TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1060
Comments
Pop-culture values bias the media - cheapening, hyping, and distorting the substance of our politics. We don't have a perfect candidate - we never do - we never will. (Yes "Obamamaniacs" sooner or later you will find out that he is not perfect either.) But I want the most qualified candidate - and I would even if the gender and race roles were reversed. I started out without a preference - as a devoted and excited Democrat looking toward a better future, wanting to choose the most qualified candidate for our country. I evaluated both candidates thoroughly, and found Hillary to truly be the most qualified at this time. And she still is. But we live in a time where competency and qualifications just aren't valued as much as pop-culture, hype, and sensationalism, and if we continue to choose our candidates in line more with these values, we will have a new mess every time we elect a new, inexperienced President. Many have noticed how much of a role the media has played in all this; pervasively on so many levels - much of it has as much merit as fashion, a fad, a social contagion. It would be fair...
Noemi writes:
>>Obama is being made into a leader before he has had a chance to truly lead. He is being molded into an orator who can move masses...
Ah, but he already moves masses, effortlessly. This attempt to diminish him by implying he is "handled" is sad.
>>Mrs. Clinton has all the makings of a great leader and President of the United States in terms of her ability, experience, desire and machine.
...the United States of America is in dire need of a spiritual leader.
Please reread the scandal baggage attached to Hillary. I'm astonished you would call for a "spiritual leader" then favor Hillary!
>> one who in addition to all of the necessary qualifications will also give hope of moral recovery to this country.
This is Obama's authentic appeal.
>>In one of the darkest moments in our history, we go blindly into the presidential elections.
Please read the factual news reports. Obama is not leading blindly. People are not blind. The people are speaking. Time for you to hear what they say.
Please go to www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com
Thanks!
Carole
When people talk about Hillary's "experience" vs. Obama's, why is it that no one mentions her "scandal baggage"? This is, after all, part of her "experience." Google "Hillary Clinton" and "scandal" and you come up with 471,000 hits. That doesn't mean 471,000 scandals, but Whitewater will come back to defeat her when it comes to putting her experience up against the republican candidate. Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, has too much "experience" for the scandalmongers to chew on during the presidential election.
Obama's popularity is not about his charisma, as some say. It's about his character all his life long. It's about his recognition that the system needs not just change, but transformation. It's about his message that we the American people are the only ones who can make that happen, not some singular savior.
Channel-surfing on 1/31, I happened upon Michelle Obama's eloquent and down-home speech in Delaware on January 31. She tells Obama's experience like it is...wholly and consistently for and with the people who have no voice.
Well, we the American people have been without a voice for too long. It's time for more than change. It's time for Barack Obama and US!
Thanks Bill Moyers for your ongoing clarification about politics during this Primary season. I wish that you would have Sally Bedell Smith on your program in the near future.
I hope that you have read Sally Bedell Smith's book (For the Love of Politics) which gives an in-depth perspective of the Clinton White House years.
I am concerned about the possibility of another four or eight years of a Clinton White House. I believe that will not be in the best interests of our country. The behind-the-scenes manipulations might be politics as usual - but we need to get away from that and take a more unified approach to move our country forward.
Also - remember that Bill Clinton will be the unofficial Vice-President. In reality the legal aspects of this should be investigated. Think about Hillary’s choice for a figure-head Vice-President. Who would be willing to be that Candidate?
I am a supporter of Barack Obama and worry that Hillary Clinton ultimately will lose the November election for the Democrats.
It seems that people are missing a very key element in the "Obama Mystique" and it is that although he really does sound good when he speaks, the substance behind the words is truly not there. However, he (and his coaches) are playing the disenchanted U.S. public well, addressing the emptiness that has begun to erode our collective faith in any government or politician. Barack Obama may well become President of the United States with his very fine tuned "song" but if we can extend that metaphor, songs are sung by anyone who has talent and can carry the tune. It does not mean that the words have been lived by the performer. I don't question Mr. Obama's sincerity in wanting to lead this country in the direction of change but I do question his capacity, based on his obvious lack of experience to do so. During the latest Democratic debate, he and Mrs. Clinton played to the Hollywood audience who can't help but love a well-delivered line and were both very good at this although Mr. Obama delivered more punch lines. Alas, we in the U.S. are generally swayed by the rehearsed speaches of our superstar performers. They are...
I enjoyed your look at Sen. Clinton's statement. I was alive then and remember the facts as well. I concluded that the pundits, activists and others that were demonizing her were too young or uninformed to recognize the truth.
Sen. Kennedy, who has jumped into the fray with both feet for Obama, was slighted because JFK was not given credit for the Civil Rights legislation.
President Kennedy was unsuccessful in his attempt, but history reflects that because of much arm twisting and sacrifice, President Johnson prevailed.
As a Black child growing up in southern Louisiana I benefited greatly from that legislation. I could not get a bill passed, but my President did.
It is a sad day when we will overlook a courageous act for political gain, or to increase television ratings. When Sen. Obama sees these injustices done in his name for his benefit, I expect him to stand up and correct it.
Mr. Moyers, thank you for setting the record straight.
I worked hard screwing people over at my job today (in service to an insurance corporation) and I'm depressed. Last night I watched (California debate)perpetual warrior John McCain, corporate greedbag Romney and Bible- as-Constitution Huckabee avoiding any real solutions, and had trouble sleeping. Ralph Nader's description of Senators Obama and Clinton (she; the corporate candidate on the Demo side, and he; a less than committed advocate for the people) on Democracy Now (Jan. 31st podcast) seems exactly right on. I am wondering why, since most of our biggest problems relate to irresponsible use of our environment, that the Green Party isn't stronger and more popular. It's just another symptom of the plutocratic stranglehold of wealthy corporate owners on our simulated, half-baked democracy. Maybe we will have to fight up from the bottom and elect Greens or other 3rd party people to local boards and commissions. But how long would that take and would it come too late for freedom and global warming abatement? I'll probably end up voting for Nader again. (Now why am I depressed?)Kucinich was right about the fixed Diebold machines in New Hampshire: We should take axes to them everywhere.
I have been waiting for someone to question the omission of Barack's full Name, i.e. Barack HUSEIN Obama. I am not convinced that he is not still a Muslim but merely acquired the Christian faith because he knows that a Muslim has little to no chance of being elected president or much else in the United States. Reading all that has been written on the Internet about Barack HUSSEIN Obama it amazes me that so many people have voted for Hussein Obama.
I am and always have been a devoted Democrat, I took my time to evaluate and choose between Barack and Hillary. And I chose Hillary, she is the only who is truly more qualified and competent at this time. Deep in my gut, I know she is the right choice. At this point for me, Obama is largely hype. I would be interested in voting for Barack in the future, after he has more experience, to take a chance and see how easily he would be able to deliver on all his idealism. I am very idealistic, but when it comes to something of such importance as the Presidency, I need to see more proof of competency. At this point, all it seems Barack has to offer is a lot of eloquent words, with hardly any real substance to prove himself. It's a pretty easy sell. Who wouldn't want hope and change? All candidates always say they are the ones who will bring hope and change. It sounds good, but when it comes to actually governing the country, I choose proven competence over words. Now is not the time to take chances with someone who doesn't really know what they're...
Apparently, The Great Depression of the 21st Century has come.
If 10 million of us planned to march on Washington, D.C. March 15, 2009 (for peace, justice, economic reform and humane jobs) who would we want in the Whitehouse? Which of them would accomodate us owners of the Capital and democratic government with safety and vital preparations?
Which candidate would bid us "come ahead, for your presence and support will empower me in doing the right things?"
At this point I trust none of them. That is why you all are afraid to plan that march.
"Much Ado About Nothing" is right! Anyone who pays any attention to the Clintons' race record knows that they ARE and HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, TREMENDOUS RACE ADVOCATES. Hillary was only trying to say that to get things done in government, ultimately you need more than rhetoric and eloquence. That was her point! She has nothing but the most profound respect for Martin Luther King Jr. I think she felt too confident that people would know that, and would never question it! The Clintons were at Mrs. King's funeral. And were deeply moved! The Clintons have said they think Barak is very intelligent and eloquent, but his competency has not been proven. I would vote for him next time, but not this time. He is lacking in experience. It is so much easier to eloquently say all the right things than it is to actually do them. Hillary has been through two successful presidential terms with her husband, where our country improved, thrived, and changed for the better. Even through all the politically motivated personal attacks. She has been tested for years as a Senator in New York, and has won over initially skeptical New York Republicans - people who thought...
If leisure permits please take the time to read the 3 1/2 page essay of Citizen Michael John Keenan on the psychic distance between socioeconomic classes and the reponsibilities of leadership. Academic and gentle, it can sooth your intellectual wounds. At first I had thought his space-taking pompous until I determined he had valuable information. It contrasts sharply with my direct complaints of Jan. 21-10:23am. I believe I began to share his window cleaning perspective and am now ready to converse with porters. Come into our chariot tired patriot.
beretco.op@gmail.com
For the first time in all the years I have watched you, Bill, I found myself disagreeing with you completely, and wondering at your naivete. How can you suggest that what Hillary
said about Martin Luther King & Johnson was no big deal?! Why did she choose to bring it up during a campaign for presidency? It was an attack on Obama's ability to 'take charge', but it minimized the struggle and power of the black movement. Just think how outraged women would be if someone suggested that it was the Supreme Court that actually made it possible for women to have the right to choose.
For the first time in all the years I have watched you, Bill, I found myself disagreeing with you completely, and wondering at your naivete. How can you suggest that what Hillary s
said about Martin Luther King & Johnson was no big deal?! Why did she choose to bring it up during a campaign for presidency? It was an attack on Obama's ability to 'take charge', but it minimized the struggle and power of the black movement. Just think how outraged women would be if someone suggested that it was the Supreme Court that actually made it possible for women to have the right to choose.
In Honor of Citizen Dr. Martin Luther King’s Birthday Three Political Conversations: I can conceive of no better occasion than today on Martin Luther King’s birthday to demonstrate in a small speech what this great citizen means to me. Among all the political musing I have taken in, and could choose from, I have taken together three political conversations that I have come across recently from my casual readings and study in history and literature and not media. Thomas Jefferson’s “drunken woman” and “the wearied soldier.” The first of these conversations is a rare colloquy that comes to us from Thomas Jefferson and is contained in a letter to a Maria Cosway. In my effort to know more about this great advocate of equality, the natural rights of man, the sovereignty of the people, the right of revolution I found this written conversation he has between his “head” and “heart” to be the most revealing of Jefferson’s values and the most indelible of all his letters. Here he is at his educated and literate best in order to impress and he goes all out to woo a lady. But to set the historical stage first I will take a few...
January 21, 2008
Bill Moyers whitewashes his MLK dirty deeds
Thomas Lifson
The oleaginous Bill Moyers takes to taxpayer-funded airways and cyberspace to celebrate Martin Luther King Day by celebrating his boss President Lyndon Johnson, and Johnson's role in getting the 1965 Civil Rights Bill passed and signed.
The following words from his video essay just stick in my craw:
"Johnson kept his pledge and did the right thing."
What Moyers neglects to mention is that he and LBJ had MLK bugged, to try to get leverage on the Civil Rights Crusader. Fortunately, in a comment, journalist Thomas Lipscomb adds the history Moyers whitewashes (there is no better word for it) in the comments section of Moyers' website.
One expects Bill Moyers constant rewrites of history, but it is a bit much when he decides to whitewash his own and LBJ's dirty tricks at the expense of Martin Luther King on the occasion of Martin Luther King Day.
Respected "60 Minutes" reporter Morley Safer remembers things rather differently than Moyers. Compare the two accounts yourself.
January 21, 2008
Bill Moyers whitewashes his MLK dirty deeds
Thomas Lifson
The oleaginous Bill Moyers takes to taxpayer-funded airways and cyberspace to celebrate Martin Luther King Day by celebrating his boss President Lyndon Johnson, and Johnson's role in getting the 1965 Civil Rights Bill passed and signed.
The following words from his video essay just stick in my craw:
"Johnson kept his pledge and did the right thing."
What Moyers neglects to mention is that he and LBJ had MLK bugged, to try to get leverage on the Civil Rights Crusader. Fortunately, in a comment, journalist Thomas Lipscomb adds the history Moyers whitewashes (there is no better word for it) in the comments section of Moyers' website.
One expects Bill Moyers constant rewrites of history, but it is a bit much when he decides to whitewash his own and LBJ's dirty tricks at the expense of Martin Luther King on the occasion of Martin Luther King Day.
Respected "60 Minutes" reporter Morley Safer remembers things rather differently than Moyers. Compare the two accounts yourself.
If you want to get history right, and in particular the passage and implementation of the civil rights act, then why not mention the 'progressives' most hated president (until Bush). The legilislation passed had no teeth in it. President Richard Nixon signed Executive Order 11478, which required that the United Stated government provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment based on race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap. As a result of this, EEO laws were developed.
I recommend anyone wanting the truth on the two parties and racism should take a look at the website of the National Black Republicans.
LBJ and Moyers and many on the Left are "hypocritical" on the race issue, to put it "kindly." There is much distortion out there. But thanks to the Internet, things are being set right.
They may not even feel it now, but the Presidential candidates are transfixed and mesmerized (just like Congress) by overwhelming corporate power and the largess that is doled out for them to run on. Whoever is elected really could wind up shot in the head if they disobey their masters. If Bush is kissing on Saudis, he is licking the corporate elite with his fascist judicial appointments, and Bill Clinton did not do much better. Moyers is mistaken to think that someone within the system can resist a powerful inevitability by seizing and turning history, and Johnson's Vietnam policy (opposed by King, supported by corporate business) is a glaring example. Change comes only when the wealthy stare their own disaster in the face. Until Americans overcome media brainwashing, educate themselves on what their true interests are, and refuse to cooperate in their own exploitation, little will change. It doesn't matter who plotted or pulled the trigger, corporate America had to kill King to stop his drive for economic democracy and against warmongering for profit. It is hard to become extremely rich or stay that way in a peaceful and just society, and they know it. The chaos that sinks small...
Perhaps I'm being politically naive, but isn’t Bob "BET" Johnson yet a long-time Bush ally and Republican insider, as well the same man who served on Bush’ discovery-committee to privatize social security? Is he not the same Bob Johnson who’s graciously obliged himself of complementary flights onboard Air Force One with President George W. Bush…clearly as a reward for his continuing loyalty? Now, there emerges a more important question...while I agree Mr. Johnson’s comments and histrionic-performances regarding Sen. Barack Obama’ Presidential bid were both despicable and disgraceful by any stretch of the imagination, what sort of “back-alley” deal has Mr. Johnson already made with the Clintons…even before Mrs. Clinton secures the Democratic nomination, that would compel a once "rabid" Bush-loyalist and neo-con to jump-ship even with the Republican Party under the direst of conditions, and more poignantly prior to President Bush even concluding his presidency? And why hasn’t the Clinton camp disavowed his condescending antics? I’d dare say, he’s much to do about the “same-ole-same-ole” degenerative political tactics that today has Capital Hill and all of Washington D.C. gridlocked. Surely his support for the Sen. Clinton’s Presidential bid cannot be written off as either concern for his fellow African-Americans or...
n light of MLK day, Moyers, an alumnus of The University of Texas at Austin and perhaps one of the school's favorite sons, elected NOT to speak out against the University's investments in South Africa. His voice was also absent regarding Austin Apartheid, the school's use of eminent domain to displace hundreds of low income African Americans and Latinos from East Austin in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today the University of Texas continues it's economic apartheid by contracting out janitorial and maintenance jobs to private companies denying workers of health benefits and retirement. Dr King's struggle continues albeit without Mr Moyers, who disregarded opportunities to make a positive difference for working people and minorities at the University of Texas at Austin.
One expects Bill Moyers constant rewrites of history, but it is a bit much when he decides to whitewash his own and LBJ's dirty tricks at the expense of Martin Luther King on the occasion of Martin Luther King Day. Respected "60 Minutes" reporter Morley Safer remembers things rather differently than Moyers. Compare the two accounts yourself. In Safer's book FLASHBACKS (St. Martins Press, 1990) pp 148 ff. "I find it hard to believe that Bill Moyers would engage in character assassination over one evening news broadcast -- even given the political imperatives of the moment. But I confess , I find it harder not to believe it. His part in Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover's bugging of Martin Luther King's private life, the leaks to the press and diplomatic corps, the surveillance of civil rights groups at the 1964 Democratic Convention, and his request for damaging information from Hoover on members of the Goldwater campaign suggest he was not only a good soldier but a gleeful retainer feeding the appetites of Lyndon Johnson. It's all too confusing. Bill Moyers, the sometimes overly pious public defender of liberal virtue, the First Amendment, and the rights of miniorities playing the...
Mr. Moyer,
I will now refer people to the transcript of Friday's show if I ever find myself in a political conversation and they whip out the race card against Hillary again. Bravo.
Thank you for the ONLY intelligent analysis of last week's Democratic "race" wars, and your exceedingly moving tribute to both King and Johnson. Your piece should have been replayed on ALL the politico shows which fan the flames of controversy to a public that is too uneducated to do anything other than be led by the nose.
You ARE a national treasure!
Thank you for the ONLY intelligent analysis of last week's Democratic "race" wars, and your exceedingly moving tribute to both King and Johnson. Your piece should have been replayed on ALL the crap politico shows which fan the flames of controversy to a public that is too uneducated to do anything other than be led by the nose.
You ARE a national treasure!
I think it was howard zinn who said(I paraphrase)that it has not been the U.S. government who has been instrumental in creating changes that help the American people, it has always been the people themselves that change policies through their everyday lives.
it is lastly the government that steps in, kicking and screaming, trying to manipulate and control the changes and eventually taking credit for anything positive that remains of the reform they can't stop the people from pushing through.
this seems upon reflection of government since I have been keeping track, to hold a great deal of truth.
I think it was howard zinn who said(I paraphrase)that it has not been the U.S. government who has been instrumental in creating changes that help the American people, it has always been the people themselves that change policies through their everyday lives.
it is lastly the government that steps in, kicking and screaming, trying to manipulate and control the changes and eventually taking credit for anything positive that remains of the reform they can't stop the people from pushing through.
this seems upon reflection of government since I have been keeping track, to hold a great deal of truth.
CONTEXT PLEASE! The Clinton Camp has been making racially charged comments throughout this campaign: the Andrew Cuomo "Shuck and Jive" comment, the "Black Friend" comment in the Guardian, and the Shaheen suggestion that Obama might have dealt drugs, etc. You've given absolution without knowing the whole truth.
Thank you, Curtis James (see below) for your absolutely eloquent and exacting critique on this piece, which is so problematic, and surprisingly offensive given its source. I am so dismayed that this has been broadcast with MLK day just days away & the dynamics currently at play during this Caucus season. Great, thank you LBJ for finally passing policy that was so long overdue. But what has really changed since then?? Can we look at that? Can we honor King in a more appropriate way, and perhaps with an honest and critical look at American conscience today, instead of praising LBJ and inserting Hillary? I'm totally disappointed in this piece. Why take a Clinton soundbite (from Fox News no less!), that is so exemplary of her unabashed insensitivity and yes, elitist platform. (Obviously the producers of this piece were quite aware of the implications in their message by using her.) The condescension and tokenism that always lie implicit in these public figures is offensive, totally transparent, and not appreciated. And here in this piece, it's lauded as great triumphs of the American century. This Monday, I am celebrating Dr. King, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Rosa Parks, Assata Shakur, and the...
I thought Bill was trying to explain that, while King's contribution was momentous, we should not trivialize Johnson's role in passing the legislation. I felt enriched by his brief essay and will never forget it.
Likewise, wasn't that what Hilary was trying to say? Was she comparing herself to Johnson? Not at all! Was she saying that King played a minor role? No! She wanted to point out that Johnson's role was significant. End of story.
We do not dissect every word the male candidates say, but we scrutinize every sound—even every sigh—Hilary makes. Lighten up, folks! Stop going on a witch hunt every time this woman blinks.
We have the most brilliant lineup of democratic candidates in history. Let's revel in it and learn from all of them. We're going to need ALL of their talents, in one role or another, to get us out of the pit Bush and his cronies have put us in.
Susan Todd
Bravo Bill! Your comments on LBF and King are brilliant. As a young man in the 60's and 70's, after first voting for Johnson in his race against Goldwater, I came to detest him for his mindless pursuit of the Vietnam war. At the time, this overshadowed all the good that he did. Your piece brought tears to my eyes as I recalled the vicious racial hatred of the times and Johnson's courage in facing it. Thanks for putting this complicated man in perspective for me.
Tom Peterson, Santa Monica, CA
Dear Mr. Moyers, All week I have been reading the comments about the program with Mr. Steele. Many viewers were put off by Mr. Steele's analysis of race in America today. For many, he did not represent their understanding of how African Americans relate to contemporary America. Many suggested names of people who could represent modern thoughts on the race issues. I was sure that you would have wanted to explore what these people were talking about and would have scheduled someone who could address these issues from a contemporary viewpoint. I was sorely disappointed when Friday's show did air. In our house you are referred to as St. Bill, so I find it very difficult to believe that you would not try to discover why so many people found Mr. Steele's analysis lacking. Instead, you present a minor essay on why we should not take too much from Hillary Clinton's remarks. With so many people saying that you do not understand who Barack Obama is, you allow it to stand that he cannot win an election because of one man's opinion? Bill, we rely on you to explore the issues; please do not ignore that other scholars have very...
I have yet to see anyone address the actual substance of the other side of Hillary's comparasin. She clearly wants folks to see her as an LBJ type who can get things done because she has the experience. But I guess my question is, is this a valid comparasin?
Does she have both the legislative skill and Machiavellian knowledge to get something as politically volatile as civil rights legislation passed? Her last forays into large scale policy overhaul ended rather poorly as I recall. As a constituent I've seen her take the legislative lead on a flag burning amendments but not so much on health care or getting our troops out of Iraq or network neutrality.
Where LBJ forced through Congress civil rights legislation that he knew would "cost the Democratic Party the South for a generation" I truly wonder whether Hillary Clinton would do the same knowing the political consequences. I think these are fair questions and I wish that the media would ask them as opposed to fanning the profitable flames of false controversy.
Perhaps addressing this question could be a subject for future inquiry on the Journal.
I have yet to see anyone address the actual substance of the other side of Hillary's comparasin. She clearly wants folks to see her as an LBJ type who can get things done because she has the experience. But I guess my question is, is this a valid comparasin?
Does she have both the legislative skill and Machiavellian knowledge to get something as politically volatile as civil rights legislation passed? Her last forays into large scale policy overhaul ended rather poorly as I recall. As a constituent I've seen her take the legislative lead on a flag burning amendments but not so much on health care or getting our troops out of Iraq or network neutrality.
Where LBJ forced through Congress civil rights legislation that he knew would "cost the Democratic Party the South for a generation" I truly wonder whether Hillary Clinton would do the same knowing the political consequences. I think these are fair questions and I wish that the media would ask them as opposed to fanning the profitable flames of false controversy.
Perhaps addressing this question could be a subject for future inquiry on the Journal.
I have yet to see anyone address the actual substance of the other side of Hillary's comparasin. She clearly wants folks to see her as an LBJ type who can get things done because she has the experience. But I guess my question is, is this a valid comparasin?
Does she have both the legislative skill and Machiavellian knowledge to get something as politically volatile as civil rights legislation passed? Her last forays into large scale policy overhaul ended rather poorly as I recall. As a constituent I've seen her take the legislative lead on a flag burning amendments but not so much on health care or getting our troops out of Iraq or network neutrality.
Where LBJ forced through Congress civil rights legislation that he knew would "cost the Democratic Party the South for a generation" I truly wonder whether Hillary Clinton would do the same knowing the political consequences. I think these are fair questions and I wish that the media would ask them as opposed to fanning the profitable flames of false controversy.
Perhaps addressing this question could be a subject for future inquiry on the Journal.
Thank you so much for your clarity around the 'race issue' that reared its head last week..as you said "Much Ado about Nothing!" I wish everyone could see (and hear) that piece of history from your perspective! "we" are so caught up in the nitty gritty of things, that we often fail to see the bigger picture,, perhaps it is a form of desperation! Thanks for all you do to shed light on inumerable subjects of interest! Marion Stegner
Mister Moyers: I have always enjoyed and been iterested and educated by your many shows and commentaries i have seen over the years. This show last night 1/18 was on fire ...great show ..and i admire your ability to go against the PC mood and acknowledge that yes LBJ played a crucial role in moving this country in the right direction. Marin Luther King was and is a true hero in my mind as well as countless others who moved the country past the stage of istitutional segregation and racism ...but to deny the role of Preisident Johnson is political correctness run amok much like the folks who call Huckleberry Finn a racist book ....thanks for your voice one of the few in mainstream media that stands true
Dear Mr. Moyers: I watched your commentary on the Hillary LBJ/MLK controversy with much interest. Your comments added an unique p.o.v. of a White House insider who was involved with the nuts and bolts of passing the historic civil and voting rights acts of the 1960s. However, I was dismayed and severely disappointed by both your premise--"Much Ado About Nothing"--and your conclusions. You have always been one of my genuine heroes by offering insight and clarity, and making connections easily missed by other observers. Your brand of journalism has always been distinguished by nuance and a profound sense of irony. That is why is am so troubled and feel betrayed by your rather dense handling of the current situation. First off, you bemoan that most of the chatter over HRC's comment are being voiced without the "context" of what she actually said. You then proceed to show a clip of HRC. The clip, though, was not of the original controversial statement, which was made at a campaign event, but of HRC after the controversy swirled explaining herself. Her original statement was not said in a manner nearly as reasoned,calm, and detailed as her later explanation. I am befuddled and greatly...
Bill, like the earlier commentators, I treasure your journalism and the uncommon and wise voices you champion in your Journal, but, I have a boil with what you consider "a tempest in a teapot"-- getting it right about the history of the civil rights movement. MLK's and LBJ's contributions to the enactment of civil rights legislation differ not only in degree but in kind. MLK was the sine qua non of our nation's civil rights history; LBJ was cautiously and, eventually, courageously compliant with the exigent forces of its history that were unleashed by a movement MLK led. MLK came to embody these forces; LBJ, as stand-in for our reluctant nation, succumbed to them. What I, again, bristle at is your (like too many others') misapprehension of the meaning of the words, "...but it took a president to get it done." That phrase is idiomatic in our American lexicon, inferring something like this: "Here! Step aside! You're not doing it right. Let me handle it." Of course, Hillary is no bigot, no racist. Her words were at best, a gaffe; at worst, an indication of overreach of potential Presidential powers. Only in that sense does your unfortunate use of Shakespeare's...
It is apparent that Clintons' used code words to attack Barak's hope message.
Bill, your analysis is so flawed that I have to question whether you remember what previous Clinton campaigns have done and whether that should determine the current situation.
Fairy Tale, False Hope, Law Suits, etc.
Please review Dr. Lakoffs work on Framing before you try to absolve Clintons. The Country is sick of Dynastic politics.
You
Dear Mr. Moyers, Sir As a second class person by choice, I wish to say just that. I have never imagined that I will see this country so divided as it is today. I never thought that demarcation line will be so much deeper today then they have been ever. Advantages are taken by the wrong people and used to divide even more the society we live in. 1. How would you name an African-American is not going to change who he is or what is he doing. History has been much harsher to other races in compare. Taking advantages and reminding the past, Will not going to build the better future. Prime example is Obama – Clinton. Personally I believe that is intentional and would end bad. 2. Not hearing the whole statement and/or manipulating it resemble propaganda not journalism; I personally stopped watching US news except PBS. 3. So far Clinton deserve respect for what she say and stands for, it is a different story what mainstream media partly presents, and for what purpose. President Johnson set and example, What if instead him we had different person, someone like Nixon. History could have much different ending. There are...
Given your unique perspective of having been with Johnson in the 1960s, I am glad you shared this with us. It was certainly refreshing to hear your presentation. I thank you for it. But what your account did not explain, and what I still fail to understand, is what was the point that Hillary Clinton was trying to make when she alluded to Johnson´s role in passing the Civil Rights Act. You say "this was not about race" and "race was never mentioned." OK. But what was the point of the story, then? Was she trying to point out that we should be cognizant of the pivotal role a President can play when it comes to bringing about CHANGE in our society? Perhaps. But if we accept your account, Lyndon Johnson in this case was more of a facilitator than an initiator. He said to M.L. King "OK, if that is what YOU want, I will work to make it happen." But is that Hillary's view of herself: a facilitator whose main talent is the ability to get things through Congress, as Lyndon did? Most of us (and this is not meant as a criticism) view her quite differently. Indeed...
Bill, As always there was much of value in your journal this evening, but as a veteran of the civil rights movement in Mississippi and a participant in the Selma march, I must object to your nostalgic and ahistorical rendering of LBJ (and your?) civil rights record. It is understandable that time and social change would reshape memory in ways that lend an aura of support for civil rights to LBJ that at critical junctures was either not there or there only when it became political necessary or expedient. Remember that LBJ did not use the power of the administration (and the Department of Justice) to protect civil rights workers like Andy Goodman, James Chaney, and Mickey Schwerner who were attempting to assist African Americans in Mississippi to exercise their constitutional rights. The laws were on the books. LBJ had the power to see that they were enforced. He chose not to because it was not politically expedient to do so. When Mrs. Fanny Lou Hamer, on behalf of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, was testifying before the Credentials Committee at the Democratic National Convention in August 1964, LBJ called a sudden press conference for no purpose except to divert...
I'm afraid I found your attempt to redeem candidate Clinton's inartful and unfortunate comparison of King's and Johnson's contributions also inartful, and though you claimed that all the media had dropped the last part of the statement, you yourself dropped the first part of the quote in which Mrs. Clinton atempted to contrast and compare King and Johnson. But Hillary did what people do every day --stick their foot in their mouth. It's no big deal unless maybe you're somewhat on display and you can't cope. For my money, you can apologize in passing, correct the mistake or misconception, and resume, which is a verbal tactic to which Senator Clinton does not seem prone.
It should be clear to everyone that there no way on God's green earth that you can compare Lyndon Johnson's and Martin Luther King's contributions in one statement.
I appreciate your commentary. You are always so thoughtful and insightful. However, I'm not so sure about the "Much To Do About Nothing" beginning or your conclusion on this subject. I totally agree about President Johnson's contribution to the Civil Rights Act and that both King and Johnson were essential to getting it done. What is left to be explained, however, is what point Hillary was trying to make. Everyone knows we need a president to get a law passed. More importantly, Obama is not in the same position as Dr. King was. Yes, he's a foot soldier. Yes, he is eloquent. Yes, maybe he's a dreamer. But he is also running to be President of the United States, the same office President Johnson held which gave him the power to effectuate the change in question. So her comparison of Obama to King makes no sense unless she was insinuating that Obama has no chance to become president, and that he and Black people alike need her in that position to help them achieve their present day hopes and dreams. I admire Hillary and Bill and have not decided how I will vote, but this comment has nagged me for...
Powerful commentary by one who was there to witness the historic meetings of King and Johnson.
One question, Mr. Moyers states:
"Lyndon Johnson was no racist but he had not been a civil rights hero, either."
Didn't Lyndon Johnson push through the Civil Rights Bill of 1957 while Senate Majority Leader? The above quote seems to say that Johnson only came around to the cause of civil rights in 1964.
Thanks for the great work all these years!
Warren Ziegler
Comments
Posted by: Lauren | February 16, 2008 9:00 PM
Posted by: Carole Bell | February 11, 2008 12:35 PM
Posted by: Sister Lea | February 3, 2008 4:43 PM
Posted by: Lois Peterson | February 2, 2008 10:07 PM
Posted by: Noemi Santana | February 2, 2008 9:08 AM
Posted by: LadyDayOne | February 1, 2008 5:10 PM
Posted by: Irene | January 31, 2008 2:41 PM
Posted by: RJ Remeika | January 31, 2008 2:29 AM
Posted by: Lauren | January 29, 2008 1:15 AM
Posted by: Jack Martin | January 23, 2008 1:29 PM
Posted by: Lauren | January 22, 2008 4:48 PM
Posted by: Jack Martin | January 22, 2008 11:09 AM
Posted by: Nagirroh | January 21, 2008 9:22 PM
Posted by: Molly Peyman | January 21, 2008 6:53 PM
Posted by: Molly Peyman | January 21, 2008 6:52 PM
Posted by: Michael Keenan | January 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Posted by: Paul Smith | January 21, 2008 3:16 PM
Posted by: Paul Smith | January 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Posted by: Jim Thompson | January 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Posted by: Jennifer | January 21, 2008 1:20 PM
Posted by: Jack Martin | January 21, 2008 10:23 AM
Posted by: CBW | January 21, 2008 3:38 AM
Posted by: M A Galbraith | January 21, 2008 12:56 AM
Posted by: Thomas Lipscomb, Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute | January 20, 2008 9:34 PM
Posted by: Andie | January 20, 2008 9:03 PM
Posted by: John Epstein | January 20, 2008 8:09 PM
Posted by: John Epstein | January 20, 2008 8:08 PM
Posted by: lee jankowski | January 20, 2008 10:29 AM
Posted by: lee jankowski | January 20, 2008 10:28 AM
Posted by: Aaron Rourke | January 20, 2008 6:02 AM
Posted by: helen | January 19, 2008 10:42 PM
Posted by: helen | January 19, 2008 10:41 PM
Posted by: helen | January 19, 2008 10:37 PM
Posted by: Susan Todd | January 19, 2008 10:28 PM
Posted by: Tom Peterson | January 19, 2008 9:03 PM
Posted by: Kate L. | January 19, 2008 5:23 PM
Posted by: Geoff Sanoff | January 19, 2008 12:43 PM
Posted by: Geoff Sanoff | January 19, 2008 12:42 PM
Posted by: Geoff Sanoff | January 19, 2008 12:41 PM
Posted by: Michael J Ahles | January 19, 2008 12:22 PM
Posted by: Marion Stegner | January 19, 2008 11:51 AM
Posted by: Judith Piper | January 19, 2008 10:08 AM
Posted by: curtis james | January 19, 2008 7:18 AM
Posted by: Maria McGowen | January 19, 2008 6:01 AM
Posted by: Homovivens | January 19, 2008 1:36 AM
Posted by: rd | January 19, 2008 1:15 AM
Posted by: Nick | January 19, 2008 12:19 AM
Posted by: Raul de Brigard | January 18, 2008 11:53 PM
Posted by: Shelton Stromquist | January 18, 2008 11:20 PM
Posted by: Bruce Altman | January 18, 2008 10:18 PM
Posted by: C. O'Bryant | January 18, 2008 9:52 PM
Posted by: warren ziegler | January 18, 2008 8:16 PM