DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEFENSE AND ATTACK...
I'm not a racist just because I vote for HILLARY - THE MEDIA IS NOT BALANCED AT NEITHER IS BHO, One of the many reasons I decided to speak out for HILLARY too!
MLK interview in PLAYBOY 1965
The Obama camp did it again. They manufactured yet another issue out of a non-issue when they pounded Hillary Clinton for supposedly defiling Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by minimizing his role in the civil rights struggle. Here's Hillary's terrible sin per the Obama campaign crowd: she said that Dr. King's dream was realized when President Lyndon Johnson shoved the 1964 Civil Rights Bill through Congress. This was anything but a put down of King.
Hillary paid tribute to King for laying the groundwork for the civil rights bill and gave justifiable credit to Johnson for ramming the bill through a bickering, divided and very recalcitrant Congress. Her point was that presidents that have their public policy priorities screwed on right can make changes, monumental changes, for good.
If Hillary could be faulted for anything it's that she didn't go far enough. If Johnson hadn't forcefully intervened and jawboned, prodded, arm twisted, and embarrassed the slew of wavering and hostile Congressmen to the bill into supporting the bill, or at least tempering their opposition to it, King's dream would have remained just that, an empty dream. King recognized that. In a Playboy interview in 1965, he said this about Johnson: "He has demonstrated his wisdom and commitment in coming to grips with the problem (racial discrimination). My impression is that he will remain a strong president for civil rights." History amply proved that, and Johnson despite his Vietnam War tumble from historical grace, still is regarded as the president that did more for civil rights than any other president.
But I'd go even further still. King gets much deserved praise and is much honored for igniting the national fervor for civil rights and galvanizing thousands to put their bodies on the line in the civil rights battles. Yet, there's an ugly side and often forgotten note to that. The street marches and demonstrations also stirred the first tremors of white backlash. The George Wallace surge in the North, the open hostility of many Northern whites to housing and school integration, and the Republican reawakening in the South was a direct outcropping of the civil rights push. This stiffened the spines of Southern Democrats and conservative Northern Republicans who dug their heels in and flatly opposed the bill, piled amendment after crippling amendment onto the bill initially, and employed every legal and parliamentary dodge and stall tactic they could dredge up to delay a vote on it, if not to kill it outright.
King could do nothing about this. JFK who introduced the bill couldn't do anything about it either. He was at his wits end after months and months of Congressional ducking and dodging on the bill about how to get it moving. By the time Johnson took office, following JFK's murder, the bill was still born in Congress. There was every chance that it could be shelved. However, Johnson would have none of that. He was a Southerner and he knew the mood and temper of the South. From his decades in the Senate he knew where the political skeletons were buried and how to rattle them. He did what King and Kennedy didn't have a prayer of doing, he got the sympathetic ear of enough Southerners to take some of the steam out of their vehement opposition to the bill. The rest of course is history. The Civil Rights Bill, not King's marches and demonstrations, broke the back of legal segregation in America and became the watchword for progressive, visionary social legislation for decades to come.
King and all the top civil rights leaders knew that history had been made with the passage of the bill, and that the man that played the towering role in making that history was LBJ A t the signing ceremony for the bill, King and the other civil rights leaders beamed when Johnson handed them the pens after the signing. They effusively praised him for his tireless effort.
Hillary's statement was a simple, honest, and respectful nod to Johnson for his indispensable part in making civil rights a legal fact and reality in America. This was the same nod that King and the civil rights leaders made more than four decades ago to him.
This is a nod that the Hillary haters have forgotten or deliberately distorted in their clinical obsession to smash mouth every Hillary utterance. This is a history lesson that Hillary got right about King and Johnson, and one that the Obama campaign flunked badly.
PEACE
Question US
Bill Clinton says, "I have never attacked Obama" -- Do you agree?
Grace W. Bush February 08, 2008 19:38:53
- 290 answers
- Read all 627 comments
- +22 / -7 raves
According to an interview with former President Bill Clinton at WCSH Channel 6, Bill Clinton has said that he has never attacked Senator Barack Obama.
Click here to read the interview
Click here to read the interview
Loading... 

Top Comment
-
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEFENSE AND ATTACK...(more)View thread
I'm not a racist just because I vote for HILLARY - THE MEDIA IS NOT BALANCED AT NEITHER IS BHO, One of the many reasons I decided to speak out for HILLARY too!
MLK interview in PLAYBOY 1965
The Obama camp did it again. They manufactured yet another issue out of a non-issue when they pounded Hillary Clinton for supposedly defiling Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by minimizing his role in the civil rights struggle. Here's Hillary's terrible sin per the Obama campaign crowd: she said that Dr. King's dream was realized when President Lyndon Johnson shoved the 1964 Civil Rights Bill through Congress. This was anything but a put down of King.
Hillary paid tribute to King for laying the groundwork for the civil rights bill and gave justifiable credit to Johnson for ramming the bill through a bickering, divided and very recalcitrant Congress. Her point was that presidents that have their public policy priorities screwed on right can make changes, monumental changes, for good.
If Hillary could be faulted for anything it's that she didn't go far enough. If Johnson hadn't forcefully intervened and jawboned, prodded, arm twisted, and embarrassed the slew of wavering and hostile Congressmen to the bill into supporting the bill, or at least temperin...
SodaHead Hot Trends

Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
Undecided
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
No. Bill is a liar!
No. Bill is a liar!
Undecided
No. Bill is a liar!
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
No. Bill is a liar!
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
No. Bill is a liar!
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
No. Bill is a liar!
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
Undecided
No. Bill is a liar!
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
Obama is also extremely bright -- he might sound all talk, but that's because he's a brilliant speechmaker, not because he's all talk. It's an almost lost skill -- oratory, and one I greatly appreciate. Aslo, dummies aren't elected head of the Harvard Law Review, as Obama was when he went to that law school.
Anyway -- there's just not a point to be made comparing the relative intelligences of the two Democratic candidates and their spouses. They're four very bright people.
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
...but this wasn't an attack on the black population, just Obama.
These were attacks on a candidate that in the Clinton's opinion SHOULD NOT BE. Hillary was supposed to get the White House in exchange for publically sticking with Bill throughout the whole sordid Lewinsky afair, or as Hill called it a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
In the Clinton's eyes she should have been a shoe-in. She had name and face recognition as well as Pat Moynihan's seat in the Senate and all those Hollywood stars as friends. Obama's populatiry came out of left field. Who knew he was so charismatic?
I wouldn't vote for him, but I would love to hang out with him.
No. Bill is a liar!
No. Bill is a liar!
You play dirty!
I doubt you have any respect except to those who slander.
Yes. Clinton states that he never attacked Obama in a personal way, and that he did not say things that were factually inaccurate.
In other words, he gets carried away when he shouldn't -- this was one of those times and I hope, if his wife continues to do poorly in the primaries, that this Bad Bill doesn't come out again.
I think Clinton has a right to speak in favor of his wife; I don't think he has any more right to engage in smears than does anyone else, whether in what he sees a defense of his wife or not.
If you want to defend on the basis of the husband-wife privilege, this is a man who stepped out on his wife innumerable times. As such, either one must question Hill's judgement in her choices of a man, or assume that his power was important enough to put up with his flalandering.....Which is it?
Furtherly, if you want to defend on the basis of husband-wife privilage, there is even less to defend. This is a man who stepped out on his wife innumerable times and must have lied to her over and over. Or, worse yet, Hill knew about his flalandering and put up with it for 20 years in order to share his power. Either way, what does that say about HER JUDGEMENT??????? Did she stay with him because she was hoodwinked? Or, because the power was worth it?
Isn't it nice that now that she has a chance for the power, he'll defend her ? Open your eyes and consider the choices these people have made in their personnel lives. If those choices don't give you insight into who they truly are, then you are naive as all get out. Grow up! The way people treat their supposed "loved ones" indicates a great deal about the way they will treat US!Doesn't give me much hope how they/he/she will act if they get more power.....