Ed Koch Slams New York Times' Editorial Board Over Hillary's MLK Comments
The race card has officially entered the presidential campaign, now it’s only a question of who’s dealing from the bottom of the deck.
Did Senator Hillary Clinton deliberately undervalue the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., when she suggested Dr. King’s dream was only realized after LBJ steered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress?
Coming to the New York senator’s defense Sunday was Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who suggested the criticism heaped on Clinton is insulting, while making mention of Obama’s past drug use, a crafty act of jujitsu, seen by some, as a way to fling mud back in the face of Obama. Johnson has since backtracked from the comments, and said he was merely referring to the Illinois senator’s community organizing efforts on the streets of Chicago.
Bill Clinton, meanwhile, threw some spitballs of his own Monday, telling CNN he has a list of 80 personal attacks Obama has landed on his wife, dating back six months. The former president was particularly incensed by Obama’s suggestion, shortly after the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, that his wife’s authorization of the war in Iraq, indirectly led to turmoil in Pakistan.
Hillary Clinton appeared Sunday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert to defend the mischaracterizations from the Obama camp, suggesting the Illinois senator was deliberating distorting her record, then went on to say her chief rival ``doesn’t have the record of positive change.’’
Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, who regularly posts commentaries on Newsmax.com, weighed in on Clinton’s MLK dustup, when he wrote: ``For me, most shocking was that a New York Times editorial incited some of the ugliness that followed a statement of Hillary Clinton’s that, for the love of God, I believe was totally inoffensive from a racial point of view and appears to have been deliberately misconstrued… Did Hillary compare herself with Johnson, who in the judgment of most Americans was a very good president in a whole host of domestic issues? She did not. ``What she did, Koch wrote, was to point out that political power is needed in the final crunch in getting things done. Who can gainsay that? Only The New York Times’’
This Democratic infighting between Clinton and Obama will make for interesting theater over the next two weeks, leading up to the January 26th Democratic primary in South Carolina, where as many as 50 percent of Democratic registered voters are African Americans.
The scenario is this: Bill Clinton has traditionally enjoyed overwhelming support from South Carolina, but with Obama representing the first legitimate African American candidate to run for president, how much of a factor will the recent race flare-up and mud slinging play out in the Palmetto State?
Robert Y. Shapiro, professor of Political Science at Columbia University, responding through an e-mail, thought the ``Obama vs. Clinton choice is a tough one for SC Democrats, including African Americans for whom the candidates are their 1-2 choices. I think the conflict over MLK related comments and other criticisms will advantage Obama, but I think that was happening anyway given his strong showings in both Iowa and NH, recalling he had been behind in NH until recently.’’
The latest poll from the Washington Post meanwhile, shows that Clinton’s lead has slipped 11 points from a month ago, while Obama has gained 14 points.
-Bill Lucey
billucey@bellsouth.net
Mr. Koch's assertion that Hillary's comment contrasting MLK, Jr. with LBJ is not racially motivated can, and probably should, be taken at face value. Although it was, at least, racially insensitive to credit a white politician more than a great African American who put his life on the line. The problem, indeed, goes far deeper than what could be interpreted as a racial smear. It indicates Hillary's bivalent, either/or logic that breaks an exceedingly complex historical circumstance down into: Take either A or B, civic leader or President.
What if you were placed into the situation of responding to Obama's citations of MLK, Jr. as Hillary was? How would you answer?
The Republicans seem to have this type of strategy worked out very well, especially when it comes to the name of Reagan - a name as sacred to the right as MLK, Jr. is to African Americans. Each of them, except for Paul, claims a piece of the Gipper as a standard bearer. Hillary could have, and should have, done the same thing with MLK, Jr. She often refers to the "Republican playbook" yet, apparently, she hasn't learned much from it.
Instead she cited LBJ as a way of aligning herself with the Presidency, resonating in a cool clinical way more with a position than a person. Moreover, she chose to accentuate the significance of Federal governance far more than civic and social leadership.
In reality one realm relies on the other; Nat Turner, Rosa Parks, MLK, Jr., and a thousand other black contributors, did the grunt work that ultimately accumulated into enough pressure so that a bill was passed. Would LBJ and Congress have passed the bill without the incidents in the 60s, as well as the legacy of transgressions that had gone on for far too long? No.
Hillary is often accused of being ultra liberal by those on the right, as well as some on the left, when, in fact she leans right. Particularly regarding the "War on Terror." A more apt description of what she is, illustrated by her remarks regarding MLK, Jr., would be, would be, a Statist.
She's laboring under the illusion - dare it be called a delusion? - that government is the core arbiter, the realm of ruling wisdom that should, above all, control our lives. In this regard she shares more in common with monarchists than Libertarians. Thus, she exhibits how out of touch she is with the zeitgeist.
But let's say she's right about supreme government control. Other than a few recently composed initiatives, such as universal Healthcare, and the routine promises of a new, changed America - one where there's, figuratively, a toy in every box of popcorn - she doesn't have a platform to match her ambitious, statist philosophy.
Instead, she's pitching her "35 years of experience" and preparedness to rule from day one. It's a position better suited for an eighteenth century aristocrat than a truly liberal candidate alledging to represent the people's interests.
Reply to this
Yet another citizen can see clearly through the posturing oh Hillary.
Reply to this
I think what Bill Clinton has done for America and part of the world is great, but I also think he does injustice to himself and his legacy by attacking Obama and speaking so harshly of him. He should let his wife speak for herself and her campaign - I thought she wanted to be President??
Reply to this
She does want to be President. Obama's speech in Atlanta referencing "NOOSES HANGING FROM TREES" and "THE JENNA SIX" was unbelievable! Talk about playing the race card!! Obama has done the Republicans dirty work of "Divide and conquer" for them. Obama's speech in Atlanta was a sad day for all Americans especially Democrats trying to heal racial divisions. Make it about race, and the overwhelming majority Black and White Americans will vote color. Obama has become the great divider for the sake of a win in SC. Sad day indeed.
Charlie
Reply to this