I am from Illinois and I support Hillary Clinton because she is the best qualified to be president. We are electing a president and what s/he has done and wants to do matters. Senator Clinton has 'had our backs' and stood up for us over the years. It would seem silly to desert her for a guy that has only a promise and a smile. Neither African Americans nor women will vote based upon one comment or one promise. We will endorse and vote for who we believe will be the best president.

And you know, every once in awhile a candidate says something stupid that offends someone. For example, I am deeply offended by Obama's ageist remarks and remarks that brush women's issues aside. I lobbied against his strategy to vote present on reproductive choice because I think he broke his promise to us. I also hate the hand that reaches out to either bless or silence us. But I digress -- I am supporting Hillary Clinton because she is the best qualified to be president.

When we pick at the little things we act like republicans who have to pick from the least offensive of several. I think it is very important that we base our decisions on what we like about one candidate and start talking about that instead of looking for ways to attack one or the other.

I don't think Kennedy would have done it. I don't think he had the will or the political know how to do it. Just speculating, but I think a second term of Kennedy would have done for civil rights pretty much what the Bill Clinton administration did for gay rights. And my gay and lesbian friends know exactly what I mean by that.

Humphrey would have done it. After LBJ bowed out of the 1968 race, Hubert Humphrey ran for president against Richard Nixon. Humphrey would have been a fine civil rights president, but Richard Nixon won instead. He was far more interested in China and foreign affairs than he was in civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

It makes clear some of the political maneuvering that was required to make the act law. For a fuller understanding of how much Johnson did for civil rights and why, I recommend Caro's extremely lengthy biography of Johnson, of which I have read only two volumes. Much of what you would need to know is in the second volume.

I believe Clinton's statement was unwise but I do not believe racism motivated it at all. Instead, I think she was trying to emphasize experience over hope and let her historical perspective get in the way of her political needs. She would be unwise to alienate black women. Also, she should have thought about the Vietnam thing. Either off message she was, or it poorly thought out.

As another commenter touched on, Hilary's main sin is expecting the American people to have any historical perspective. The Civil Rights Movement began in 1960, hmm? It began in Congress in 1948 when Hubert Humphrey made an impassioned speech at the Democratic Convention for an integrationist plank in the Democratic platform which caused several southern representatives to walk out and create the Dixiecrat party. It continued on through the 1950's when LBJ and Humphrey teamed up to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act. It reached its apex when LBJ through all of his considerable political weight behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Make no mistake, it was a courageous act on the part of LBJ, especially for an "illegitimate President" in an election year. An act Kennedy didn't seem to have the policital will to do.

That takes nothing away from MLK. One without the other would not have gotten the bill passed. But its delusional to think that it would have gotten passed in a Kennedy administration and insulting to think LBJ wasn't critically important.

But who really benefits from a bunch of angry black people? Hillary Clinton. Oh sure she might lose a measure of black support , but in the general election where would they throw their vote? Throw a few subtle racial rmarks around and let the blacks get "uppity" about it...sure way to scare enough white Obama supporters clinton's way. I'm guessing that's their strategy.

I can't be the only one who's noticed that since the Iowa caucus there has been almost no discussion or news in the media about issues or where candidates stand. Its been wall to wall CLINTON nonsence. That's how the clintons work. Good or bad, just make sure the headline is ALWAYS Clinton.

or a simple naivete of not having been old enough during the era that Clinton is talking about to recognize how far we have actually come. It is a shame that Anonymous 10:13 AM has to post as anonymous to avoid being piled on for stating the simple historical facts.

It is fine to speculate how MLK would have been as president compared to some white guy, but it would not have been possible for MLK or Hillary Clinton either one to have been elected at that time because of racial prejudice and because the role of women was enormously different.

In 1964 in the State of Texas, (from whence came LBJ) people paid poll tax to even be able to vote. Jim Crow was alive and well. Schools were still mostly segregated below high school level. Women were not allowed to sit on juries. Nor did black men sit on juries. Black men were routinely called "boy."

Nationwide the civil rights movement was changing things, but it is precisely because those things needed changing that MLK could never have been president at that time. Maybe you have to have lived in that time to understand how pervasive racial prejudice really was.

Lyndon Johnson spent his political capital to pass the Civil Rights Act, both because he truly believed it was just and because he wanted something for his legacy, and he should be given credit where credit is due. Sadly, he squandered much of his legacy pursuing the incredibly stupid and unjust Vietnam War. Sometimes good people do bad things. Sometimes bad people do good things.

Looking at the world as if it is a game of heros and villians is childish.