Setting the record straight on Hillary's supposed King snub

The holiday to honor civil rights hero, anti-war activist, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Martin Luther King is also a fitting day to bring some historical perspective to Hillary Clinton's remarks about the role of Lyndon Johnson in the legislative fulfillment of King's dream.

Bill Moyers does just that in an essay delivered on his PBS show Friday night, calling the controversy over Hillary's comments  "much ado about nothing".  Conversely, Barbara Ehrenreich, writing for The Nation, further roiled the waters of racial discord simmering between the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

Perhaps not surprisingly, given my stated admiration for the man, I side with Moyers.  And frankly, I'm tired of the continued and often baseless criticism of Hillary Clinton by those who see trickery and guile in everything remotely connected to her campaign, especially the support of her husband Bill Clinton, remembered fondly by his numerous detractors as "Slick Willy".

Moyers writes:

"There was nothing in [Hillary's] quote about race. It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious.  But critics pounced."

Moyers then recounts Lyndon Johnson's role in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Acts Right of 1965:

"Lyndon Johnson was no racist but he had not been a civil rights hero, either.  Now, as president, he came down on the side of civil disobedience, believing it might quicken America's conscience until the cry for justice became irresistible, enabling him to turn Congress. So King marched and Johnson maneuvered and Congress folded." ...

"Of course the movement had come first, watered by the blood of so many, championed bravely now by the preacher turned prophet who would himself soon be martyred. But there is no inevitability to history, someone has to seize and turn it.  With these words at the right moment, "we shall overcome", €” Lyndon Johnson transcended race and color, and history, too, reminding us that a president matters, and so do we."

Ehrenreich believes, along with historian Howard Zinn, that change begins with the people.  But she also says this of Johnson:

"If you had to give this honor to a white guy, LBJ was an odd choice, since he'd spent the 1964 Democratic convention scheming to prevent the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party from taking any Dixiecrat seats."

And then:

"But Clinton's LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness--a theory of social change that's as elitist as it is inaccurate."

Ehrenreich, by dismissing LBJ as a "schemer" and Hillary as a tone-deaf "elitist",  amps up the relentless criticism of the Clinton campaign and stokes the flames of discord even higher.  (The New York Times is equally guilty.  This NYT blog post by Matt Bai typifies the Times anti-Hillary bias.)

Both Hillary and Obama recognize that the argument serves neither well.  That was evident in the last debate.  But those who staunchly oppose all things Clinton, especially those on the left with  Obama fever --Obamaniacs-- evidently didn't get the message, and the sniping at Hillary continues. 

The issue now is voter fraud in both New Hampshire and Nevada engineered by the win-at-all-costs Clintonistas.  Locally, the charges from Nevada based on the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence, are being taken seriously.  By Democrats.  Imagine what the Republicans will do should Hillary win the nomination. 

My advice to those involved (on both sides) is simply this:  Stick to the issues!  That's what primaries are for. 

(Disclaimer:  I'm not a supporter of Hillary Clinton.  I'd prefer to see Edwards win the nomination.  And as I wrote in an earlier post, if Edwards or Kucinich are on the ballot in the Oregon primary, I'd likely cast a protest vote for one of them.  But who knows?  I may decide by then that Obama is the most electable of the Dems.  If so, he'll get my support.)

Comments

[Steve R.]

What about those of us on the left (I mean really on the left) who would criticize Clinton and LBJ?

I can see from the perspective of party unity we should zip it, but I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.

Let's not forget that Bill Moyers is more than a little biased about LBJ, having gotten his start in politics and public policy as an intern with then-Senator Johnson in 1954, and was a top aid to President Johnson.

With that in mind, I think Ehrenreich and Zinn are probably better suited to provide analysis of LBJ's legacy (which is certainly not all bad, Viet Nam notwithstanding).

[Steve R.]

I should also add, when primary candidates have converged so closely on most issues, as Obama and Clinton have, it's no surprise when things get personal.

Seriously, what policy differences should they focus on?

[Terry]

I'm to the left of all three leading Dem candidates, and I have been critical of all three on the issues.

Accusations (or intimations) of dirty tricks are not the way to advance a substantive debate.

[Anne]

I agree Terry. I am much more interested in the issues especially when it comes to a concrete plan regarding Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. And in the end, no matter who is elected, a strong movement for democracy, justice and peace is what will make this happen. Change happens from the bottom up.