Obama Needs a History Lesson about Hillary and King

The Obama camp did it again. They manufactured yet another issue out of a non-issue when they pounded Hillary Clinton for supposedly defiling Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by minimizing his role in the civil rights struggle. Here's Hillary's terrible sin per the Obama campaign crowd: she said that Dr. King's dream was realized when President Lyndon Johnson shoved the 1964 Civil Rights Bill through Congress. This was anything but a put down of King.

Hillary paid tribute to King for laying the groundwork for the civil rights bill and gave justifiable credit to Johnson for ramming the bill through a bickering, divided and very recalcitrant Congress. Her point was that presidents that have their public policy priorities screwed on right can make changes, monumental changes, for good.

If Hillary could be faulted for anything it's that she didn't go far enough. If Johnson hadn't forcefully intervened and jawboned, prodded, arm twisted, and embarrassed the slew of wavering and hostile Congressmen to the bill into supporting the bill, or at least tempering their opposition to it, King's dream would have remained just that, an empty dream. King recognized that. In a Playboy interview in 1965, he said this about Johnson: "He has demonstrated his wisdom and commitment in coming to grips with the problem (racial discrimination). My impression is that he will remain a strong president for civil rights." History amply proved that, and Johnson despite his Vietnam War tumble from historical grace, still is regarded as the president that did more for civil rights than any other president.

But I'd go even further still. King gets much deserved praise and is much honored for igniting the national fervor for civil rights and galvanizing thousands to put their bodies on the line in the civil rights battles. Yet, there's an ugly side and often forgotten note to that. The street marches and demonstrations also stirred the first tremors of white backlash. The George Wallace surge in the North, the open hostility of many Northern whites to housing and school integration, and the Republican reawakening in the South was a direct outcropping of the civil rights push. This stiffened the spines of Southern Democrats and conservative Northern Republicans who dug their heels in and flatly opposed the bill, piled amendment after crippling amendment onto the bill initially, and employed every legal and parliamentary dodge and stall tactic they could dredge up to delay a vote on it, if not to kill it outright.

King could do nothing about this. JFK who introduced the bill couldn't do anything about it either. He was at his wits end after months and months of Congressional ducking and dodging on the bill about how to get it moving. By the time Johnson took office, following JFK's murder, the bill was still born in Congress. There was every chance that it could be shelved. However, Johnson would have none of that. He was a Southerner and he knew the mood and temper of the South. From his decades in the Senate he knew where the political skeletons were buried and how to rattle them. He did what King and Kennedy didn't have a prayer of doing, he got the sympathetic ear of enough Southerners to take some of the steam out of their vehement opposition to the bill. The rest of course is history. The Civil Rights Bill, not King's marches and demonstrations, broke the back of legal segregation in America and became the watchword for progressive, visionary social legislation for decades to come.

King and all the top civil rights leaders knew that history had been made with the passage of the bill, and that the man that played the towering role in making that history was LBJ A t the signing ceremony for the bill, King and the other civil rights leaders beamed when Johnson handed them the pens after the signing. They effusively praised him for his tireless effort.

Hillary's statement was a simple, honest, and respectful nod to Johnson for his indispensable part in making civil rights a legal fact and reality in America. This was the same nod that King and the civil rights leaders made more than four decades ago to him.

This is a nod that the Hillary haters have forgotten or deliberately distorted in their clinical obsession to smash mouth every Hillary utterance. This is a history lesson that Hillary got right about King and Johnson, and one that the Obama campaign flunked badly.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is "The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House" (Middle Passage Press, February, 2008).

Comments

[jnelsonleith]

Whether Clinton's observations about MLK and LBJ are technically correct, how exactly does this debunk Obama citing King unless to imply that Obama should be doing it the way King did: from outside the political structure?

After all, she did contrast Obama and King by saying that King was "gassed, beaten, and jailed" meaning, one could reasonably conclude, that this is the sort of ckecklist Barack needs to cross off in order to be taken seriously as an African-American political figure.

I'm really sick of the Hillary apologists and their spin on MLK. Clinton claims to have been impressed by the King speech she heard in 1961, yet she clearly wasn't so impressed that it stopped her from volunteering for Barry Goldwater against King's presidential ally in 1964.

If something Barack Obama said about presidential aspirations when he was barely out of diapers is fair game, why don't we talk about the fact that young adult Hillary Rodham was working for the very same civil rights opposition that led to Dr. King being gassed, beaten, and jailed?

[Stanley]

If you wish to offer credit to the positive effects of the Civil Rights movement, then you also must give credit to Justice Hugo Black and his efforts to rightfully extend the Bill of Rights to include all. His efforts led to Brown vs. Board of Ed. and integration in the South. This is even more remarkable considering he was self educated from Alabama and a former Klan member who couldn't even return home after his position became widely known. You also must credit the NAACP legal team headed by Thurgood Marshall. There were many who made a difference for the benefit of all. Some were even former racists who saw the value of equality as the grew wiser. The mentioning of a LBJ in comparison to MLK was an attempt to draw a similar comparison between Clinton and Obama. This reference was not to the ability of a President to get things done, since Clinton has no comparable experience with LBJ skills as a Senate leader. This seems to be focusing on race in a weak metaphor to reinforce African American fears and divisions as well as reminding any racist white voters who the white President will be. This was pure dirty politics and nothing less. No lucid point was made. Only argument wrapped in fear.

[HaroldBeu]

Now, it was clear to me that Senator Clinton did not mean to demean King’s contribution when she pointed to the fact that it took a President Johnson to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She only wanted to make the point that one can not live on hope alone, especially false hope, that she claims Obama is promoting.
But I think it is important to understand that President Johnson was able to close the deal in implementing a new law that for the first time made African Americans first-class citizens legally because the nation was ready. The nation would never have become ready without the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his message of hope. And remember, King could not have implemented legal reforms because he did not have the political power to do so nor could he ever have that power in his day. His was the power of the prophet, of his ability to touch a nation with his hopes and dreams.

[GrandmaSue]

I can't speak with a superb knowledge of history and I don't know any politicians personally, so when I voice my opinion it is based on the people and acts that go on in my life. When a person I know, too often, has battles going on in their personal and/or public life I try to avoid them. They have a way of putting unnecessary anxiety into my life. I was concerned with Hillary Clinton's running for president because of the prevalent Republican "anger" toward her, and I was also concerned that a groups "anger" would stop a good person from acheiving their goals. But months ago I decided it was more important for America to move forward with its needs than it was for Hillary to move forward in her aspirations, especially as we had many other excellent candidates to choose from. Now that same kind of "its them" is happening and there isn't a Republican around. I personally do not wish to spend the next years of my life having political battles filling the news and overshadowing our need to progress. I again relate this back to the people around me, some just take too much energy to support them. I wish them no harm, I just wish they would live their lives away from mine. At this point I don't have the heart or the stamina to support Hillary in the primaries. She has just been too provocative for too long for my preference.

[joekerr]

This debate on who knows their history is facetious at best, bs at worst. Does anyone remember the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence? At no point, does either document specifically mention that these unalienable rights are strictly reserved for Caucasians. Why was there a Civil Rights Bill in the first place? Because the people in charge felt that it had to spelled out for them, that some Americans weren’t “American” enough, that somehow these documents that preceded all other rules of law in America didn’t pertain to certain segments of society. When LBJ stuck up his pale hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, does this mean he taciturnly acknowledged that some Americans were inferior? I am deliberately leaving out a race descriptor because according to the Constitution I believe in, there are no races of import, there are no divisions. And yet history rarely addresses the fact that the founding fathers supported what amounted to one of the most egregious crimes against humanity ever perpetuated by any government, either then or now, in direct violation of the very democracy they esposed. And Clinton’s statement, no matter how innocuous, shows that this meme still exists in our nation, even by those who would claim that they are not of that same ilk. LBJ did no one any favors by pushing this bill through Congress. There was no reason for the bill to even exist. To give any man credit for finally recognizing another man as human and as an equal deserves no applause and deserves no credit. LBJ deserves nothing in the way of congratulations and the Civil Rights Act is nothing less than a confession of crimes committed by our government against the people and contained no solution to the very essence of why such a bill was needed in the first place. As far as I’m concerned LBJ and every other president before him can rot for accepting things as they were and only acting when the web of lies and deceit threaten to undermine the very caste system they had set in place.

[Brianimator]

Pres. Johnson was a brilliant politician and master of "leverage" - a man who could clearly get things done in the halls of power.

MLK was an inspirational leader with that rare ability to motivate people to rise to the level of their own potential - to help us see ourselves as more than we are.

Hillary may indeed have attributes of Johnson.
Obama has demonstrated attributes of BOTH.

It's simple math, and Hillary comes up lacking no matter how you add it up. Obama '08!

[GeorgeKaplan]

And while the Democrats are busy eating each other the Republicans are measuring the drapes at the White House.

What a stupid and destructive discussion. A real discussion about race should be had, but what's going on between Hillary and Obama is pure politics and not about race... it's just silly.

[DebT]

"1) If it weren't for people being inspired and motivated to be active and get on the front lines, there would have been no reason for, or support of LBJ's efforts. "

Why does one preclude the other? It was a process. The first step, the inspiration, was the most important, of course, but without Johnson for the follow through, Civil Rights would have been stuck in its tracks. Surely, after witnessing the performance of the Bush administration, you must realize how important Johnson's support was. If Bush had been president, who knows what nightmare we would have experienced.

"2) The "backlash" you speak of -- in terms of the violent reaction to protesters -- actually did a lot to push the mushy, decent, middle of the country to throw their support behind the civil rights movement."

But without Johnson, violence could easily have escalated, gotten worse. Again, look at what is happening today. Talk about white backlash. What do you think that would have meant if someone like Bush or Cheney were in power?

Bush and Cheney wouldhave jailed all the freedom marchers and suspended their rights in the name of national security. Johnson was the right president at the right time for civil rights. He didn't do so well on Vietnam however.

"3) I don't doubt for a minute that Bill and Hill are not racist in the slightest. But since when have any of them shown any interest in listening to, and acting on, the demands of the public? . . ."

Bill isn't running for President. And truthfully, I don't care what you think of Hillary's record.
The bottom line is this whole argument is a waste of time. It's a political tactic and the reporting smacks more of developing some negative narrative to distract us from what's really important - electing a Democrat.

[xrayman]

Thank you Earl. Finally a post that reflects my thinking on this debacle. JFK did not have the political savvy of LBJ. LBJ was a brilliant legislator that knew how to get the job done. He was definitely "the" civil rights president.

It is sad that people want to rewrite history. LBJ put the future of the Democratic party on the line with the Civil Rights Act which gave the south to the Republicans.

[DietrichMoody]

Opportunist!! you are!!

Why not give Condoleeza Rice a history lesson??? oh and . General Colin Powell, he needs a good history lesson too.

Condi for President 2059!!

[fullnelson]

Hillary is in hot water for trying to make herself "relevant" to African American voters. She's trying to "out-Black" Obama, and it's a very bad idea. I don't blame her for trying--she's not Bill, but no doubt is trying to capitalize on his "status" as our "first Black President." We Black folks know when someone is invoking the name of Dr. King for her own purposes. Hillary has a dream: to kick Obama's butt so she can be president. Many of us in the Black community gave her a free pass as First Lady, but we all know she lacks the credentials to qualify as a "civil rights leader" herself. It's way past time we continue to back her merely out of deference to her husband's popularity. I just don't trust her to do as good a job in asserting and protecting the rights of African Americans and ALL Americans as I do Obama. Yes, it takes a President to get things done, but LBJ was NOT interested in civil rights until Dr. King and those whose support he inspired made it a priority on the national agenda. Had he not first created the momentum and made the issue an imperative, not a single Congressman, and not a single president would have bothered with civil rights legislation, not even Bill Clinton.

[DebT]

You prove his point. Without Johnson civil rights would have taken much longer and the violence might have done more damage through white backlash. Johnson was the right man at the right time. I'm a huge fan of MLK, always have been. No one did what he did, but even he would have said, he didn't do it alone. Ask all the people who marched, were jailed, beaten and killed? Give Johnson his due. King did.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Everyone who doubts that Dr. King was THE driving force behind the civil rights movement say "Aye"............................(crickets chirping)

Everyone who doubts LBJ was insturmental in getting movement goals codified into law say "Aye"...................................(crickets chirping)

Everyone who is enjoying watching us cutting each other up over this say "Aye"..........(immediate thunderous roar from the Republican seats)

Close captioning for the historically impaired brought to you by...........................................................tm

[Kieran]

A valuable corrective to the smears now being slung. Clinton's point was a simple observation about the necessity for partnership to get anything done. You'd think Obama's supporters would respond to such a message - but the allure of misrepresentation seems to have called instead.

[nellie]

I'm really really disappointed in what you've written here. To blame MLK for white backlash is just Orwellian. There would have been backlash no matter what. And I challenge you to recognize who did the real work in the Civil Rights movement, and I would say it's those people in the streets, getting hosed and beaten and attacked by dogs—because it was those images brought into the living rooms of American homes that galvanized the nation in support of equal rights. Just as images of Vietnam fueled the movement to end that war. As another poster has pointed out, this was legislation whose time had come. No matter who sat in the White House.

Without public pressure, there would have been no legislation. There would have been no pressure on representatives to do what's right. I would recommend that you go back and look at some of the television footage from the time, and then tell us who did the hard work in this movement.