Hillary tries a new response regarding her MLK/LBJ remarks, and shows once again that she is just like Bush.

Introduction

Hillary Clinton appeared on "Meet the Press" yesterday, and one of the topics discussed was her comments about MLK/LBJ/Obama. What she had to say was straight out of the Republican playbook. Instead of owning up to the words she uttered, instead of admitting in any way that she misspoke, she accused her opponent and the media of twisting her words, and in so doing portrayed herself as a victim.

This post is going to contain lots of excepts from my previous posts on this subject. That is done for the sake of convenience and continuity.

Hillary claimed that she was responding to Obama comparing himself to King and Kennedy

She began her "defense" as follows:

First, with respect to Dr. King, you know, Tim, I was 14 years old when I heard Dr. King speak in person. He is one of the people that I admire most in the world, and the point that I was responding to from Senator Obama himself in a number of speeches he was making is his comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King.

(emphasis added). Really? You want to stick with that claim? You shouldn't because it is pretty much a steaming pile of crap.

First of all, as noted in this post, here is the specific quote from Obama to which Hillary was asked to respond:

False Hopes. Dr. King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hope, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us.

And remember that, as discussed here, Hillary used the phrase "false hopes" in the January 5 debate, when she said this:

So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made.

(emphasis added). So, Obama was specifically responding to something Hillary said, and Hillary was asked to respond to that one specific statement by Obama. In other words, Hillary was not asked to respond to "a number of speeches." Furthermore, in the specific statement to which she was responding, Obama did not compare himself to King. As I said before, "Obama was clearly invoking King's inspiration and trying to say that he is offering that same kind of hope." Obama did not say that he is the same as King. Moreover, the specific quote to which Hillary responded did not even mention JFK.

Also, Obama's website has 39 speeches posted from his announcement through January 3, 2008, and I have looked through each one. Sixteen of those speeches make reference to King and/or Kennedy. In my opinion, those references all cite the ideas, experiences, and results of those leaders and what Obama sees as the need to follow and implement those ideas, experiences, and results today. He did not ever make a direct comparison between them and himself. You can take my word for it, or you can read through the speeches yourself. Here's the list of links:

• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/02/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_11.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/05/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_14.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_politics_of_conscience_1.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_19.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_21.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/26/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_20.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/28/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_26.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_28.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_33.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/30/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_35.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/12/05/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_36.php
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/12/27/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_38.php

If citing the ideas, experiences, and results of King and Kennedy is the same thing as comparing oneself to them, then Hillary has compared herself to King as well. In addition to saying how much she admired King, she also said

And there is no doubt that the inspiration offered by all three of them is essential. It is critical to who we are as a nation, what we believe in, the dreams and aspirations that we all have.

Really? That's what you are going with now?

That statement contradicts what she said before.

See, again, as previously noted, Hillary said the following at the January 5 debate:

Well, making change, making -- wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this.

Because obviously -- obviously making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.

(emphasis added). And she followed that up two days later with her "it took a president to get it done" comments. It was only after she had received tremendous criticism for all these statements that she said inspiration, dreams, and aspirations are essential. It took her eight days to go from "obviously making change is not about what you believe" to "inspiration...is essential. It is critical to who we are as a nation, what we believe in, the dreams and aspirations that we all have." She is so full of crap. If that is what she truly believed, why did she not say that on January 5, and why it did take eight days and a ton of criticism to get her to change her tune?

Hillary finally gave an explanation that she should have given initially.

And then she gave another, more detailed explanation of her initial MLK/LBJ comments:

But I also said that, you know, Dr. King didn't just give speeches. He marched, he organized, he protested, he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. He understood that he had to move the political process and bring in those who were in political power, and he campaigned for political leaders, including Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on what he had devoted his life to achieving.

*******

Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement. But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system.

It took six days for her to say what should have been said in the first place. And how much of that did she say in her initial comments? Damn near zero. Let's take a look at the progression of her statements.

January 5

Well, making change, making -- wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this.

Because obviously -- obviously making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.

*******

So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.

January 7

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 reality in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.

Nowhere in either of these statements did she say anything about the actions--as opposed to mere words--of King. Nowhere in these statements did she say anything about inspiration, dreams, and aspirations being important. In fact, she expressly dismissed any such notion by saying "obviously making change is not about what you believe."

Hillary's first opportunity to clarify what she actually meant came on January 7, just a few hours after her initial MLK/LBJ statement, and she said the following:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led a movement -- he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed – and he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever delivered in America, the "I have a dream" speech.... And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights law passed, because the dream couldn’t be realized until it was legally permissible for people of all races and colors and background to be recognized as citizens.

And once again, here is part of my critique of this spin...

Well, darlin,' if that is what you meant all along, why the hell didn't you say that to begin with? Hillary's first response said nothing about King working with LBJ. Her plain words were that LBJ, not King, got the job done. Moreover, this spin does nothing to change the impression that she feels inspiration is overrated and that that is all Obama is offering while she is the only candidate who can get things done. Let me put this another way. She is not in any way offering any insipiration of her own, and her statements show that she feels inspiration is not necessary.

And here is some more from January 11...

Hillary could have greatly defused this whole incident by doing something as simple as saying "I apologize for my comments to the extent they could be construed as dismissive of MLK...or hopes and dreams. What I meant was that bringing about change requires people and actions exemplified by both MLK and LBJ." There are other very simple things that could be said to go along with that.

*******

[Referring to her "spin" statement from January 7] Is there anything resembling an apology? NO. Any sort of apology would indicate that she made a mistake, and Hillary is never going to do that. Did she say that hopes and dreams are important? NO. She still emphasized the "presidential action" part of the equation.

And then finally, on January 13 on "Meet the Press" she said the sort of thing she should have said from the very beginning. One of the points I am trying to make is that her explanation on "Meet the Press" is different from her prior statements. The vast majority of what she said on "Meet the Press" is not contained in her prior statements. Also, her "Meet the Press" explanation is still devoid of any hint of humility or apology for any offense she might have caused.

Another point I am trying to make is that the facts that it took her almost a week to give that "Meet the Press" explanation and that it came only after massive criticism indicates at least two things: 1) she is not being sincere, and 2) she is stupid. I maintain that if someone truly believes that King's words and actions were vital to the overall process, that person would say so from the beginning, or if he or she failed to do so would say so at the earliest subsequent opportunity. Hillary failed on both counts. Furthermore, anyone with any political saavy would have known that what Hillary said could easily be interpreted as insulting King and would need clarification ASAP. Instead, it took Hillary almost a week to do that. Only a dumbass or someone with extreme arrogance--or both--would have waited that long.

According to Hillary, Obama and the media have twisted her words.

This one really pisses me off.

Early on, Hillary said this to Tim Russert:

So I think it's important to set the record straight. Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this.

What a bunch of bullshit. I did not have to have the Obama campaign or anyone else characterize her words for me. From the instant I saw them, I was highly offended and shocked. Nothing else anyone has said since then (other than the crap that has come from Hillary and her campaign) has changed my opinion one way or the other. My reaction was based simply and entirely upon the very words that came straight out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. The attempts at distortion have come from Hillary and her campaign. Go back and look at the progression of statements made by Hillary. Each time she added something that was not in her previous statement. Each time she tried to convince everyone that the additional explanation was really part of the previous statement, when clearly it was not. That's attempted distortion folks. And the added fact that she never has once conceded that maybe she misspoke or that maybe she could see how her original statement could be interpreted in a negative way shows her true character.

Oh, but Hillary was just getting warmed up. When asked about the reactions of James Clyburn and Donna Brazile, Hillary went off.

I understand the taking out of context and the mischaracterization. I've spoken with Congressman Clyburn. I have spoken with a number of my very strong and adamant supporters, but Tim, I can't let you get away with that mischaracterization and those snippets.

*******

And I think it is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I've said.

*******

You know, this is, you know, an unfortunate story line that the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully. They've been putting out talking points, they've been making this, they've been telling people in a very selective way what the facts are.

Let me be clear on this. As I explained in detail in my first post, what Hillary first said about MLK/LBJ could EASILY be interpreted to mean that

she thinks the black man who is considered by most people--of all races--to be one of the greatest heroes of racial equality did not really accomplish anything, but instead it was the white man from the south that did the real work. Hillary's words could be interpreted to mean that she thinks Obama, another black man speaking of hope and ideals, cannot really accomplish anything while she, the white woman, can accomplish what Obama merely talks about.

One of the reasons that interpretation is easily made is because she provided NO context and NO explanation to indicate otherwise. Indeed, what context existed was her statement from two days earlier that "obviously making change is not about what you believe." Furthermore, her attempt at spin later that day added some explanation through words she did not say the first time but still did not fully explain her intended meaning. The full explanation did not come until 6 days later. The full explanation did not come until AFTER people like Clyburn and Brazile voiced their reactions. IF Hillary had given the full explanation she gave Russert on January 13 on January 7, then her claims of "mischaracterization" would be correct. However, she did no such thing. So her claims of mischaracterization are bullshit.

This sort of behavior is EXACTLY what the Bush administration has done. Say something stupid and/or offensive. Provide further explanation depending on what the reaction is. Always accuse your critics of twisting your words and giving them a different meaning. Never admit that there is even a possibility that you said something wrong.

And another thing...I have not included mere "snippets." I have included almost everything Hillary has said on this subject.

And Hillary claims she will be an agent for change. What a crock.