This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I think all Clinton was saying that while ordinary citizens may do extraordinary things, they are limited in their ability to effect change -- it took a President -- Johnson, in this case, to actually put the idea of real civil rights for all people into lawful practice. Having good ideas is not enough -- political power -- elected office -- is needed to get things done. The importance of political power shouldn't be de-emphasized.

She was not comparing how great or noble LBJ and MLK were. She was pointing out that Democrats shouldn't be content with just having good ideas, with just being right: they need a very strong, experienced leader (namely, herself :-) ) to get those ideas put into practice.

She certainly was not saying that Black men needed help from White men to get what they wanted. She was saying that, during the 60's, Black men needed help from a President (of immaterial color or gender) to use the power of that office to get things done.

Perhaps the Times would agree with that analysis of mine. If so, I find it peculiar that they would find some moral fault with someone actually thinking political power was worth at least as much as good, noble ideas. The history of the world tends to prove that political power is essential to getting things you want done. It is also what Democracy is about: The people as a whole give a small number of individuals power to put ideas into practice.
 

As to the first comment, Levinson might be a little unfair to the writer on the advisability of the analogy Clinton drew between herself and Johnson. The passage could be read as merely a commentary on the tactical, political questionability of the proposition.

But as to the second...It is almost impossible to imagine such an example of anything so spectacularly glorious, ignorant pomposity as purporting to be able draw a line between those who advocated for change on one side of a segregated 1960's United States from those who did the same on the other -- or purporting to write, or publish, it.

Levinson is to be congratulated on identifying and then calling out this facile, trashy, trading on the domestic reputation of a political figure like Lyndon B. Johnson --whatever his other faults or failings might have been.

This being being said, on this one,he should resist the temptation to let the writer and the paper off too lightly on the second.In any other estate of government, the exposure of such imbellicity would have the actor invited to "seek new opportunities."

Will it also do so in the fourth estate-- in the New York Times?

It should. Some of us "knew" Lyndon Johnson. This writer and this publisher are, obviously, no Lyndon Johnson.
 

You're absolutely right. This awful editorial is, among other things, yet another example of a disturbing trend falsely to assume that a comparison in one respect implies a comparison in other respects.
 

Not only is the editorial “appallingly ignorant” about President Johnson’s great domestic policy leadership skills, it defies logic and historical understanding when it finds a “distasteful implication” in that “a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change” with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a white, liberal northern boy who came of age in the 1960s, I resonate with Professor Levinson’s reminder that the word “we” in “we shall overcome” means all of us, regardless of color.

Momentous political accomplishments are many times the product of the confluence of an aroused electorate and skilled political craftsmanship. Such was the case with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Let’s remember that after President Kennedy introduced the bill with a speech in June 1963, it lingered in the House until the March on Washington in October 1963, after which hearings were held in House Judiciary with a stronger bill immerging in November. After Kennedy’s assassination that month, Lyndon Johnson made its passage one of his top priorities. The historical record, including LBJ’s secret tapes, clearly shows that LBJ in early 1964 was a master politician at the top of his game. His sense of timing, intimate knowledge of the potential Senate roadblocks, and friendly, and not so friendly, persuasion were unsurpassed in the history of U.S. presidents. Who else but LBJ could have “defanged” (to use Michael R. Beschloss’s word) his mentor Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia?

LBJ’s political skills would have been for naught, however, without the rising and sustained public pressure created by Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders. Their words and deeds had set the stage for legislative success through inspiring the entire electorate, white and black, to “dream” and hope. Johnson himself went into the belly of the beast to assure passage of the CRA, by inspiring and creating hope in some of his most highly acclaimed speeches, e.g., on 5/7/64 in the “heart of the South,” Atlanta: “I will never feel that I have done justice to my high office until every section of this country is linked, in single purpose and joined devotion, to bring an end to injustice, to bring an end to poverty, and to bring an end to the threat of conflict among nations.”

Although the editorial recognizes that Sen. Clinton had “zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s),” it fails to note that history is most likely to reward the leader that provides both. When I hear Sen. Clinton say that we can’t have “false hopes,” I shudder. Likewise, a candidate who does not convince me that he or she is able to “hit the ground running” on January 20, 2009 will not get my vote. In short, the editorial failed to either inspire or provide the reader with any competent historical perspective.
 

I think it is pretty obvious that Clinton was playing the race card on Obama - whether with the "accidental nasty comment and apology" tack, the unelectable and silence on why tack, the downplaying MLK and THIS specific civil rights movement as opposed to the great white hope of LBJ. She also played the "gender" card. They worked for her in New Hampshire. She'll see what happens in South Carolina.

As to Lyndon Johnson, yes he was tremendous on the domestic side. Just do not believe he would have been so tremendous without the reality of the civil rights movement that moved a nation. That coupled with his own experience as a cotton picker and other things in the South moved him to action and to use his power.

Also, remember MLK's frustration in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" with white liberals. Watching a white liberal play the race and gender card to get ahead against a black man is quite an experience for an old fart like me.

Best,
Ben
 

Just in case it is not already obvious, I totally agree with Ben that nothing would have happened without the courageous agency of Dr. King and, more to the point, thousands of less visible African-Americans who at times literally put their lives on the line for "the Movement." That being conceded, it is also true that the remarkable changes in American law (that, presumably, have at least a little something to do with the remarkable changes in American society) would never have happened without the leadership of Lyndon Johnson and, for that matter, the acquiescence of Republicans like Everett Dirksen to the "winds of change."

I frankly have no idea what was on the mind of Sen. Clinton with regard to her evocation of King and Johnson. I'd like to think it wasn't the cynical playing of the "race card," but that might be naive on my part.
 

I think that everyone is missing the greater context of the remarks, which can be seen at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/

More than implicitly comparing herself to LBJ and Obama to MLK, she was comparing Obama to Kennedy. The whole thing arose in response to Obama's evoking JFK as an example of inspirational and hopeful words leading to change by promising a man on the moon within ten years, among others.

Clinton's response needs to be seen in this context - she was saying JFK had great rhetoric, but didn't get the job done. LBJ, despite not being the most inspiring president, was a consumate politician and knew DC inside and out. JFK didn't pass the Civil Rights or Voting Rights Acts - LBJ did. It is another example in the whole meme of her campaign that experience matters more than inspirational speeches.

That being said, I'm not sure how wise it is to imply that JFK wasn't as great as he's made out to be, but thats a seperate issue (and I think most people will miss this entirely in any event).
 

Professor Levinson:

You are of course correct that the civil rights movement was a collaborative effort.

However, in an effort to push her experience theme, Mrs. Clinton did make it sound as if she was comparing herself to LBJ and Mr. Obama to MLK, then discounting the contributions of Mr. King (and by implication Obama) to no more than rhetoric.

It was a dumb extemporaneous campaign speech gaffe for which she should have apologized.

Of course, that does not excuse the brain dead NYT editorial board's most recent exhibition of white guilt and Vietnam syndrome. Mrs. Clinton was speaking extemporaneously in a campaign speech marathon. The NYT had the time to engage their brains before putting fingers to keyboard.
 

Vietnam syndrome

What the hell is Vietnam syndrome?
 

The change was going to happen regardless of LBJ's actions. If not him it would have been someone else or the general population simply ignoring many of the racist laws. It was the actions of the decades long civil rights movement that created the change.

And it's my understanding that LBJ wasn't exactly a non-racist.

He had two choices. Leave behind a legacy of violence or become a hero.

Which choice would a shrewd politician make?
 

The change was going to happen regardless of LBJ's actions. If not him it would have been someone else or the general population simply ignoring many of the racist laws. It was the actions of the decades long civil rights movement that created the change.

The North might have made substantial progress similar to the CRA and VRA, but it's pretty hard to see that as likely in the South. The South didn't even abide by the laws which did get enacted, so it's hard to see how or why the population generally would have demanded change in that direction. LBJ deserves enormous credit for his actions.
 

I agree with the previous commenter who spoke of Clinton's use of the race and gender cards in her speech. I think it is a very foolish move to play the gender card against a BLACK man. He gets the discrimination, he's been trying to fight it his entire career. This was a huge mistake by the Clinton campaign, and I hope it comes back to haunt them.
 

Here is more info on the Clinton quote, including its full context: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/new_york_times_11.php

The full quote was "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President 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. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."

This makes it pretty clear she wasn't saying shes LBJ and Obama's MLK, who was ineffective on his own. She's LBJ to Obama's JFK - LBJ got real results on civil rights and JFK didnt.
 

Here is Andrew Cuomo's (a Hillary surrogate) "shuck and jive" comment. Now if that is not playing a race card for purposes of the NY primary I do not know what is. A liberal no less.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/11/martin-shucking-and-jiving-and-the-campaign-trail/

Of course, you can also go to the Wall Street Journal and read Karl Rove calling Obama lazy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

It seems so many white politicians who are threatened by Obama's candidacy are playing the race card on Obama. Then the game the other way is when he or his surrogate says something about it, they will all be about "he is playing the race card". He will be said to be too sensitive and all that stuff and people will then whisper he is unelectable.

That is why I suspect he will not say something about it but will continue to make veiled references to the civil rights struggle and invoke that.

It is an old game in this country consistent with our history.

Best,
Ben