It's bizarre to have Hillary Clinton denigrate the power of rhetoric to change lives when her own husband was a masterful and inspiring speaker as President.

I'm beginning to feel that she and he will now say anything to get themselves elected. It's less about the country at this point and more about their attempt to heal the same of his impeachment.

I agree with Clinton's statement. Dr. King, remarkable as he was, could not have actually passed the Civil Rights Act. He was the inspiration for the act. He helped move the country and many politicians to want the Civil Rights Act, but Dr. King himself could not have done it. For that, we needed the Congress and the President to get it done. And specifically, we needed a president who was willing to push for it and negotiate for it. Lyndon Johnson did that. As an African-American, I did not take Clinton's comments as a criticism of Dr. King. I did not see an attempt to diminish Dr. King's role in the civil rights movement. Clinton was saying that in order to accomplish important issues, a president has got to stand up and not only say a particular issue is a priority but also be willing to put the president's political capital behind it. I agree with that. If the next president stands up and says the environment, stem cell research and universal health care are all now priorities for this country and for the White House, both the private and public sector will take notice.

As for Rep. James Clyburn, he is not rethinking his stance because of Clinton's comments. He knew exactly what she meant. Clyburn is betting Obama will get the nomination or at least win South Carolina. It is all politics.

Hey, I don't think that Clinton was slamming King at all. Is it possible you misinterpreted it? I agree btw, that Dr. King had influence in very personal ways, for people of all colors.

Hallelujah!

Just like we knew what Trent Lott meant when he said the United States wouldn’t have seen "all these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

It's just an amazingly stupid thing for Clinton to say on the way to a state with so many black voters.

The real question should be: What could our country have accomplished if MLK had been president instead of LBJ? If he had even been given a chance to affect American life on a real political level?

--tb

Clymer is looking for an out.

What Hillary said is obviously correct. It takes a committed president to move along the actual legislation that is generated from an inspired political movement.

Please, whatever else may be said of the Clintons, their committment to the civil rights movement has never been questioned.

Hillary didn't say anything wrong, but her problem is that she assumes her audience knows their American history. The common misperception is that African-Americans were 100% responsible for getting civil rights passed. Let's examine the facts:

1) The NAACP was founded in 1909 by Jewish people. There was no black leader of the NAACP until 1975.

2) The 1964 Civil Rights Bill got its language from the 1944 Fair Employment Practices Commission Bill, written by Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico.

3) One of the legal precedents for Brown vs Board of Education (1954) was Menendez vs Westminster (1946) a discrimination case in CA involving a school girl who was part Mexican/Puerto Rican. They won that case. Who was the judge? Earl Warren, the same judge who ruled on Brown. There's that expereince thing again...

4) The media--Peter Jennings, who began his career covering the Civil Rights Movement, said that the media was not interested in covering it until white college students started volunteering to register black voters in the South. The media wanted to see if any of them got hurt. Most of the Freedom Riders were white(Jewish). And we know that without media coverage, you fall off the rader like Dennis Kucinich.

5) LBJ--was a GIANT in the Senate, and was famous for getting his opponents to capitulate. He brought that experience to the White House. And let us not forget all the judges and legislators in addition to Earl Warren who gave the Civil Rights Bill its teeth.

Now do any of these facts detract from the importance of Dr. King? NO. But to exclude the others who were involved in the Civil Rights Movement does a disservice to history.

which HRC supporters can't criticize since her NH win was based on a knee-jerk reaction by women to vote for one of their own

When Clyburn says he is thinking about endorsing Obama, what's he going to say later, "Oh that, I decided to be neutral." I have the greatest respect for Clyburn. He has earned it. I think he is going back on some committments he made to get South Carolina an early primary, but I can understand how it might be difficult to stay silent when there is a chance an African-American could be president in Clyburn's lifetime. It must just be an unbelievable feeling after Clyburn has worked so long and so hard. I can understand why he feels the way he does. He has worked so long and so hard for racial justice, that he sees this race as having a meaning in that context.

I also understand how Clinton could say what she said and not even notice how it might be taken. Clinton does not see the world in terms of race. To her and I think her staff, Obama is just a rival candidate who does not have her experience. She knows from her experience that whoever is the next president is going to be tested by the world. She knows that Iran and Syria and Russia and China and the rest are not going to suddenly sit down and cooperate with us. They are going to see what they can get from us, what they can get away with. That is the issue as Clinton sees it, and so she sees Obama as not qualified, not proven to be strong. That his father is African is so irrelevant to Clinton that it is not even something she notices.

...but not so with Clyburn.