Comments on: History Vindicates Clinton

The New Republic: Remarks On LBJ, MLK Jr. Reflect Reality Of Civil Rights Movement

[carlylaine]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for another 8 years of republican rule.

----

Posted by Vet_SK at 07:41 AM : Jan 15, 2008

EXACTLY, WE WANT A REAL CONSERVATIVE IN THERE THIS TIME...!!!!!!

[rowdytexan2]

This is just classic politics. And the young man who claimed to be above the established political machine turns out to be a ruthless, gutless wonder. His own aide was the one that jumped on those comments like a chicken on a june bug.

Obama couldn''t get the black vote away from Hillary Clinton. They were waiting for anything, ANYTHING they could use to get it! This is it folks!

Wake up folks! This gutless wonder kid, is WORSE than Bush because he intends to step into the White House and MAKE change. He has no clue that in order for change this is a two party system and you cannot reach across lines while drawing a racial line!

This attack on the Clintons is laughable if it wasn''t so absolutely swiftboating. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard my republican family and friends says that if Hillary wins she will only win because she has the black vote. Racial bias at it''s best!

I originally thought Obama might be one of the good guys, but I''m not sure I can vote for him, even though it is totally against everything I know to vote for another republican.

The Neocons do not want to run against Hillary Clinton, and Obama has obviously been sipping some of their Kool-Aid.

[DaveGress]

Sully1800 - Very good points. I couldn''t agree more.

[vet_sk]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for another 8 years of republican rule.

[sully1800-2009]

That is not only wholly untrue but smacks of the sort of mythology engendered by the ignorant. This statement amply demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject of the civil rights movement.

As a result I''''m inclined to conclude that you are under the age of 40 years and have no actual knowledge of events of the time, having in stead come to belief in some personal "fairy tale" about the recent history of the u.s..


Posted by p-syrus at 07:49 PM : Jan 14, 2008


While you have proven your ability to read, if you were submitting this narrative in a formal paper, you would no doubt be cited for plagiarism. All you did was reiterate what the article by Wilentz already propagated.

I will surmise that you have surpassed the age of 40. As such, I would implore you to educate those who are younger than you rather than ridicule them and to do so with a little more civility. The harshness of your critique of random_radar''s point of view is quite unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. Forums such as this are only productive so long as ALL participants feel comfortable expressing their views without being bullied by those who disagree.

By the way, if everyone held to your assertion that it is necessary to have been alive during a period in history in order to have an understanding of it, there would be no validation of the study of history and the lessons which can and should be learned from it.

[sully1800-2009]

That is not only wholly untrue but smacks of the sort of mythology engendered by the ignorant. This statement amply demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject of the civil rights movement.

As a result I''''m inclined to conclude that you are under the age of 40 years and have no actual knowledge of events of the time, having in stead come to belief in some personal "fairy tale" about the recent history of the u.s..


Posted by p-syrus at 07:49 PM : Jan 14, 2008


While you have proven your ability to read, if you were submitting this narrative in a formal paper, you would no doubt be cited for plagiarism. All you did was reiterate what the article by Wilentz already propagated.

I will surmise that you have surpassed the age of 40. As such, I would implore you to educate those who are younger than you rather than ridicule them and to do so with a little more civility. The harshness of your critique of random_radar''s point of view is quite unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. Forums such as this are only productive so long as ALL participants feel comfortable expressing their views without being bullied by those who disagree.

By the way, if everyone held to your assertion that it is necessary to have been alive during a period in history in order to have an understanding of it, there would be no validation of the study of history and the lessons which can and should be learned from it.

[kaliveotin]

OBAMAS campaign manager was one of the first to volunteer how Hillaries comments were supposedly disrespectfull to Martin Luther King, "in itself a truely suspect claim". OBAMA already knows most democratic whites are non-racist. But now they seem to be counting on the fact that democratic blacks are much more racially suspect and distrustfull.

[kansas1946]

Uh oh, be afraid, be very afraid. If NRO is defending Hillary, it is because they are desparate for her to win the Democratic nomination. They think that she is the only one that the Republican''s stand a snowball''s chance in h e l l of beating. They are probably right. I would vote for her over any Republican running, but she is devisive and a lot of independents may be turned off by her. Pay attention Democrats. Anytime NRO is sticking up for one of your candidates..run.

[rich9131]

Yep, I wonder whose side this guy is on:

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

"Wilentz, a family friend of Bill Clinton, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment."

Next we''re going to need disclaimers on articles and news reports.

[p-syrus]

The civil rights movement was a battle by the common man AGAINST the government. After all, government laws enforced the discrimination.

Posted by random_radar

That is not only wholly untrue but smacks of the sort of mythology engendered by the ignorant. This statement amply demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject of the civil rights movement.

As a result I''m inclined to conclude that you are under the age of 40 years and have no actual knowledge of events of the time, having in stead come to belief in some personal "fairy tale" about the recent history of the u.s..

The civil rights movement was popularly based but had no power to effect actual CHANGE.

The states were dominated by local interests which in the south were predominantly racist in their public policies. The nation generally was not concerned with issues involving minorities being more focused on national defense & economic development.

When the federal GOVERNMENT got involved as a result of the interest of national POLITICIANS (NOT public civil rights advocates) then POWER was brought to bear AGAINST the STATES to ENFORCE REAL CHANGE in both the state practices as well as federal policies with regard to civil rights.

MLK was responsible for changing popular ATTITUDES about race in America, but it was GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS & POLITICIANS who actually produced CHANGE in the treatment of minorities. Of these, LBJ''s support was especially critical at the time.