Hot News!
• Proportional Representation: Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding
• Portune’s Deal, Unopposed Republican Judges, and the Case for Proportional Representation
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hillary Clinton on civil rights, MLK, LBJ and her vote for war
Posted by Justin Jeffre
This past week Sen. Clinton once again refused to apologize for her vote for war. And she’s being criticized by Obama and others for minimizing Dr. King’s role in securing the Civil Rights Act. Is Hillary just misunderstood?
Here’s what she said;
Obama and others were quick to criticize her for what they see as minimizing MLK’s role in the historic legislation. She appeared on Sundays “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert. When questioned by Russert she went into the spin zone.
But as David Zephyr of the democraticunderground.com points out, Clinton’s comment about MLK and LBJ certainly had racial overtones and seemed to be intentional.
Zephyr writes:
In regards to Hillary Clinton’s comments about MLK & LBJ in context to Barack Obama being an inspiring leader and speaker:
Hillary claims that she was only making a “point” distinguishing between just making speeches as opposed to really getting progress into law. Now this is a subject that could be debated either way. Howard Zinn suggests that all progress has come from “direct action” rather than “electoral action.” But that debate is open. I do side with Howard Zinn. I respect those who disagree.
Still, there are a million other examples Hillary COULD have used to make her oddly disconnected “point” when talking about Barack Obama who she suggested was merely an inspirational speaker. She might have mentioned Susan B. Anthony who labored long and never saw women receive the right to vote when W. Wilson signed that right into law.
Hillary might have mentioned the Haymarket Martyrs or the Wobblies and Union Organizers who gave their lives never seeing FDR sign into law labor organizing rights. But INSTEAD she made her odd “point” about a BLACK man who did not achieve civil rights for people of color until a WHITE president signed them into law.
The metaphor she chose to make her “point” clearly had two ringing similarities: one to make her “point” against “direct action” and the second to draw comparison between two BLACK men. She could have used a million other examples. She chose the one that also had the ingredient of race. And in doing this, she continues what her campaign began in Iowa: remind voters that Barack is black.
That is what was shitty about her comments. Hillary wasn’t making a “point”. She was making two points at the same time. And one of them was to remind voters that Barack is black.
It is extremely unlikely that Clinton who supports NAFTA, CAFTA and free trade over labor would use the Wobblies and union organizers as an example. (After all, her top advisor Mark Penn is a top union buster.) It appears her example wasn’t just some off the cuff remark, but a calculated remark that did indeed bring race into the campaign.
Clinton continues the orthodox tradition of our text books and culture that perpetuates the idea that history is shaped by officials and important people at the top, while minimizing the role of civic leaders and people’s movements. As Zinn says, this top down view leaves average people with the most feeble of roles: “that of voting every four years for a member of the Establishment chosen by the elite of the two major parties.”
Of course if people weren’t sitting in at lunch counters, marching on Washington and cities weren’t burning, LBJ probably wouldn’t have had to get this movement off of the streets by passing laws that virtually had no teeth. (Predicting that racist southern Democrats would shift to the Republican Party, LBJ said, “I have signed away the South for a generation.” It turned out to be two generations.)
Just as Nixon gets all the credit for ending the war and passing the Clean Air and Water Acts, the real hero’s from these movements are largely ignored. As we celebrate Dr. King’s 79th birthday we should also celebrate his role in bringing the Civil Rights Act into fruition and his little known, yet extremely important role in the peace movement. We should also rethink how we view our nation’s history from the top down.
But perhaps more troubling than Hillary’s distorted historical view, race baiting and union busting, is her war mongering. Last February on the presidential campaign trail, Clinton told voters in New Hampshire that she wouldn’t describe her vote in support of the invasion of Iraq as a mistake. She said, “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.” (Keep that in mind at the polls.)
Here’s some of the tough talk from the war hawk in 2003.
As the race heats up Clinton continues to be on the defensive. Tim Russert also questioned her about her vote.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: It is absolutely unfair to say that the vote, as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution, has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.
TIM RUSSERT: The title of the act was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.
With the bipartisan quagmire as unpopular as ever with the American people, the issue isn’t going away. Even Obama, who didn’t vote for the war, has had his offices occupied by peace protesters because of his hawkish intention to increase the Pentagon’s budget and for stating he (like Hillary) would likely keep a small permanent force throughout his presidency.
Just as in 2004, the big money candidates take extremely important issues like the war and foreign policy off of the table by protectively imitating each other’s positions. Despite the Democratic Party’s promises to end the war in 2006, the front runners are once again shutting out a growing peace movement. With the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to the Iraq war, should we wonder why the front runners are all pro-war candidates? It’s the money stupid!
One can only wonder what Dr. King might have had to say!
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
 Socializer! |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.