVLefty]

I am a liberal white male who was born the year after the Civil Rights Act passed. I also am a history professor. I know this: the Civil Rights Act passed because Dr. King put pressure on the country and Lyndon Johnson put pressure on Congress. To try to deny one's or the other's role is to deny history.

Obviously, I didn't know Dr. King as Mr. Jones did. But I would be very surprised if the Dr. King I have read, read about, and admired didn't say, "Why don't you all concentrate on what needs to be done?" And what needs to be done is not debate whether Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is playing politics, but what is being done and needs to be done to make Dr. King's dream a reality. Debates and commentaries like this one do nothing to help that, and those who are jumping all over this political bandwagon shame his memory.

[PhDcommonsense]

I don't know why it should even be a contest between Obama vs. Clinton for African Americans. With the Clintons blatant attack on Sen Obama and along with their African American surrogates, while Obama has shown nothing but class in rebuttal to their attacks on him is beyond anything rational about the Clinton Campaign.
Bill is beginning to make the high respect, everyone had for him as an elder Statements leaving the office President look like he is loosing it on the trail in order to get his wife elected President.
Right now Senator Obama is campaigning against Hilliary and the ExPreisdent of the United States. No other candidate is doing that and yet Obama maintains his integrity. I hope the voters and the Main Stream Media, Talking Political Pundits begin to see this piling up.

I hope more establishment Democrats begin to speak out on this. The Clintons going after the African American votes by shamefully trying to do a character assassination on an African American running for President is apalling. When the Clinton Surrogates come out and attack Obama, the Clintons want to take cover and say they have no control. BS. I hope I can say voters are more intelligent than what the Clintons give them credit for. Is Bill running for President or is it Hillary

[Thad]

It WAS an idea whose time had come. But if Johnson hadn't done it, when would it have happened? I don't see Nixon pushing the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

I don't like Clinton. I won't vote for her. But I think her remarks were fair, and not at all intended to minimize the legacy of Dr. King. I think this has all been blown out of proportion.

I don't think she's disputing that Dr. King led the movement, or that he was one of the greatest heroes in American history. I don't think she's suggesting his contribution was LESS than Johnson's by any means. She's merely saying that LBJ was instrumental in turning all the rights MLK struggled for into law. And I don't think that's an unfair statement at all.

[BushSunkOurShip]

You can dislike Hillary or Bill Clinton all you want,, but You know d... well they are not making racist remards. For the RNC, republican posters and people who hate Hillary to make these statements are decepted, propaganda and BS, and for democrats joining in on this propaganda are no better then the repblicans making these statements.

Bill Clinton's administration has been one of the greatest administrations for the progress/h­elp/progre­ss for African American then if he have been an African American himself.

This just goes along with the BS, lies and propaganda that the republicans are have tag him with about being responsible for Bin Laden, Saddam and the terrorist attack of 911.

Reagan had more corruption then republicans will lead you to believe. Reagan was the president in which his support was largely responsible for Saddam and Bin Laden to rise to the power which they reached.

Reagan sending Rumsfeld with gifts of cowboat boats and let Saddam receive chemicals from us which were used to create the chemical weapons he used in his chemical war with Iran.

Reagan supported and funded Bin Laden in their war against Russia (which Russia U.S. that he would be a problem for the world) to destroy their economy.

Now Ben Laden has played the same cards to Bush and his war hawks, which has destroyed our economy combined with Bush's oursourcing our manufacturing plants, tax welfare for business to more off shore/overseas and our jobs.

So looks like Bush's tax relief for business and the tickle down theory was just deception, propaganda and BS for the gift of wealth, power and control for Global Corporations.

Bush is smiling from ear to ear with this new tax relief bill he will demand and push down the throats of Pelosi and Reid to pass as quick as possible, so the profits of business can gain a new high and them can send more of our jobs overseas for cheaper labor, while we sink further down the sewer hole...

[lowdowndog]

On Jan. 14 the day before the MSNBC debate Jan.15, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama made a truce on the issue of playing the race card in their campaigns. During the debate, right on cue, Tim Russert attempted to get Clinton and Obama to mix it up, and he was deservedly heckled for it. Everyone played nice and didn't give him any traction to fan the embers of racial divide. Prior to the debate Hillary had been accused of being racially insensitive in her remarks about Dr. King. In my opinion she said nothing offensive. She simply stated a historical fact and the media made a big deal out of it. The New York Times and the rest of the media, including this website, owes this country an apology for creating a racially divisive tempest in a teapot. The New York Times editorial Jan 9 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Unite+Not+Divide&oref=slogin “Unite, not Divide, Really This Time” made the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. Sen. Clinton implied no such thing, but the media pundits gleefully jumped on the story and kindle racial division. By Jan. 13 Sen. Clinton after attempting to defended herself for a few days, Sen. Obama finally weighed in on the media created controversy for the first time, and described Clinton’s comments about the legacy of Dr. King as “unfortunate” and “ill-advised.” I believe he could have done more to quell the anger of African Americans. However, his polls numbers in South Carolina had been rising in the aftermath of Hillary's "gaffe" and he did not seem too eager to put a stop to the media frenzy. Bill Moyers, a voice of reason, sets the record straight:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/19/bill-moyers-journal-on-king-johnson-obama-clinton/

[sonshine]

When are Democrats going to wake up? We cannot allow this country to be ruled by Bush/Clint­on/Bush/Cl­inton. Who's next? Jeb. do people understand what it means when you have the same family going in and out of the presidency? The same people that these families owe favors to come out the winners everytime, not the American people. As a former Clinto supporter, I feel very discouraged and embarassed that the supporters of Hillary Clinton are so short sighted. Hopefully something greater than them will intervene and we can stop this country being run by the same two families until it becomes a one-family run country.