Bill Moyers' Journal: On King & Johnson, Obama & Clinton
By Nicole Belle Friday Jan 18, 2008 4:05pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Bill Moyers, who was Lyndon Johnson's press secretary from 1965-1967, gives his perspective on the "tempest in a teapot" of the Hillary vs. Obama media brawl over LBJ and MLK:
As the pressure intensified on each side, Johnson wanted King to wait a little longer and give him a chance to bring Congress around by hook or crook. But Martin Luther King said his people had already waited too long. He talked about the murders and lynchings, the churches set on fire, children brutalized, the law defied, men and women humiliated, their lives exhausted, their hearts broken. LBJ listened, as intently as I ever saw him listen. He listened, and then he put his hand on Martin Luther King's shoulder, and said, in effect: "OK. You go out there Dr. King and keep doing what you're doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing." Lyndon Johnson was no racist but he had not been a civil rights hero, either. Now, as president, he came down on the side of civil disobedience, believing it might quicken America's conscience until the cry for justice became irresistible, enabling him to turn Congress. So King marched and Johnson maneuvered and Congress folded.
Login or Register to post comments.
MLK should be spinning in his grave these days.
HILLARY CLINTON: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 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."
Lest We Forget: Hillary Clinton supported Barry Goldwater in 1964.
God bless Bill Moyers and the people at PBS for putting him back on the air. Required weekly watching.
I saw this segment last night. It was a nice, sane, sober take from somebody who was there. This whole thing was blown waaaaay out of proportion.
LongTooth @ 2:
Who cares about that? There's plenty she's done recently to prove she's a shill for the corporate elite but I could give a rats ass who anyone supported 44 years ago.
Geez.
Bill Moyers is one of the best contemporary thinkers in this country. His commentary is both insightful and inspirational at the same time. Let's cherish these great men while they last as I don't see anyone else standing up to the mantle. Amy Goodman and a few investigative journalists are just a tiny group of people in that mold.
Please don't reply to this thread saying the name of any corporate 'newsperson' who would emulate him because there is none who comes close in the corporate media. Btw, Charlie Rose is joke of for a journalist/interviewer relative to Bill Moyers.
Has Moyers ever commented in Dick Goodwin's perspective on their work with LBJ in "Remembering America"? Goodwin says they both thought he was certifiably nuts.
We should all take a moment and be grateful for Mr. Moyer's voice of reason. We still have a long and brutal year ahead of us.
I agree its not racial, but still her comments seemed to take some glory from MLK, and one has to wonder what point she was trying to make. Yes I know what she said was true but my question still stands, what point was she trying to make in saying what she said? In other words, in a racially charged atmosphere, why did she take the time to point out that MLK couldn't have accomplished what he did without LBJ?
Johnny2Bad: The point being, Johnny Bad Ass, is Hillary wasn't a kid in '64. She was a college student, if she hadn't already graduated, and was old enough to have known better.
Goodwin's the guy who wrote the 1965 Civil Rights speech, btw.
Nice bit of history. Thanks for posting. More historical bits would be nice.
I liked when when Moyer said in closing "Reminding us that a president matters, and so do we."
Thank you! If there's gonna be a giant stink about the matter, the least we can all do is look into what really happened...as opposed to how either campaign wants to spin things.
hug the moon @ 12:
Today, the resident matters but Do We?
After seeing this piece by Moyers (a wonderful, beautifully understated piece, by the way, which is rare these days), I realise that there was a whole lot more to this. I don't think Hillary (who I do not like at all) was being racist, but she didn't show as much sensitivity as she should have, especially to the most reliable voting bloc that the Dems have. It definitely fed into the "Clintons trash the base again/Sister Souljah" narrative, but it wasn't as egregious as many thought.
Still, Hillary should be more careful when she talks about stuff like this, and she should play nice with the base, because she ain't gonna win without them.
It was nice to see/hear from someone who was actually there.
It took a democratic president from a southern state to pull it off...
Senator Dirksen from Illinois also had a big hand in it by bringing around the Republicans...
The 1964 Civil Rights act was no easy task...
Were it not for the Vietnam War, Johnson's "legacy" would have been easily equal to FD Roosevelt's.
Credit should go where credit is due...
As for Hillary's remarks... I listened to them... in context... there was nothing remotely racist or disparaging of Dr King...
Some of you folks need to pay attention.
LongTooth @ 2:
So? Goldwater conservative is an extinct species of Repbulican. Goldwater would be considerd a Liberal and slimed for some of his stances.
longtooth, you are a moron. graduated college? she was 17 in '64...her first year at Wellesley was in '65. research your facts before you make yourself look like a boob. regardless, most 17 year olds have their heads up their ass. go ahead and ask a 17 year old who they support and see what brilliant responses you get. if you are going to hold candidates responsible for stances they held when they were 17, you won't have much of a field to vote for...
Filthy Harry @ 9:
She was pointing out that it took more then 1 person to bring about civil rights. And pointing out rather bluntly, that it is a two way street. What's so hard to understand about that?
VOTE MITT ROMNEY! ROMNEY IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE PROMISING AFFORDABLE MAGICAL UNDERWEAR FOR ALL AMERICANS!
Peter Hollman @16: "The 1964 Civil Rights act was no easy task…".
This note from history strikes me. It's been less than fifty years since African-Americans gained the right to vote. Though 'tis true 'tis progress, the wheels of progressive change grind too slowly, and sometimes regressive change happens overnight.
But if one thinks forty-two years is a short time span, consider this: Mitt Romney's church, the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) only allowed black males access to church priesthood back in '78, a mere thirty years ago. Women, of any color, are still denied full leadership in the Mormon church. Mitt Romney still adheres lock, stock, and barrel to a church doctrine openly espousing discrimination against women. My, my, aren't "family values" just peachy?
Loosely Twisted @ 19:
Yeah, I understand that. That's not hard. The question is why was she pointing it out?
great segment
notlongtooth @ 18:
true dat, I was 16 when the 1991 Gulf War started and I believed that Saddam was an evil doer and that H.W.Bush and the Allies were G.I.Joe heroes.
The older I got, the more cynical and skeptical I became.
at 16, 17 or even 18 years old, you will believe that Presidents are supposed to be good and honorable to the bone. Only when you grow older and get informed do you debunk your old perceptions.
So judging Hillary at age 17 is really pointless. Especially when I thought the 91 Gulf War to be a cool thing at age 16
Oh - for a thousand Bill Moyers or ---- for more people to watch him --- and to understand him.
I don't think Hillary's remark was out of line - I don't have it in context either but, to me, it was talking about the (unfortunate) incredible power of the President.
I'm also curious when someone said she voted for Goldwater and someone else said she was 17. I thought you couldn't vote until you were 21 - or maybe that changed before that?
Yet to this day you can go to Furnitureland South in Greensboro, NC and you won't find more than a few black people in any job where they could be viewed by the public, even though there are almost 800 total employees. Out of about 180 salespeople, 3 might be identified as black in an area that is approximately 30% self-identified black.
If I read Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act this is a clear violation.
Dr. King started a civil rights movement, LBJ nudged it, but it is nowhere near a complete movement.
I've complained to Al Sharpton, Rainbow Push Coalition, and NAACP with no reply. At this point I don't think anyone can claim credit for anything but starting the equal rights movement. And in this Dr. King and LBJ might be seen as equals, but in no way do I think LBJ made it happen. It take the people of the land for that to happen.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573
Hillary Clinton is turning out to be the Tanya Harding of politics
SPREAD THE WORD. THIS MUST NOT STAND>
Hillary's MLK statement doesn't offend me as much as the right wing changes that occurred in the Clinton administration that put more people of color in prison for nonviolent crimes.
Pardon the cynical view but ..
LBJ et al passed the Civil Rights Act & the Voting Rights Act because:
(1) If they hadn't done so, the death toll from the movement and the ugly pictures on TV would only have gotten worse. If you were there you know how bad it was already.
(2) It allowed the Corporatists to gain control of the politics and the economy of The South, after having devastated its infrastructure a hundred years earlier during the Civil War and having just begun to rebuild it after World War Two.
Filthy Harry,
The point is that they're running for President, not civil rights leader.
If Obama thinks street action is more effective than being in Washington,
perhaps he should go back to Chicago and hit the streets again.
But obviously LBJ pushed a lot through in Washington. Having someone
on the outsider to provide the political urgency helped make a great team.
MountainMan23-
LBJ was already dealing with these issues in the Senate and as VP (his primary focus).
notlongtooth: Bullshit. Hillary was not a high school student in '64. She was in college (if not out), and was old enough to know better. Her political instincts have never strayed from her Goldwater bedrock.
Desider @ 30:
Thank you! That is exactly the kind of evaluation you just won't get in the media.
If the vote were held today, Obama would either vote "present", or skip the vote entirely.
Fucking hell, that was a great segment. Poignant, but it also gives me hope.
Barack Obama for president!
telcontal @ 6:
That may well be true, but WHERE IS THE DISCLOSURE?
Bill Moyers was LBJ's top aide.
Bill Moyers KNOWS that LBJ endorsed Hoover's wiretapping and harassment of MLK Jr., especially once King came out against the Vietnam War.
The FBI, as part of doing so, eventually alerted every racist in Memphis and the South at large that MLK Jr. which motel he was staying at, leading to his assassination. Moyers KNOWS, and knew then, that the Gulf of Tonkin event did not happen. He also knew that Johnson believed the war was hopeless from the very first days. And I think he knew about LBJ's corruption (Halliburton), driving the policy.
He was complicit in the illegal spying on King, and while I love the guy for his fight back against Bush's fascism, he did zero to stop LBJ's (he did express the belief that LBJ was suffering from paranoia), and zero to protect King (not that he could control LBJ).
Hero in that case? LBJ Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who tried to stop Hoover (denying him warrants for wiretaps on King's home), and refused LBJ's pressure to go along with Hoover (who was character-assassinating King at an increasing pace throughout the 60s until his, in part FBI-induced, murder).
is ir really so hard to believe that mlk whose dream was equality for all races, and lbj whose own dream was the "great society" could not both, a black man and a white man, work together for the good of humanity?
where do their ideas conflict with each others except in other minds wishing to co-opt their legacies for their own ends?
Desider @ 30:
The Truth Hurts The Media's Objectives
The plan to paint Hillary Clinton has a racist just got delivered a crushing blow. With videos like the one accompanying this story, highlighting the energy associated with the actual historical moments, you have got to be wondering how those in conservative media thought they could get away with a clear distortion of history.
The truth can sometime claim what it needs to set the record straight. In this instance, the truth need only point to the spirit of working together, which is what Clinton was trying to say in her statement.
I hope truth finds its way to some of the other distortions and lies associated with this election. There are truly many. Especially, to see the media start and create distortions, ask stupid question about how much damage they inflect, and set back and act as if they were nothing but "fair and balance" about the matter is the nothing but a lie. It is almost as if every word they speak, every story they report, or create, has an agenda attached to it, and it is not in the interest of the truth.
Today truth shined and showed the voters how far lies are from the record. This was a very enlighten story.
Joseph
sassafra @ 36:
LBJ was not working for 'the good of humanity' in SE Asia. He was working for the good of the corporations that built the massive airbase at Da Nang, and elsewhere in the military-industrial complex.
Eisenhower was warning the U.S. about JOHNSON (et al.).
Loop @ 31:
Wrong. She went to college in 1965.
JasonH @ 26:
How would it be? Racism has not disappeared by magic.
The suggestion that "LBJ nudged it" is hilarious. LBJ rammed all three bills through Congress -- and NO ONE else could have.
MLK Jr., without LBJ's incredible political gamesmanship, would have been discredited by 1966. The violent activism of SNCC and Stokely Carmichael would have taken over the movement, and there would have been massive bloodshed.
24 Fil: Well, Fil, I disagree.
The terms in '64 boiled down to "should the nigger have the same rights as decent white people"?
Hillary Clinton backed Golwater. She endorsed segregation. She endorsed keeping colored's in their place.
She was old enough to know better.
#5 Great post. I think it's worth noting, though, that the FBI under Hoover was a bit KGB-ish, and the balance of power between Hoover and LBJ was not quite the same as between, say, Dubya and Mueller.
That said, I hate illegal spying, and it's good for us to recognize that illegal spying didn't start with Nixon.
Jill Bryant @ 25:
She worked for the Goldwater campaign, but was not old enough to vote.
Hillary Clinton had a change of heart due to the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement. She worked for Nixon when she was 13, and worked for the Nixon impeachment committees when she was just out of college.
Peter Hollman @ 16:
You mistake a Yellow Dog for a Democrat. They were DINOs, and LBJ was a DINO, a Republican by any measure. He wanted to be REELECTED by Democrats, so he handed the Dems their biggest win in nearly thirty years.
Paul in LA @ 39:
uh huh, so according to that logic the reason lbj refused renomination for a second term is that he was all hot to keep the war on? bunk. the war totaled his health, domestic policies, and his party's unity. he hated it.
Loop @ 42:
She was raised in a conservative household and her mentors were anti-Communist yet civil rights supporting conservatives. She is not a racist and has never been one; and her support of Goldwater was not racism.
She grew up. She got a college education, and was deeply affected by LBJ's accomplishments and the change occuring in America, even though she was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley.
• Then she worked for and voted for Eugene McCarthy (as I did).
If you don't allow people (and especially young people) to change, this isn't America. Seeking to attack her for becoming a centrist Dem instead of a center-right Republican is absurd. Her liberalism caused her to reject the R party and its policies. Since that time, she has been attacked by the rightwing on a scale that would wither almost anyone. And now, by the left, who fall all over themselves trying to make her a demon.
Widespread @ 43:
Sorry, meant #35, Paul In L.A.
Rock on.
sassafra @ 46:
He was half-dead, and had lost the South, and had ZERO chance of being reelected. He counted the votes, and measured his energy, and knew it wasn't enough. So he thought that by shocking the country by refusing the nomination he would gain a bit more political power for some last gambits. And, indeed, after announcing he would not run, he rammed through the 1968 Fair Housing Act (using King's assassination as the grease).
It was an UGLY decade, and trying to make it a fairy tale is part of our problems. LBJ was NOT an idealist, he was the biggest realist in domestic politics anyone has ever been. It was all about -his- power, and as such, all about corporate power.
Read Caro, Master of the Senate (or the earlier books in the series). LBJ was a force of nature, and he leveled American racism just as he was leveling SE Asia. He supported MLK Jr. so long as MLK Jr. supported him. And when MLK Jr. strayed, opposing Vietnam as fundamentally inhumane and morally repugnant -- as it was -- LBJ gave Hoover the green light to character assassinate King, leading to his untimely death.
An impossibly ugly story. One of many. "Own them all."
Just because you have bills doesn't mean anything unless it's followed and enforced. Those bills are commonly disregarded in parts of the South and there is no interest in enforcing them.
So LBJ rammed some pieces of paper through. So what?
There is still massive bloodshed. It's just that heavy handed law enforcement groups have been able to redirect that violence into black-on-black.
There have been a lot of changes. But black friends of mine still get followed through small shops, students give up because they can make more money selling drugs than sweeping floors, and companies refuse to hire blacks for anything but warehouse of telephone operators.
Paul in LA @ 41:
Got MLK?
Paul in LA @ 49:
neither mlk or lbj were saints, but they were great men of vision who knew how to cut a deal (a talent sadly lost on either side of the aisle and across most of the political spectrum nowadays).
Paul in LA @ 35:
in "the men who killed kennedy", a documentary aired on the history channel (until ladybird, peanuts carter and gerry ford intervened), lyndon b. johnson is directly implicated as a co-conspirator in the assassination of an american president.
furthermore, former c.i.a. agent and watergate burglar implicated johnson in his deathbed confession to his son, reported in rolling stone early last year.
listen to the actual audio by clicking on this link and scrolling down a bit.
so, no, i too refuse to heap accolades on lbj. not only for his knowledge that the gulf of tonkin incident was a fabrication, as revealed by the freedom of information act, but because he seems to have been involved in the texas conspiracy to murder a jfk.
in fact, i have him rated as the 4th worst president in u.s. history.
JasonH @ 51:
The effect of LBJ's accomplishments was GIGANTIC.
Trivializing them is silly. It was an earthquake that moved EVERYTHING.
• Black representation in Congress and in state legislatures went from basically zero to nearly-representative levels as a direct result of forcing the recognition of black rights to vote (even with the ongoing fraud).
• The Black middle class is a DIRECT result of LBJ's 64 civil rights bill (and the 68 Fair Housing act). Blacks gained access to hotels, motels, restaurants, etc., and were able as a result to TRAVEL in search of employment (instead of by a sort of underground railroad, as in the 50s).
• The rights of all Americans to be free from prejudice in gov't and society went forward dramatically. The social changes of the decades were resisted mightily by the continued Establishment, but these victories handed to us by LBJ broke open the floodgates of change.
Denying that is denying too much. Trying to make it a fairy tale is equally bad. For SURE it was not a fairy tale world to LBJ, or to MLK Jr. Both knew how ugly the present was, but only MLK Jr. was a religious idealist. It was a deal with the devil, but when the devil wanted to impoverish America through an illegal war, MLK Jr. took his fight back, and LBJ never forgave him.
*i meant to say former c.i.a. agent and watergate burglar E. HOWARD HUNT. (sorry monitors, i'll try to remember to hit that preview button more often!)
ROM Spaceknight @ 54:
The Fake History Channel is a rightwing operation that hands out lies like lollipops. Do your mind a favor-- Boycott the Fake History Channel (and related channels).
Your rating of LBJ just points out how useless the term 'worst' is.
Paul in LA @ 55:
LBJ was a scumbag who knew the gulf of tonkin incident was fabricated. he also knew vietnam was unwinnable as far back as early as 1968. 58,000 americans dead for no reason, as well as countless vietnamese.
Paul in LA @ 57:
Paul in LA @ 57:
watch the entire documentary, listen to the audio of e. howard hunt's deathbed confession, then report back to me, paul.
lbj = 4th worst president in history, after only george w. bush, richard nixon and george h. w. bush.
ROM Spaceknight @ 58:
The indictment of his direct involvement with the military-industrial complex is quite correct, but your linking it to his civil rights ACCOMPLISHMENTS is incorrect.
You have to take both the red AND the blue pill. It is silly to try to take away LBJ's immense domestic accomplishments. You can't do it -- he did those things specifically so history could not just close the door on his record, as many try to.
Recognize that there are many who applaud Vietnam and call him a scumbag for helping the Negroes. He knew it -- he was twice as evil as Nixon, and Nixon was flat-out afraid of him, but so was George Wallace. LBJ knew how to wield power, and did so. We have to take our lumps with the sugar, and try to bridge the contradictions of our history.
MLK Jr. was roundly despised by the more radical movement. Don't forget that they thought he was a Tom for dealing with Johnson. And don't forget "Burn, baby, burn!" which was the SNCC flipside of KKK insanity. But for LBJ's legislative accomplishments as President, the history would have been even more bleak (domestically).
ROM Spaceknight @ 59:
Nope. BOYCOTT that crap, and get your history from BOOKS. You can find that audio tape on the Internet -- you don't need the rightwing bs that uses it to feather their own bed.
At least check the copyright. Anything post-2000 is hardcore propaganda.
Paul in LA @ 60:
if lbj was in on the jfk assassination, as credible evidence seems to suggest he was, and if the gulf of tonkin incident was fabricated, as we now know it was, no amount of positive achievements johnson accomplished will allow me to forgive him.
it's that simple.
ROM Spaceknight @ 59:
You are ignoring a LOT of history.
Find the equivalent POSITIVE actions by those others. Can't find them, though people try to make Nixon's Mao-toesucking trip to China some sort of great accomplishment.
The power of the U.S. makes the wars of modern presidents more destructive than those in the past (in general). That tilt is not directly the 'fault' of those presidents, it was their times. Nor should the Scapegoat method of history become the main one. HUGE powerful interests are running (and seeking to run) our society, and ANY president will have to contend with those. There are no fairy tales, and candidates who pretend to offer some are just blowing smoke.
ROM Spaceknight @ 62:
It's that simplistic.
Paul in LA @ 61:
i will not take you seriously until you actually examine the links i've given you. willful ignorance may be comforting, but it's as bull$#!+ as the easter bunny, and santa claus.
you know you can't prove i'm wrong about gulf of tonkin, why don't you see if you can prove me wrong on lbj's alleged complicity in jfk's murder?
and it's not just lbj the documentary implicates, it's all of rightwing texas, circa 1963. guys like h. l. hunt. and the entire southern rogue spook network, from miami to new orleans to dallas.
Anyhow, please DON'T 'forgive' LBJ. I certainly don't.
But don't try to deny his accomplishments, because they were his, and like airbases in Iraq they are a fait accompli.
But still, accompli, not un-accompli. On such slave-killing stones are our pyramids built.
Paul in LA @ 64:
simplistic?
your president was murdered and his killers not only didn't get caught, they're currently driving our nation into the ground, enriching themselves and laughing all the way to the bank.
what don't YOU understand?
ROM Spaceknight @ 65:
I am not ignorant of what you are reporting, and I didn't need the Fucking History Channel to feed it to me with their spin.
These were realpolitik actions by a real master of politics and interpersonal coercion.
They join with the realpolitik actions in favor of civil rights, and those counterbalancing issues are not just moot because it makes your prejudice easier.
Overheard on AirForce One just after LBJ was sworn in..."so Jackie, other than that, how was Dallas?"
ROM Spaceknight @ 67:
So, where are you, if not the U.S.?
alright, i know c&l tends to be a little squeamish with conspiracy, and i certainly don't want to hijack a thread, so i'll leave it at this:
LBJ was a G**damn scumbag with the blood of over 58,000 americans on his hands, he probably was in on JFK's murder and he's probably roasting in hell.
don't take my word, just thoroughly examine the links i posted above.
Paul in LA @ 70:
i meant OUR president, wiseguy. i'm born and bred in illinois, where i currently type these words.
abarts @ 69:
Read 'Death of a President.' It opens with the tale of Jackie arriving back at Air Force One still wearing her husband's blood and brains on her cloth coat, to find LBJ in her quarters, lying on her bed, talking jokingly on her princess phone--with his cowboy boots crossed on her covers, and his arm behind his head.
He was a gigantic piece of work.
Paul in LA @ 68:
yeah, i think lbj probably felt a little guilty. maybe jackie got to him and persuaded him to push through civil rights.
lord knows he backed out of running for reelection. and i'd submit he died a little early, bat-shit crazy from all the skeletons in his closet.
ROM Spaceknight @ 72:
Well, I remember 1964 plain as day. It, along with subsequent events, wrecked my childhood.
I don't need to play along with the slavering wingers and their fake history 'channel' in order to be informed.
Well, if you believe "Racism has not disappeared by magic."
I know a lot of black kids out of the projects that would disagree with your opinion that racism has disappeared.
Has racism changed a lot since I was a kid in the 60s? Yes. But I can go into churches, bars, and schools and see that racism is alive and well.
So what LBJ and King did is great, but all they did is start the US down a road that we are still traveling today. How many blacks are there in the senate? How many US presidents have been black? How many black CEOs of major corporations lilke GE do you see? It wasn't that long ago that black quarterbacks or blacks playing at Augusta was a huge issue.
I think there are civil rights issues that are better. It's not that unusual to watch mixed couples walk down the street these days. I think there are a lot more things we just don't talk about because it's not PC. Like what I saw at FLS. And how we just ignore it and hope it goes away by itself.
Paul in LA @ 55:
ROM Spaceknight @ 74:
No, Jackie was shattered, she did nothing more than ghostwalk her remaining time before leaving for Greece, where she had some recovery.
LBJ had already had a massive coronary in 58. He was overweight, and drank, as well as having regular sex with anything female that moved. His health collapse was slowed by his sheer willpower. Any other human being would have withdrawn from politics a decade before he did.
Paul in LA @ 73:
(
speaking of jfk's blood, i would like to get one last word in for those who don't understand he was hit from the grassy knoll.
if oswald acted alone, and hit him from above and behind, why was jackie scooping his brains off the TRUNK of the car?
BACK, AND TO THE LEFT. very simple physics.
(okay, i'm done -no more conspiracy stuff).
And chain-smoked. And ate steaks and eggs at every meal. Etc.
JasonH @ 76:
You seem to have a different meaning for "NOT."
Paul in LA @ 77:
will you please watch the documentary i gave you a link to? it wasn't even originally made by the history channel, it was made in england. and history channel didn't promote it, they pulled it after ladybird and gerry ford (warren commission member) persuaded them to.
ROM Spaceknight @ 81:
Do you know when it was made?
Ah, OK, it's from 1988. I'll watch it, and let you know what I think in an open thread.
Paul in LA @ 82:
originally, in 1988. why don't you just watch it? call me a crackpot, fine, just watch it and decide for yourself.
you mentioned his mistresses... did you know his main mistress is in the documentary, implicating lbj? she claims she was at a meeting in texas on 11/21/63...
ROM Spaceknight @ 84:
I would have been less resistant if you had not promoted the Hi(tler)story Channel in recommending it.
Lots of propaganda out there, tons. I don't need fewer things to believe in, I need facts and Pepto-bismal.
This was such a beautiful post. Thank you for putting it up. It literally brought tears to my eyes watching it.
Paul in LA @ 85:
photograph of lee harvey oswald in a new orleans air patrol group headed by david ferrie (portrayed by joe pesci in "jfk") and here's a related article.
i believe jim garrison said if he'd had that photo, which was out well before photoshop, he'd have won his case.
You imply racism has disappeared, just not by magic. At least according to the english I speak.
I'll guess LA is Los Angeles and not Louisiana.
Paul in LA @ 80:
Paul in LA @ 85:
i didn't promote the history channel. the history channel was somehow persuaded to air the special only once, before the powers that be stepped in. the powers that be don't want us questioning jfk's murder -their stolen power depends on it.
this video would be totally erased by history, were it not for google video and youtube.
JasonH @ 88:
That would have been absurd, but you go ahead and blame me for not saying what you thought I did.
Filthy Harry @ 22:
The NY Times cropped the quote and they will do it again.
Thank God for MLK, Johnson, Moyers, and RFK. Moyers is
the only one left and he should have run for office himself
instead of fermenting all those years on PBS. He knows the
business...I wish he would dissect at least one news show
or headline each week that he sees as deliberately false
and call it that.
Filthy Harry @ 22:
Over thirty years ago, I lived across the street from the LBJ library in Austin, Texas. Since it had plenty of air conditioning, it was a nice place to visit on a hot afternoon. After quite a few trips there, I learned a lot about the man—some of it good, some of it bad. Nobody's perfect. Just when you think someone is the worst person on the face of the planet, they turn around and do something nice. Say what you will about his arrogance, pride, and the Viet Nam debacle, but LBJ always had great compassion for the poor and ill-treated, which is why he pursued the Great Society. Dr. King was obviously a brilliant and amazing soul—but a lot of the white people in power during the 60's would have never given him the time of day.
I've heard people say that Hillary's comments and Moyer's piece diminish MKL's role in Civil Rights legislation. But I don't think it's even POSSIBLE to diminish Dr. King or his legacy. I imagine every person alive equates his name with courage and magnificence.
Filthy Harry @ 22:
Most important, Hillary Clinton was trying, to say to make a dream come true, you have to do the work to make it reality. How in the hell can that be taking something away from MLK? It seems TV viewers are getting negative side affects from the media’s attempts to create news. There no need to extract something racial or sinister out of her comments.
Joseph
I can't believe that this non-issue is receiving so much attention.
Why can't both men be celebrated for their contributions? No one said that they have to be celebrated equally; in fact, Hillary Clinton said that "the lion's share" of credit needs to rest with Martin Luther King, one of her personal heroes. So, I ask again: What is the friggin' issue?
Clinton's comment was simply an attempt to poke a hole in the balloon filled with Barack Obama's exotic mystique. The man is certainly full of bluster and big--albeit entirely vague--words about a new America and hopes and dreams and everyone working together. Far too many individuals project onto Obama their hopes and dreams and treat him as the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, which I think is just as unfair and potentially offensive as anything Clinton has said. She was simply reminding Obama, and everyone else, that action is needed to make anything come of idealist principles.
sky @ 94:
His supporters have made such claims for a good long time, and even Caro makes them. But it doesn't sell.
LBJ slaughtered Vietnamese like they didn't have any rights at all, and he demeaned them as he did. He refered to blacks as nigras, and slapped backs with his Yellow Dog racist pals THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH, until he needed to screw them to balance the tables with his war.
He was NOT a liberal, he believed in power.
Trying to make him an ordinary person is not correct. Neither was Stalin an ordinary person, and plenty of Russians still worship the monster, saying he 'really cared,' nevermind the mass murder.
Shawnmeat @ 96:
hillary clinton was a barry goldwater republican in 1964. she didn't have the first clue then, and she doesn't now.
her husband is a cheating scumbag, who never really really respected her.
it's messed with her mind so bad, she didn't have the courage to dump him, in spite of his infidelity, and she chose to continue riding his coattails in the hopes it would land her greater power...
wow. how romantic.
and if the huma abedin stuff is half-way true, she's toast in the general election.
america MIGHT be ready for a woman president. but a woman president, cheating on her husband? a woman president, cheating on her husband with another woman? a woman president, cheating on her husband with another woman, who's muslim?
remember, the neocons have had TOTAL CONTROL of surveillance for the last 8 yrs....
The egos of those in power run large. The courage to create change is in short supply.
LBJ would not have done what he did had he not been guilted into it. Black Americans...and for that matter, several other minorities like Hispanics, Asians, Indians, and a host of others...would have waited to be treated as equal human beings.
Now, imagine if King and LBJ had been one person who knew the right thing to do in the first place.
Too many Americans can't.
And that's why we may have to settle for billary.
ROM Spaceknight @ 98 hillary clinton was a barry goldwater republican in 1964. she didn't have the first clue then, and she doesn't now."
She worked for Eugene McCarthy's campaign. Don't bother including the parts that don't go with your theme.
"her husband is a cheating scumbag, who never really really respected her."
Do you have any idea how commonplace the executive hummer is? The suggestion that it is some sort of national emergency is hilarious, as is the bluenose attitude you're taking.
"it's messed with her mind so bad, she didn't have the courage to dump him, in spite of his infidelity, and she chose to continue riding his coattails in the hopes it would land her greater power..."
That's bullshit. She has had her own career, and is her own person.
wow. how romantic.
"and if the huma abedin stuff is half-way true, she's toast in the general election."
I don't know what that means, but you are dreaming.
So? Goldwater conservative is an extinct species of Repbulican. Goldwater would be considerd a Liberal and slimed for some of his stances.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/perlsteins-greatest-hits-5-miscastin...
"It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly. In 1964, observers horrified by Barry Goldwater pined for the sensible Robert Taft, the conservative leader of the 1950s. When Reagan was president, liberals spoke fondly of sweet old Goldwater."
Filthy Harry @ 9:
Even though Moyers provided more context than the MSM did, he still didn't provide the question she was asked, nor any possible words that came before or after the clip he showed. Without those things, it is impossible to answer your question with any relevant information.
kravitz @ 99:
Guilted by whom? He wanted to go down in history as a liberator, and has.
And no one, not MLK Jr. or any other politician in history, could have done it. He succeeded to a great degree because he was shafting his friends and knew them very well.
Sorry, the first bit is a quote of Libertas at #17.
Hillary's mistake was not prefacing her LBJ comment with comments on MLK's contributions to the passage of civil rights legislation. It's not unreasonable to see this omission as an attempt to trivialize MLK.
And Senator Barack Obama firmly stands on his shoulders, along with all of our young children.
That can never be taken away, no matter what
ROM Spaceknight @ 98:
Why are you posting here? There are perfectly good street corners for you to stand at, ranting and raving.
Joseph @ 95:
Can we say "KKKarl Rove" children?
What better way to help the democrats self-destruct then to whisper "racism" in the pundits' ears.
The next lesson on "misinformation" children will be how to whisper "sexism" in the ears of the pundits.
ej @ 101:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/perlsteins-greatest-hits-5-miscastin...
"It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly. In 1964, observers horrified by Barry Goldwater pined for the sensible Robert Taft, the conservative leader of the 1950s. When Reagan was president, liberals spoke fondly of sweet old Goldwater."
Filthy Harry @ 9:
Even though Moyers provided more context than the MSM did, he still didn't provide the question she was asked, nor any possible words that came before or after the clip he showed. Without those things, it is impossible to answer your question with any relevant information.
Thank you for understanding what I was asking.
Joseph @ 95:
Sorry maybe I'm just too cynical but in the context of a highly orchestrated and controlled campaign, nothing can be taken at face value. Everything they say is so filtered through marketers and pollsters that you do need to dig into syntax and semantic content to figure out what these power mad, egomaniacs really have in mind.
The point I was trying to make is that given the racially charged atmosphere, for Hillary to make a comment that while I agree is racially neutral to a rational mind, however, by the way it was phrased, seemed on the surface to detract from a black civil rights legend to praise white president, smacks of of some deep double play that honestly I didn't get. I assume its self serving, I was just asking if anyone knew the context it was given (which the MSM will dutifully not provide; MSM Motto: Never Give Context, Or They Might Think For Themselves).
A reasonable answer was given by Desider @ 30
Paul in LA @ 73:
Fiction. LBJ was sworn in on Air Force One with Jackie Kennedy at his side. Pictures to prove it. And LBJ didn't move into the residential part of the White House for three days after the funeral. Obviously, he took over the Oval Office.
And let's not crucify LBJ over Vietnam, either. Yes the war was a mistake but the fact is that prior to 1968, American foreign policy did not differ much between the two parties. The differences were largely over domestic issues. The Vietnam War did have the effect of polarizing, if not creating the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The Tet Offensive in February 1968 made many rethink the war, before then opposition was rather insignificant. The Vietnam War broke the Democratic Party to a degree from which it has not quite recovered. On one side, there were people like Muskie, McGovern, Church, Fulbright and McCarthy but on the other side there was Scoop Jackson and a large contingent of southern Senators. Vietnam was a mistake in hindsight but at the time it was not seen as such. Part of the problem that the Democratic Party faces on Iraq is derived from the polarity that the Vietnam War created. Democrats cave in all too often for fear being called soft on national security even though they know full well that unwarranted interventions in other people's affairs is poor public policy making. They fear losing elections.
I am not arguing that LBJ was a saint but to judge the man with the perspective of today is to disengage him from the milieu of his times.
I can't think of a President who was a better legislator. His Great Society remains the bedrock of progressive liberal thought. His accomplishments were many, his one failing undid him.
facta non verba @ 110:
Which proves absolutely nothing. Jackie gave Manchester the interview, and told him the story. And it is pure LBJ -- he did shit like that all day long.
facta non verba @ 110:
His entire career was funded by Brown, of Brown & Root. He was, in other words, a WARMONGER.
LBJ was the one who escalated the war -- LBJ was the one who LIED to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin event.
You're doing quite an apologetic, but your spin doesn't cut it.
facta non verba @ 110:
Vietnam was calculated to make TONS of money for Halliburton.
Mission accomplished.
With rare exception, the charges of "racism" against the Clintons were baseless.
The following debunks them all:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/michelle-obama-reinforces_n_813...
Check out the full clip of Hillary's interview to see that it wasn't even a stupid comment since she was specifically asked about Obama's remarks on MLK: http://youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM
Again, there were three exceptions: Clinton fired Shaheen and directly apologized to Obama for saying he thought the GOP would try to paint Obama as a drug dealer and both supporters, Kerrey and Johnson, apologized for their remarks.
However, there's a glaring double standard: Obama sent his national co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr., to launch a racially charged attack against Clinton on national TV the day after NH, in which he said that she only has compassion for her "appearance" and not Katrina survivors, who are overwhelmingly black. That charge was not only baseless but downright cruel.
Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&e
Obama supporter, Michael Eric Dyson, sought to explain the NH loss on MSNBC by saying that Clinton's voters were likely racist, when there was no evidence of a Bradley Effect let alone any polling indicating the biases of potential Clinton supporters, and then accused anyone of criticizing Obama as being indirectly racist.
Here's the transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598268/
Obama never even apologized for Jackson let alone fired him. Nor did he apologize for Dyson. Instead he had his office prepare a SC primary memo listing all these proven false charges of racism against the Clintons. If there was a Rovian plan by the Clintons to harm Obama with these "racist" attacks then why did he send out Jackson and prepare that memo?
Summary: overwhelmingly the charges of racism against the Clintons were false. When there was any controversy, she either fired someone, directly apologized, or had them apologize. Obama truly injected ugly racism into the campaign and he has never been held accountable by the blogs or the press. If she somehow becomes the nominee and this hurts her chances of winning, I'll blame the press but also the "liberal" bloggers who fucked it up by failing to call Obama out on his blatant race baiting. Did you honestly think Clinton would be so stupid or reckless to do this right after she won NH and heading to SC?! Please.
As usual Moyers brings logic and truth to his topics.
Consider.
No President since Johnson could have gotten the Civil Rights Act and Voters Rights Act passed.
No Republican would have tried.
Neither Democratic President had sufficient support of his own party, or of Congress, or enough IOU's, or the persuasive ability either in Congress on in the Country to have been able to do what Johnson did.
Neither of the Bush’s nor Reagan would have sat down with an adversary and listened and allowed their attitude to change, as Johnson did. At most they would have promised nothing, maybe offered a token of monies and done nothing.
Women would never have gotten the vote without enough men who were willing to put their political careers on the line to change the law, and blacks, and other opressed groups would not have gotten equal protection and rights without enough white citizens and politicians willing to put themselves and in some instances give their lives on the line to support the Civil Rights movement and to support Johnson.
Shawnmeat @ 106:
what do you refute that i've said? we live in a total surveillance society, that surveillance has been controlled by the right, the blogs on the right are already working on this huma abedin story, and even if the story's true, hillary's campaign is over. even if it's not true, hillary supporters like you, shawnmeat, better be ready because the right will absolutely pull out all the stops this fall.
the norman hsu scandal, clinton holding back the release of the presidential records, more allegations of bill's infidelity, whitewater redux, vince foster redux -you better be ready for all of it.
Paul in LA @ 100:
a cheating president is an easily blackmailed president. or a president whose political enemies may be able to bog down with a scandal that could cost the american taxpayers 40 million dollars.
maybe not a national emergency, but a colossal waste of time and money.
Jill Bryant asks
"I’m also curious when someone said she [Hilary] voted for Goldwater and someone else said she was 17. I thought you couldn’t vote until you were 21 - or maybe that changed before that?"
Yes and no.
I don't have the dates but I was in colllege then:
During the Anti-Vietnam, Civil Rights period (after Goldwater's run) the voting and liquor age was changed from 21 to 18.
The reason was fed by anger against the war - If young men could be drafted and sent to die in a war, they should have the right to elect the people who are sending them.
After the draft was dropped, and during a non election year, Congress changed the law back to 21.
One of the saddest blows to democracy in this country happened then - as the 17 to 20 year olds, even the ones in the "volunteer" military, who were having their vote taken from them by Congress, as pushed by both Political parties, didn't raise so much as a whimper. Even Blacks who had just gotten the vote did nothing.
At that point both political parties knew that the younger generations of Americans didn't give a flip about their Constitutional rights, and the parties could do whatever they damn well pleased through their politicians.
Consider.
One way to make Congress rethink its position on wars in the Mideast would be for the 21 and younger "volunteers" in the military and their spouses, siblings etc to renew the cry that they should have a right to elect the leaders who send them and theirs to die.
Make Congress answerable for their decisions. THREATEN THEM WITH THE VOTE!
Even though the "fight" went away from it early in this thread and no one set the record straight with facts, in 1964 Hillary Rodham Clinton turned 17 on October 26. (Born in 1947). It appears that she graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 first in her class(?). And continued on to Yale where she earned her degree in Law in 1973.
Now a bit of personal view not meant to be attacked, but meant to be read and thought about:
So frankly, it does not really matter who she supported in 1964. I know my views have changed dramatically since I was 17. So saying that someone supported this person in 1964 does NOT mean that their political ideology has carried through since then. Everyone is allowed to have their own ideology and most people's will develop or transform into something else as they grow. The Country changes over time too - what was important in 1964 is not necessarily the same thing that is important today.
I would like the Press to end the smear campaigns. Yeah, they usually get started via another candidate or a group that supports another candidate, but then it is the Press that allows that smear to be distributed and get everyone up in arms.
I would like to KNOW and HEAR about the candidates positions. Not Sexual. That is Too Much Information. I also don't care if Bill received a hummer from Monica or not. That was plain stupid for Congress to carry out impeachment proceedings for. I want to know where the candidates stand on the current issues. Their views about the War that should never have been. Views on how to stimulate the economy. Their ideas on working with Congress. And finally, how the hell this country is going to repay the loans that have been taken to fund the Iraq war (The war that should never have been.)
Everyone has an opinion. I don't want to hear yours. No I did not need to read this entire thread, but it really amused me. I want to hear what each candidate stands for.
serbrew @ 119:
i want a pony, but i'm not going to get one.
seriously, serbrew, i appreciate your input, but smears and personal attacks have been part of american politics since the very beginning. george washington's mug may be chiseled on rushmore today, but in his day, he was lampooned for being senile, having bad teeth and parading around in his regal carriage. john adams was the victim of personal attack from his own good friend, thomas jefferson.
and alexander hamilton was the most duplicitous trash-talker and rumor-whisperer of his day. some would argue that's what eventually got him killed in his duel with aaron burr.
ROM Spaceknight @ 117:
Back when Bill Clinton got his dick sucked by intern, most honest liberals were arguing--rather fairly--that his marital or extramarital affairs are not the business of the public at large. We also agreed that whether or not a man cheats on his wife is not nearly as relevant to whether or not he is a great leader as some would have you believe. And those people who want you to think that are those who also spent millions and millions of dollars to find something--anything--they can to finally bring the very competent and loved President down. Years later, I suppose those Republicans are finally vindicated because we have Democrats repeating the same talking-points about the 'scandal.' They won; you forget the good Bill Clinton has done for the country because they yelled so much louder about a fucking blowjob.
ROM Spaceknight @ 116:
Hillary Clinton will be fine. She has endured far worse than this, and managed to keep her marriage together. The reason I don't take you seriously, ROM, is because you (and you sound almost jealous, to the extent which even Tweety might look at you cock-eyed) claim that Bill Clinton has 'no respect' for Hillary, and that he's a 'cheating scumbag.' I'm glad that you have such implausibly detailed insight into their marriage, but I'm not all that impressed by your hyperbole.
You should be more concerned with Barack Obama, who's wheels have barely been kicked since this race began.
ROM Spaceknight @ 120:
Never stated that I "Want" the smears to end. Simply that I "Would Like". It appears that you need to read more carefully.
Shawnmeat @ 123:
jealous over a blow-job from a fat 20 year old intern? ah, hardly. i'm doing just fine, amigo.
i do think bill's a scumbag, that's just my opnion. that he's a liar and a cheater is a matter of historical document. the thought of referring to him as "first gentleman" is absolutely ridiculous. i'm not some puritan, i just don't think a man shows his wife any respect when he's screwing around as much as bill seems to have over the years, and probably until this day.
and, no, i don't think bill clinton did do much good for our country -his scandal helped cost gore the election, nafta sold out america, his inability to keep his pants zipped up gave the republicans an opening to waste 40 million dollars of taxpayer money,
i'm trying to help you take off your rose-tinted glasses and understand why hillary clinton won't win in a general election. the right has collected a lot of dirt on the clintons over the last 8 yrs., probably through warrantless surveillance and other methods, and it's dirt they didn't have to invent, because dirt follows the clintons around like it does "pig pen" from "peanuts".
and i do believe the right are holding off a bit, until it's clear she's the frontrunner.
serbrew @ 124:
i never suggested you said anything other than what you said in the quote i copied and pasted. it appears that you need to read more carefully...
Shawnmeat @ 123:
all they have on obama is rezko, and obama's already in the clear.
oh, yeah, i guess they can keep trying the "madrassa" thing, in which case i'll keep posting huma abedin links, since i don't even work for obama.
if clinton's side wants to keep planting erroneous ideas in voters minds, i'll gladly return fire. and trust me, it won't be a hard sell in the midwest and south.
the real problem is those damn republican-owned electronic voting machines. i do believe new hampshire was stolen, but there's nothing i can do about it, other than write the f.b.i., which i've already done. it's up to direstor mueller to decide if he's going to do anything about it, and i doubt he will... or even if he does, chertoff or bush will put an end to it.
Goon @ 27:
You are such an idiot, fear monger and stupid, I mean very stupid. They should revoke your privildege to drive, why you say? Cause your so freaking BLIND !!!!!!!!
ROM Spaceknight @ 120:
They were not friends during that time period, only later.
ROM Spaceknight @ 127:
Spreading lies is well worth your time.
WHO is the "Post Chronicle"?
Don't care? Why would you.
Thanks for outing yourself. The Post Chronicle -- gee, I wonder who puts that internet jive out?
Let's see, who are their syndicated columnists?
Thomas Sowell - Patrick J. Buchanan - Linda Chavez - Ollie North
Great to see you in such good company, ROM.
Spreading rightwing FILTH is just your ticket to revenge.
So tell us all again how much you CARE about those meanies, at the rightwing shitrag you promote, downing our fair-haired girl. She's a lesbian? Oh my, and Ollie North thinks so too? OH my.
this is why the democratic party is being such a push over.. Not only has the politics turned bad.. but so have the people. It's black or white.. evil or good. It's as if voting one particular person will help this republic... regardless who wins the election this year.. there's still going to be problems. the president doesn't fix all of them.
Paul in LA @ 131:
i didn't say there was any truth to it, i said if the clinton team continues spreading crap about obama, which they are, i'd post links to what the right is already saying about clinton, which i will.
furthermore, i'm trying to show you what to expect if clinton's nominated. that's just the tip of the iceberg. and people will believe the rumors -clinton already has high negatives for at least 50 per cent of the country.
also, the point isn't that she may or may not be a lesbian -i couldn't care less- the point is that most people view the clinton marriage as a sham, a political arrangement to ensure power for both of them. and if she's cheating, as bill certainly has, you'd better be concerned, because the right will destroy her over it.
i'm telling you right now, she can't win the general election. i'm also telling you right now i will not, under any circumstances, vote for her -but that, for me, has nothing to do with who she may or may not be sleeping with, it has to do with her votes for iraq war and iran war, it has to do with friends of mine who are needlessly dead today because she lacked the judgment to say no to war when america needed her to.
Paul in LA @ 129:
yes, paul, and they both died on the same day, exactly 50 years after the declaration of independence.
and, hey, i know i've gotten into it with you over the last 24 hours, but i respect your wisdom, old man, i hope you caught that link i left you in the open thread.
Paul in LA @ 130:
it might be true, who knows? if it is, she's in real trouble.
i'll ask again: who's controlled warrantless surveillance for the last years? and if they've been spying on quakers and peace activists, as evidence seems to suggest they have, wouldn't you expect them to have the clintons under 24/7 surveillance?
and while i'm at it, did you know you can be eavesdropped on through your cell phone, even when it's turned off?
*last 8 years
Filthy Harry @ 109:
Point taken. I wondered if we may be letting off the real instigator in this racial issue. When you really look at how this whole thing was developed, you have to factor in how it was framed by the media. They injected, with their racist hypothetical questions, pure unsubstantiated motives of Bill and Hillary Clinton . What is your thoughts on the media's role.
Joseph
it wasn’t even a stupid comment since she was specifically asked about Obama’s remarks on MLK
Thank you! It was Obama who first metioned MLK--and effectively equated himself with MLK--in the context of quite nastily mocking Hillary's trope about "false hopes": "Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. ‘You know, this Dream thing, it’s a false hope. We can’t expect equality.'"
That quote was read to her, and she was asked her reaction.
Part of her point in response was that MLK's dream wasn't a "false hope" because there would be a president in office who could implement it. Obama had used a bad example for the sake of loading his commentary on her earlier "false hopes" remarks, and she was attempting to restore the correct perspective.
ROM Spaceknight @ 133:
You don't care if there is any truth to it, so you post rightwing shit?
So what Ollie North and those other racists and warpigs say shit about Clinton. NONE of that will have any impact on the race -- which she will win, handily. Feb 5 is going to be a big wakeup call to leftists who think that her support nationally is trivial.
I still support Edwards, and will be voting for him on that day. And when Clinton is the candidate, she has my vote too, in November. You ought to get your head out of your ass (or Ollie North's ass).
ROM Spaceknight @ 133:
That's nonsense. Find a poll which says anything like that (and not from the rightwing).
Most Americans will vote for Clinton because they have fond memories of the nineties, and they watched as Clinton pulled us out of the hole Reagan-Bush dug. It's really that simple.
Is she a lesbian? Does she kiss Bill on the mouth? NO ONE REALLY WANTS TO KNOW.
ROM Spaceknight @ 133:
Had Clinton voted nay on the IR, it would have changed absolutely NOTHING.
Try to figure that out.
Paul in LA @ 141:
we'll never know, now will we? maybe if she were an actual leader, instead of a political weathervane angling for a presidential run, she may have been able to stave off the attack. certainly there were those who tried -paul wellstone and barack obama come to mind.
Paul in LA @ 140:
i don't miss the nineties, i miss the future, if that makes any sense, old man.
and if you don't think whether or not the clinton marriage is a sham matters to ordinary americans, you really haven't been paying attention to american politics for the last fifteen years, have you?
folks are fed up with dog and pony shows. this younger generation coming up can see through the bull$#!+ -they absolutely crave authenticity.
ROM Spaceknight @ 143 "i don't miss the nineties, i miss the future, if that makes any sense, old man."
I am not an 'old man.' Neither do I get friendly with people who spread rightwing filth.
"and if you don't think whether or not the clinton marriage is a sham matters to ordinary americans, you really haven't been paying attention to american politics for the last fifteen years, have you?"
Unlike you, I talk with LOTS of people every week as I protest. Most of them have not one bit of the concerns you reference, and know nothing much about politics except Bush scares them to hell, and they LONG for a return to the nineties.
"folks are fed up with dog and pony shows. this younger generation coming up can see through the bull$#!+ -they absolutely crave authenticity."
Great, and after they have registered to vote, they can vote. And after they do some political work, they can feel like they are involved. But until that time, the 'younger generation' is a shiftless gang of dissatisfied dreamers with no accomplishments to point to, and a ton of myths that they believe because it supplies the scapegoats their facile worldview requires.
I'm not a big fan of the Clintons, but it is clear long ago they are better than any of the R who are running, or any R you can name. And they have massive name recognition, and very little of the tar and feathers has stuck to them.
Most of the electorate IS older. If the young care to join up and work for change, bully for them. I've seen very few do so.
"they keep on saying go slow"
BUT THAT'S JUST THE TROUBLE...
Login or Register to post comments.