-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/01/hillary-you-negroes-better-thank-the-white-man-for-your-rights/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
If that comment wasn't racist, I don't know what is!
But of course, she'll get a free pass on her racist comments.
Reporter quoting OBAMA. "False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Memorial, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hopes, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us."
Reporter: Would you react to that?
Senator Clinton: "I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples eyes because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
LOOK.. Both Clinton and Obama are running for president, and Obama has been compared to President Kennedy, and has even welcomed the comparison. She is implicitly saying hey look, Kennedy was hopeful, but he didn't get it done. LBJ got it done. She is comparing herself to LBJ. It might not be the wisest move, but shes saying instead of being hopeful for it like Kennedy, I will get it done.
Whether or not you agree with her, shes trying to use this augment that hope is one thing, but results are another. Now you may say Clinton has no results of her own, or whatever, I'm fine with that, but to say she is diminishing MLK, and that MLK hoped, but LBJ acted is not accurate.
Please view the video before you attack Hillary.
<... is the video..
the politico article you cite does quotes Hillary without including a huge chunk of what she said in the middle, which clearly makes it misleading.
After reading this post, she needs to lose NY too.
If what Bill said is true about Mandela, you folks in Harlem seriously need to run him out of there... yesterday. Let him take his ass on down to midtown.
The Clintons...Our Great White Saviours...I think i'll create a video for youtube where I start shuckin, jiving, "OH suh, I LUV Me Sum Clinton!" Where is Aaron McGruder and the Boondocks when you need him and it???
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action." ~ Hillary "I don feelz nowayz tarred" Clinton
In other words, Blacks can't get anything done with out a White President. That's how everyone is looking at it. Black, White, Latino. Everyone is pissed off right now.
Check out Daily Kos. They went nuts !
If she's being Will Smithed, that's one thing. But I need to get the headsets to hear the full quote indeed to hear for myself.
There are still better ways to finesse this than to imply that the end all be all of the Civil Rights movement was LBJ's political sacrifice with the stroke of a pen... or that MLK and his ultimate sacrifice are somehow lesser than LBJ's.
Hillary needs to get it together. She needs a break.
2) Most importantly: Don't react or Don't feed the Troll (for a better word). The Clintons are experts in dirty politics. The beauty of the Obama campaign is to unite us all and not divide us. Especially on race. Don't you think it is quite weird that she would come out with bigoted expressions? It is calculated IMHO! If she divides and conquers she can try to get people on her side if Obama supports cry racism. Ignore the troll-like responses from the Clinton campaign. They are getting desperate as hell. Don't bite.
KEEP POSITIVE AND TURN OUT THE VOTE FOR OBAMA 08!! PLEASE
Sis
y'all are hellbent on painting this woman as some kind of racist monster.
does support for Obama require the demonization of Hillary? or vice versa?
When I heard Bill's comments about Mandela, I was shocked, but Hillary? WHAT was she THINKING??? Even taken in context... A more correct framing would be LBJ would never have had the guts to push through the Civil Rights Act if it hadn't had been for a great movement. If she understood this, she'd realize that the Clinton Era is over.
If this is planned, for the specific purpose you mention. I weep. I weep because I wouldn't put it past several people. But I'm going to hope the Clintons aren't in this case.
I didn't even mention Obama. You did.
How is characterizing Lyndon Johnson as the one who did all the work and MLK as simply a great orator NOT what she said?
The Civil Rights bill was brought before Congress in 1963 and in a speech on television on 11th June, Kennedy pointed out that: "The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day; one third as much chance of completing college; one third as much chance of becoming a professional man; twice as much chance of becoming unemployed; about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year; a life expectancy which is seven years shorter; and the prospects of earning only half as much."
Kennedy's Civil Rights bill was still being debated by Congress when he was assassinated in November, 1963. (Excerpted from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/
U... or not one views Sen. Clinton's remarks as disrespectful of Rev. Dr. King and other civil rights s/heroes, they were certainly disrespectful of President Kennedy.
When he took office there was a hostile Congress made up of Republicans and conservative southern DEMOCRATS blocking his legislation. He spent most of his first 2 years in office dealing with the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and protecting the country against the Soviets who were placing long-range missiles in Cuba.
To let Sen. Clinton tell it, he was just sitting around the oval office hoping and wishing and writing speeches.
Methinks she hit bottom with this one. Sometimes pulling out all stops to win results in one going down the drain.
again, do you think she actually believes that? do you think that's what she actually meant?
if you do, can you explain how it make any political sense whatsoever?
(i'm not sure what she meant, but that goes to my point. it was a clumsy-ass jumble.)
this line makes me angry. very angry. before i get into it, let me say that i am 100% in the obama camp and i think that hillary's point is not particularly valid. HOWEVER: one of my pet peeves among sloppy popular mythmakers is that LBJ was "reacting" to change, as you say, and not "making" it- if you actually read the history, if you actually study the maneuvers and machinations that Johnson employed during his career in the senate and the white house, you will see that he is the one who bucked and tricked the real "white supremicists" - the Thurmonds and Russells and all the southern bloc that had stood in the way of institutional change and planned carefully to be able to do so indefinitely. And they very well may have if it hadn't been for Johnson.
Indeed, I think the LBJ analogy cuts in Obama's favor- he can make progress on important issues because he, like LBJ can bridge not only the rhetorical gaps in our popular political culture, but also the intellectual chasms in government (as he actually had a lot of experience doing in the IL state senate).
MLK should not be derided or his achievements or sacrifice belittled, but the demonization of lyndon johnson (mostly deserved for vietnam but completely uncalled for beyond that) makes me sick and embarrassed.
Sure, LBJ was a skilled maneuverer but he needed political capital to achieve the Civil Rights Act. Where did the political capital come from Mr. Schwartz? The political power came from the assassination and martyrdom of JFK. That's where LBJ's motivation was born--to fulfill JFK's dream, agenda and vision--the Thurmonds and Russells be damned.
So LBJ didn't achieve the Civil Rights Act only on the basis of his own political abilities, he achieved it through blood shed by the Dreamer.
America can only advance through visionary-principled leadership, not political hacks. All of the Clinton's so-called achievements for "black folks" were easily dismantled by Bush.
I have turned the page on the Clintons...looks like the rest of America is about to do the same.
Go *O* 2008!!!
Without our help, you'd still be running from the Klan! So you'd best vote for the right candidate!
Johnson should be credited for initiating the move to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as should Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, the Republican floor leader who actually made sure that it survived any filibuster attempts by southern Democrats, btw). However, Johnson was, like most politicians, reactive, not leading a movement. The push for Civil Rights came out of the streets, not out of the halls of Congress.
That Hillary doesn't appear to get this intuitively speaks volumes about her.
this is the realness! what a great line.
I was going to do a follow-on post, but am glad I read the comments. Yall are on it.
The crime is not only in her diminishing the role of the soldiers on the street but completely misreading history.
Johnson was able to do what he did because JFK got killed!
maybe she's suggestion Obama-the-Hopeful becomes president, she becomes VP, Obama gets assassinated, then she comes in as president and realizes his dreams?
Remarkable!
No seriously, the Clinton & Clinton Co. has lost it. Now she's Nelson Mandela??? They're reading from the 1990s playbook when big Bill was the "first black president" (bullshit!) and they could run that garbage on Jesse & Al.
Their hubris has given them a sense of entitlement. They really can't believe Obama is beating them.
Regardless of what happens in New Hampshire today everyone knew she was going to get hammered in S. Carolina --- after going negative on MLK this should once and for all end the love affair between the Clintons and black voters everywhere.
Peace,
The SOULution
All major civil rights victories in this country were achieved by blacks and whites working TOGETHER.
But blacks have always taken on the actually hostility, discrimination and DEATH of institutionalized racism. Blacks have taken the risks of bringing it to national attention. But sympathetic whites have always had the actual legislative power to actually, legally institute the change. From abolishing slavery to the Civil Rights and Voting acts, it's alway been this way.
But what Hillary seems to be doing is completely dismiss that Afro-American (major) role in all of this and is simply saying 'it took the white guy to get it done.' It's an incredibly insensitive and boggling statement.
I, as a black man don't ever want to give the cynical "I'm not surprised" response, I AM surprised that this came out of this particular person's mouth.
This is key. In many ways it's like the SNCC coordinators during the CRM, admonishing student activists to resist the urge to strike back at the racists who would try and provoke them. The very moment that it appeared that Black folk were "violent" was the very moment that we would have lost our credibility.
I see a parallel with Obama supporters and the Clintonites. They may try to bait us with the most ignorant of quips and comments, but if we can manage to make use of some political aikido, we can redirect whatever weak attacks they come with, and hurt them with it. It makes Hillary look as if she fell to the ground on her own clumsiness, rather than the stealthness of our technique.
This making up crap about the Clinton's is atrocious! Do you want Barrack to win so bad that you are going to trash a lifetime of DEMONSTRATED accomplishments for all Americans.
This blog and its commenters should be repulsed by the lies you are spouting. If you are so dense that you can't read or hear what the person actually said, then don't let your fingers to the offensive typing.
This is not a game! Barrack doesn't deserve to win if he is going to authorize this b.s.!
I supported him before, but NO MORE!
No one wins by this behavior. This is true gutter politics.
You wrote:
"When he (JFK) took office there was a hostile Congress made up of Republicans and conservative southern DEMOCRATS blocking his legislation. He spent most of his first 2 years in office dealing with the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and protecting the country against the Soviets who were placing long-range missiles in Cuba.
Let's be VERY clear about who controlled the nation at that time.
87th Congress (1961-1963)
Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
I get really tired of Republicans taking the heat for the Civil Rights atrocities in this nation.
I'm sure that Bill is not a Bigot and fairly sure of the same for Hillary, but she is and probably always has been an elitist, it may also be rubbing off on Bill who now seems to be willing to sink Obama for the sake of his wifes ambitions.
now that we know -again- that the clintos are nothing but self satisfied egomaniacs, let's give them hell, but not one single vote.
let's get obama elected! and maybe yes, hillary is ironically right: let the black man of hope and action be also the black man who delivers.
delivers from the white house... hmm, some good irony in there too.
Robert Kennedy was the one who cared! JFK was once quoted as saying "Ignore Bobby, he's just worrying about his negroes again".
Alice Walker, not black folks crowned him the first black president after his appearance on Arsenio Hall's tv program where he played the sax.And it has been a marriage on convenience ever since.We are slow to learn my friends.
Obama's plan is not mandatory; he knows that those who cannot afford to be sick will buy health insurance. Hillary the elitist wants a mandatory society where you behave because "BIG SISTER IS WATCHING YOU."
But I don't think that's what Hillary was saying here. She was not dismissing the role of MLK, Rosa Parks or other social activists, but was clarifying that the role of President is very different. Since she and Obama are running for President, they'll need to do more than inspire, they also need to work in a very specific context (Washington) to get things done.
Her word choices are extremely unfortunate, but I honestly don't believe that there's racist intent there. Shouldn't we be focusing our energies on hating on the arch-conservative candidates who will truly do the most harm if elected?
then we'll fight the kooks hard.
then let's make obama president.
Hillary was basically saying that Martin Luther King's work was for naught..that people of color should thank their lucky stars for LBJ.
Do you actually think LBJ would of done anything if MLK had not brought all the racism to the forefront with his marches and protests?
short of overthrowing a government and starting from scratch ~ not a bad idea, but it didn't happen ~ the movement had to have legislative support to make lasting change.
it is typical of the media as a whole that the recounting of her speech leaves out the portions that actually support her point. there's nothing in the speech that would indicate anything but the greatest admiration of MLK and the movement in general.
as a veteran of the effort to pass the ERA, the one which failed in the '80s due to lack of presidential support and lack of congressional support, what she said is true.
that being said, this is how we're going to do it, us democrats. in an election year when we're turning out in droves to vote for a new (god save us from the present) president, we'll manage to shoot ourselves in the foot and let the bastards win again.
ANY president would have had to listen to the movement of mlk. first, because the politicians are supposed to represent the people. second, because human rights demanded it.
sooner or later, with lbj or anyone thereafter, human rights had to be installed in the us. and political power had to be truely representative.
that is why i see absolutely no special place for the president who finally behaved as a democrat, and who finally brought justice. he only executed what democratically and legally was required.
he was OBLIGED to do so. he did not chose.
this is what hillary seems to forget, and forgetting this reveals her as anything else but a democrat and a law-abiding person.
never have we been talking about political issues for the black. it was always about legal issues. the rights black people have, as any people. not the favors granted to them. nobody ever asked for a favor.
civil rights!... now that must sound a bell, belle.
sooner or later, with lbj or anyone thereafter, human rights had to be installed in the us. and political power had to be truely representative.
that is why i see absolutely no special place for the president who finally behaved as a democrat, and who finally brought justice. he only executed what democratically and legally was required.
i see your point to a point ;-) marc. but i fear you are very optimistic. but let's consider first the fact that the president ~ nor any other individual with sufficient power to legislate ~ did not listen to the people on the ERA. that was significant movement as well and one which was, in the end, refused.
but i don't want to compare movements, not at all, and i don't want to diminish in any way the struggle for civil rights which has been the pinnacle of all movements, my opinion only. but they are rights, not gifts, and shouldn't require laws to make change, you're right. and yet this country is a nation of laws and given human nature and the history of racism and prejudice in this country, without law, without legislating those rights, i don't think things would have changed. just my opinion.
but then again . . . imagine this president, this administration, this congress faced with the same outrage of the people, the same demands of the people, the same voices raised over injustice, demanding change. they represent us too. supposedly.
but if you think change would happpen now, you're far more optimistic than i am. the kind of dissent and activism that was a regular thing in the '60s would land folks in guantanimo these days. just my opinion, again, and it all just makes me so tired that i'm going to shut up now.
except for this: i love obama. love him. i cried listening to his speech post-NH. my heart lifted, i felt the most extravagant rush of hope and excitement and joy. it was incredible. i think having him as president of this country would be a magnificent thing. and i also love hillary clinton. i am deeply disturbed by what i've been hearing and i mistrust the messenger ~ the right wing -controlled media in this country ~ and will wait to see what happens.
we cannot imagine today's world without the struggle for civil rights having succeeded. yet, i do dare to venture that if lbj had not done it, the course of the world's history would have forced the change upon the us of a. the world would have developed, and it would have drawn america along. the time was ripe. nowhere in the civilised world could we see an oppression as it was in the states. a ripe fruit had to be picked, or it had to fall to the ground by its own weight.
lbj's only part in history was to pick that fruit, like any farmer would have done out of pure logics, pure necessity for survival. he did it in time, and america stayed in tune with the rest of the world.
i hold this to be one historic fact. the present administration, the president... all those... ehem... people, they have no choice anymore, and they would have had no choice then. they can still opt for the house nigga. and they do. but even they are faced with the fact that there are no house niggas left anymore, and those who seem to be turn out to have their own lives. even these people, if back in the 60s, would have delayed the events by no more than 4 years. the fruit would have dropped to the ground, right at their feet. and it might have exploded.
see, that is what america is about, in its most positive way. and it is just this positive america hillary has denied its existence by going backwards, by telling us "it took a president", when the president was no more than a pawn of history, and history was brought about by the people. and it is so obvious that this could not have escaped her attention. not at her age, not with her experience.
instead of going backwards to reinterprete what happened, it is obama who lives it all today. who does not go backwards, who does not relive the conflicts of the past, but who goes beyond them: he does not care for color. he does care for justice, but he has already entered the next phase: that we are all one, we just have to live it. and there is no ignorance of the gaps which are still there, yet he does not look for solutions in the past. he builds on what we are, and points to the future, to what we can be. there is the hope! if he becomes president, this hope will have the sign it needs to become reality. even if still slowly, but that is how history works.
you can have history either way. you can look back at it, and you can make it yourself for a better future.
hillary still has to pull her arguments from the past. and, so that they suit her, even from a twisted past. i truely despise that.
and another word. do not blame the messenger. corporate news is as bad as it is, but when we are aware of the pitfalls, we can make do with what we get.
and what we got was hillary saying what she said to the cameras. we got her live on tv. we need no more. she really said it: "it took a president". no, hillary, it took the people. and it took history. and the people made history.
she said it to the cameras. this much i do believe my eyes.
and now she herself is history.
now, i don't want no more of that old shit. i need a new world. and a new leader who is up to his time, and maybe -hopefully- a little ahead of it.
Upon Bill's 1998 exodus from Washington he took up shop in Harlem, what has he or Hillary done to improve Harlem?, or any other decaying black community across America? Hillary was the senator, what did she fight for while in the senate to better the African-American community in New York? Most women would divorce their husband for infidelity, and the thought of him being able to live in the White House again. No, we have principles too, we forgive him, but he has forfeited his opportunity to be in the White House, he is not worthy, very handsome, but not worthy to lead this country. So, what about Hillary? she is not the one, there is too much anger,baggage and drama.
On the one hand, here's Obama, speaking with the graceful articulation of a poet. On the other hand, there's Hillary. Speaking like every other candidate out there.
She's grasping and struggling for metaphors. She jealous of the passion Obama is inspiring in people, and her campaign desperately needs to do the same. She's falling flat on her face, every time. It's like chips and guacamole? Maybe next time, it'll be about fried chicken and watermelon? Fried rice?
Out of touch corporate establishment politician.
DO NOT WANT.
though i have to say, too, that until this whole public blowup i never thought of the legislative aspect of the changes. it was the movement itself that changed my life, changed my view of the world. i wasn't thinking for a minute about what was going on in washington. it was people in the streets and the power of that.
with the exception of his insistent drive for bipartisanship (puke), that's what i get from obama: that excitement, we can change the world, we can make this a better place, come together, be better together than we ever will be alone.
i just want him to drop the bipartisanship. no. bipartisan means dems bend over and the rethugs give us a swift kick in the ass. or an ass fu**in dry. it's ugly. bipartisan doesn't work with these people. they've seized control of this country and we must ~ MUST ~ seize it back. i don't know how we can do that by being bipartisan when we're so far dangling over the right wing cliff we're just about done for.
he is brilliant, not blind, nobody's fool. in his position, he can ill afford to express the justified, righteous anger that is the only proper response to what bush & co. has done to us.
i hope president obama finds his pissed off voice. i need to hear that from him.
thanks for the enlightenment. i do appreciate it.
yes... there is this risk in bipartisanship. it is just as you say. our side offering, the other one taking advantage. the soft, nice ones getting rolled over, and not for the first time.
i am wondering how bipartisan you have to get to be elegible to the masses. those masses you need to get the job. how many compromises...?
"i hope president obama finds his pissed off voice. i need to hear that from him." blows my mind. you're really serious, you're so sincere and authentic. so many thoughts and feelings come up that i got to sort through them for some time.
i just hope obama reads these lines of yours, not the president, but the candidate. you have said so much in so few words.
thanks a lot, belle!
BumbleZee.com/blogs/isis
What is White Female Supremacy?
A white female supremacist is usually an educated white female professional who while claiming not to be racist, shows overwhelming preference and favoritism towards white females identical to herself.
A white female supremacist:
1) takes advantage of affirmative action programs;
2) surrounds herself with other white female professionals (her girlfriends);
3) protects her turf and the positions of her white female friends while creating a new glass ceiling for people of color--especially Latino and Black women.
The white female supremacist does this while claiming to be the very ideal of modern workplace "diversity".
The white female supremacist is a fortunate person.
She likely comes from a middle or upper-class family background; and her privileges are many:
1) she grew up middle or upper-class
2) she went to college (paid for by her white male father).
3) she is considered "Thee Beauty Standard" for the entire western world. (Go to any supermarket and look at the covers of all the major fashion magazine.)
4) she uses affirmative action preferences to gain positions of power within the pubic and private sector; and
5) she--if attractive--uses her sexuality to curry favor with powerful white males within the workplace hierarchy.
The white female supremacist actually believes she is not a racist, yet her actions prove otherwise. Careful examination of nearly any public or private workplace environment will overwhelmingly depict a phenomena of white female privilege, i.e. "The All White Girls' Club".
Meanwhile, women of color, educated and hardworking, are confronted with a new kind of discrimination--a hidden and insidious form of hate--I call it White Female Supremacy, and it seems very little attention is paid to its painful and destructive presence for any individual not like her, or her white female sisters.