01/14/2008
Clinton Defends Against "Deliberate Distortion" of MLK Remarks
Here are the first 10 minutes of Hillary Clinton's appearance on Meet the Press Sunday in which the senator defends remarks she made about President Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr.
News outlets, including the New York Times and Tim Russert, have been truncating Clinton's remarks. Talking Points Memo discusses why this is troubling.
TRANSCRIPT after the jump...
RUSSERT: When we arrived in South Carolina yesterday this was The State newspaper, and the headlines agree to this. And let me share it with you and our viewers: "Clinton Camp Hits Obama, Attacks `painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama," and "remarks about" Martin Luther "King." Bob Herbert, in The New York Times, columnist, weighed in this way: "I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama's main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify rather than further polarize the country. So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama's effort, `The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.' And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don't need `false hopes,' and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We've already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot."
What is this all about?
CLINTON: Well, beats me, because there's not one shred of truth in what you've just read. And I regret that, because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.
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. 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. 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.
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. And, you know, I think we should just take a step out here for a minute. This is the most exciting election we've had in such a long time because you have an African American, an extraordinary man, a person of tremendous talents and abilities, running to become our president. You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don't think either of us want to inject race or gender in this campaign. We are running as individuals, we are making our cases to the American people, and it's imperative that we get the record and the facts straight because people are entitled to have that information. But I have no intention of either, you know, doing something that would move this race in a wrong way, or, frankly, sit standing by when I think tactics are being employed that are not in the best interests of our country.
And let me address the point that Bill was making. Because, again, I think it's been unfairly and inaccurately characterized. What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Senator Obama's campaign, being premised on a speech he gave in 2002. And that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his Web site. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, '6 and '7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq. I think it is fair to ask questions about, "Well, what did you do after the speech was over?" And when he became a senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. He voted against timelines and deadlines initially.
So I think it's important that we get the contrasts and the comparisons out. I think that's fair game. You know, I think that we don't want anyone, any of our supporters, anyone--and that's why in my campaign, any time anybody has said anything that I thought was out of bounds, they're gone, you know? I have gotten rid of them, I have said that is not appropriate in this campaign. You know, when Senator Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination, there's silence. So let's have one standard. This is an exciting and historic campaign. One of us is going to make history, which is thrilling to me. I've worked all my life on behalf of civil rights and women's rights and human rights, and so I want a good, vigorous campaign about the differences between us and our various qualifications and experiences to be the president that America needs.
RUSSERT: It just isn't at Senator Obama who is taking offense. This is exactly what President Clinton said in Dartmouth. Here's the tape.
(Videotape, Hanover, New Hampshire, Monday):
BILL CLINTON: Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.
(End videotape)
RUSSERT: Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, who's neutral...
CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
RUSSERT: ...said this, "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us."
CLINTON: Tim, let me--let me just stop you right there.
RUSSERT: But, no...
CLINTON: No, wait a minute.
RUSSERT: No, I didn't stop you. Let me just go through...
CLINTON: No, but you did not give the entire quote and so...
RUSSERT: No, but you...
CLINTON: The entire quote was clearly about the position on Iraq.
RUSSERT: But I'm...
CLINTON: It was not about the entire candidacy. It was not about the extraordinary, you know, abilities.
RUSSERT: But Congressman--but Congressman Clyburn has been covering this race. Donna Brazile, herself a longtime activist in the Democratic Party, this is what she said. Here's Donna Brazile.
(Videotape, Tuesday):
DONNA BRAZILE: As an African American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing.
(End videotape)
RUSSERT: So these are people who are not supporters of Obama, who are listening. Let me just go to the Martin Luther King thing because you had your opportunity to talk about this at the beginning of the show and I want to lay this out for our viewers. This is how The New York Times categorized it. "In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Mrs. Clinton ... tried to make a point about presidential leadership. `Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of '64.' Mrs. Clinton said in trying to make the case that her experience should mean to voters than the uplifting words of Mr. Obama. `It took a president to get it done.'" Again, Congressman Clyburn, "We have to be very, very careful about how we speak about that era in American politics. ... That bothered me a great deal."
A writer in the Washington Post today, a black woman said it's as if you are minimizing "I Have a Dream." That you're saying it's a nice sentiment, but it took a white president to get blacks to the mountaintop.
CLINTON: Well, you know, I...
RUSSERT: That's her take.
CLINTON: 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. I was responding to a speech that Senator Obama gave in New Hampshire where he did compare himself to President Kennedy and to Dr. King. You know, President Kennedy served in the Congress for 14 years, he was a war hero. He'd been engaged in many of the battles that led to his election in the 1960 election. 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.
And I think it is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I've said. Look at what I've done my entire life. I have been working on behalf of civil rights, women's rights, human rights for years and I know how challenging it is to change our political system and I have the highest regard for those who have put themselves on the line. You know, Congressman Clyburn was part of that movement. So many of the people whom I admire in my country who have given of themselves to make these changes went into politics in order to realize the changes, worked to elect people in order to make the changes.
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. And I'm glad to have the opportunity to set the facts straight.
Posted 8:30 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm pretty sure Clinton made a comment about MLK and LBJ, not Truman.
Posted by: Jared | Jan 14, 2008 8:51:22 AM
I had warmed up to Clinton after New Hampshire but I'm leaving her in the dust this time. Ever since she started campaigning she's acted like the oval office was specifically made for her, and now with this bullshit with Obama, even with that quote "in proper context" I find enough to vote for McCain if it should be McCain Vs Hillary.
I never thought I'd vote republican...
Posted by: Dayton | Jan 14, 2008 9:20:12 AM
Didn't take long for race to surface to the top and out in the open as an issue, Rove got the ball rolling, and, Hill kicked it. Just a shame that its still an issue, but, it will be forever it seems, and, just an example of why pandering for votes to any group can get you in hot water.
Posted by: Luke | Jan 14, 2008 9:42:22 AM
nope, i got what hilary was saying. I have a suspicion Fox News (whom Clinton gave the interview to in which she discussed MLK) would like to see Clinton lose the primary because in their small, racist, addled Murdochian minds an African American candidate (or maybe even just Obama specifically) would be easier to beat, may even get out the paranoid republican base (you know, the ones who think 'Obama is too close to 'Osama'). I swear, all coverage I have seen of Fox on Hilary has been stomping her into the ground (not that surprising) whilst contrasting her to Obama. Even the coverage posted on Towleroad last week lifted from Fox trumpeted about how New Hampshire was turning on Clinton for Obama. And we all saw how that battle turned out away from the media's spin. 'Neway, I like Clinton and Obama. BOTH are better than any Republican candidate.
Posted by: pippin | Jan 14, 2008 9:44:40 AM
Her defending and blatantly lieing yesterday about her vote to authorize bush to use force with Iraq was the height of audacity
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jan 14, 2008 9:45:13 AM
Actualy pippin
Clinton is the white house's favorite dem as evidenced by that exact statment coming out of the white house this past weekend.
With Hillary utilizing BET boss = Bush contributor to deal with another dem
With her blatantly lieing about what the Iraq war authorization was all about
Heck, her supporters in NV trying to disenfrachise voters (though her campaign agreed with the rules way back when before the culinary union endorsed Obama)is straight out of the rovian bush playbook
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jan 14, 2008 9:49:09 AM
So I listened to every word that Hillary had to say on Meet the Press as well as the speech given by Bill and it happens to be one of the few times that I agree with her and him! She sounded like a true presidential candidate in her own right in standing up to Russert.
Obama needs this "spin" in order to win the nomination. This is very similar to his first race for senate in 2003. Had it not been for Blair Hull's allegations of domestic abuse or Jack Ryan's divorce custody battle with actress Jeri Ryan including sexual allegations he would never have been elected! He is a visionary, no doubt. He is a brilliant speaker. He is inspirational. He is another Jimmy Carter!
We have all heard this story of hope before from Carter, those of us old enough to remember 19% mortgage interest rates! I do like Obama's health care plan that includes children but that is really about it. He has no real practical experience on international affairs and I do not want another hostage crises like the one that plagued Carter's presidency. He is, in my opinion, a great speaker and visionary, but not qualified to be president.
And as I have posted here many times, I am not a Hillary Clinton fan. I totally disagree with her health care plan, number 1 and 2, her tax/finace plan as well as her stance on abortion. However, she is not wrong in this particular debate. It did take the president to pass civil rights legislation. MLK was an icon in world history, not just the US. He was a great man, a smart man that knew and understood that he had to have friends on the inside to push his dream. No one wins alone and he understood that. Why then is what Hillary said wrong? Other than being fuel for Obama's spin, what is wrong about the truth? I wondered how long it would take for this election to turn racial; sad turn of events!
Similarly, we will NEVER get gay rights in and of ourselves. I get that! We MUST have the support by a large number of the straight community in order to win gay rights. We have to have people on our side. So did the African American population in 1964.
I cannot believe that I am supporting Hillary at all, but Obama is not qualified to be president. She and Bill were not wrong and both have worked relentlessly on behalf of civil rights. Now, if she would only turn that attention to gay rights and let go of some of her communist economic policies....but that is for another post.
Again, I am not stating that I am supporting Hillary, but I am listening very closely to everything that She and Obama have to say because I will have a decision to make. I will NOT vote for McCain nor Romney so this election is a huge one for me. Another election cycle where I find myself voting for the "least" offensive candidate!
Posted by: RB | Jan 14, 2008 9:55:16 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?_r=3&ex=1358053200&en=c4bc9025f4032bfe&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
NYT article out today on how the clintons are "distorting" their record on Iraq. "distorting" = the nice way of saying LIARS! the whole "is" is schtick all over again. Enough with the repeat, it is time to put the bush clinton bush clinton years to rest and move on into the future.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 14, 2008 10:08:43 AM
Hillary Cllinton didn't say anything offensive. She is a white woman. Her sensibilities are different than those of most Africa- Americans. What may seem offensive was actually insensitivity--which can be innocent and unintentional. So, you simply bring the "offensive remark" to the offender's attention. If anything is offensive, it may be Obama not wanting to discuss the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement (and not aligning himself with those survivors of that era) during his whole campaign up until we get to South Carolina with black folks making up almost half the state's Democrats. Now, he doesn't mind being seen with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. When he comes back North, they will disappear.
Obviously, I still haven't fallen in love with Hillary, Barack or John. I'll probably vote for Barack in the Pennyslvania Primary, but I aint happy about it. It's sort of a feeling of historical obligation for me. I would vote for one of the three in the general election. I have no choice. I just don't like foolishness and bullshit coming from arrogant-ass journalists, and hypocritical politicians...they stink.
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Jan 14, 2008 10:08:57 AM
Derrick
Jesse jackson's son has been a working member of the Obama campaign since day one.
Jesse himself endorsed Edwards a while ago because he saw Edwards' populism dealing with african american poverty etc.
Obama not appearing with Jesse sr in the past had everything to do with jesse Sr supporting another candidate. jesse came forwrod after Iowa and joined his son in promoting the Obama team.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 14, 2008 10:21:51 AM
typos
sorry
:-)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jan 14, 2008 10:23:47 AM
This woman is in trouble, even if she wins the nom, she has given a lot of black voters a reason to stay at home if they feel she won it by using race against Obama.
Posted by: MelT66 | Jan 14, 2008 10:38:04 AM
Jimmyboyo, I agree with you in theory. The thought of the White House controlled by a Bush or another Clinton for 24 consecutive years is revolting. God forbid it be 28 years!
However, I do not see Obama as the man. Yes, he HAS distanced himself from traditional black civil rights leaders and I understand why. Simply stated, he reminds me too much of Jimmy Carter. Full of hope and a good man, but short on backbone and experiece. We lived through this type of candidate before and I remember 19% interest rates and American hostages in Iran! I frankly do not want to return to either scenario, especially given the Middle East of today!
Posted by: RB | Jan 14, 2008 10:40:52 AM
RB -
Your comments imply to me that you are choosing between Clinton and Obama and that you are not considering Edwards. Can you - or anyone out there - tell me why the media and the public seem to have eliminated Edwards and turned this into a race between Clinton and Obama? I know that written words, without accompanying vocal inflections, can be deceiving, so please understand that I'm not trying to be snarky here; I genuinely want to know.
Edwards was the first to come up with a universal health care plan AND the specifics of how to fund it and make it happen. Although he initially voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq - an enormous error, obviously - he did admit to having made a mistake. And he's the only candidate that I'm aware of who is specifically and vigorously denouncing the corporate takeover of our country and of the world.
So why does no one even seem to be considering him? Please help me to understand this.
Thanks -
Posted by: JOE 2 | Jan 14, 2008 11:46:42 AM
It is just wrong - wrong - to say that Obama is another Jimmy Carter. Carter knew not what he was getting into and thought that a Mr Nice Guy approach would get him by, get his mandate enacted. That didn't happen.
Obama is astute, has vision - with an intelligent and a somewhat more experienced cabinet and group of advisors, he can can implement the "dreams of his father", in essence, the dream he has for America. I'm no fool to believe he can make things perfect, but he sure is a break from the pragmatic idealistic rhetoric politicians of the past have given us - Hillary included.
Posted by: NowItMatters | Jan 14, 2008 11:56:00 AM
Didn't take long for the St. Obama's Above Politics campaign to start to play dirty and ruthless. Their attempt to spin and distort a simply factual remark about the relationship between grassroots action and legislative action into a conscious attempt to demean Dr. King is so absurd that it can only be driven by desperation after The Annointed One's premature crown got knocked off in New Hampshire.
Such a shame. I had wanted to believe he was different.
Posted by: TJ | Jan 14, 2008 12:39:42 PM
The Clintons handling of this and the way they have run this campaign so far has reinforced why I can't stand the thought of the Clintons and Bushs exchanging the Presidency and Vice-Presidency for another 8 years. They have held one of those positions since 1980. This country is not a Banana Republic, it's time for a change. These families don't have a right to a 40 year lock on the White House.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 14, 2008 12:48:59 PM
TJ don't go burnishing up that laurel crown for Hillary just yet.
NH just agreed today to recount the votes. Turns out there is a huge discrepincy between hand counted voting districts = all had Obama ahead 5% just like the exit polling showed he should be. The formerly Diebold (changed their name but not their owners) computer read vote districts all flipped to Clinton ahead 5%.
The recount is on starting Jan 16th.
NV is polling Obama ahead
SC is going to probably go Obama.
The MLK comments are nothing compared to the other racialy charged comments her surogates have said. Obama was a drung dealer , "Obama's shuck and jiving" from Cuomo = the worse, etc
Put down that bush clinton kool aid for a moment.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 14, 2008 2:09:24 PM
So Obama can deliver a good speech. So fucking what. what is this guy's claim to fame? He is nowhere near ready to be considered for the part. Perhaps in 8 years.
Posted by: ReasonBased | Jan 14, 2008 4:41:29 PM