Sweet baby Jesus in a Cadillac. If we are stupid enough to believe this horseshit about Hillary Clinton being a racist, we deserve whatever tortures and humiliations any well-armed enemy of the Great Satan could possibly invent.
Let me go an extra step here. If we are stupid enough to be interested in the very question of whether Clinton's remarks are racist and truly appreciate the media reports on the "topic" that are "just asking the question", we deserve a good mass waterboarding.
This whole thing about Hillary Clinton denigrating Dr. Martin Luther King by mentioning the role LBJ played in promoting and enacting civil rights legislation is perhaps the dumbest concocted issue ever. Ever. EVER.
It's so incredibly stupid that I can't even bring myself to type a one-sentence explanation of why the efforts of both were necessary to---oh shit, I just about explained the whole thing, didn't I. Whoops.
I am no Hillary fan, but even I have to stick up for her on this one.
If people really believe her comments were racist or insulting to Dr. King, they're well beyond any help I can provide. I wish them well in their never-ending hell of ignorance and stupidity. Her remarks may have been poorly constructed and delivered, but they certainly weren't the kind of thing that wins you a hug from David Duke.
To the media outlets who continue to push the "controversy", I offer a hearty "fuck you". I suppose I can't blame them for satisfying an ignorant people with twisted half-news and fanning the fires of the American Retardation Bonfire Party 2008--it gets ratings which, in turn, attracts more advertisements for hard-on pharmaceuticals and gold investment experts. It's still irritating, though, that so much of what we hear and see is aimed at a feeble-minded least common denominator.
Now, the more interesting angle on the Clinton/LBJ thing. I'm really surprised that Hillary would rhetorically align herself with Lyndon Johnson in any way, shape or form. Even if you subtract the risk of some dummy making you into a racist, it seems inadvisable.
Even with all the Great Society mojo and civil rights gains, Johnson was, shall we say, less than popular with a significant percentage of the electorate. "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Does that ring a bell? Clue: It's the reason MLK and LBJ eventually didn't get along all that well.
With Iraq on the mind of primary voters (and not in a good way, you know), it seems pretty wacky to cast your lot with Johnson. He'd seem like the kind of democrat whose name you wouldn't want to invoke under any circumstances but especially when you have a pro-war Senate vote hanging over your head.
I have a weird and strong affinity for Johnson (though you might not be able to tell from this post) that I can't really explain, but even my sense of connection with the guy doesn't divorce me from the reality that he was (a) an often-underhanded politician, (b) a frequent asshole, (c) an architect of a horribly divisive, costly and ultimately unsuccessful war. Even the cowboy hats and Ladybird can't whitewash that legacy.
Sure, LBJ accomplished some amazing things, and even received kudos from none other than Dr. King for some of them, but I wouldn't be excited about haunting my campaign with Johnson's ghost.
In a campaign dominated by "change", it seems a little clunky to trot Johnson out in any capacity.
Technorati Tags: LBJ, MLK, Clinton, Politics, History, Media
Del.icio.us Tags: LBJ, MLK, Clinton, Politics, History, Media
Furl Tags: LBJ, MLK, Clinton, Politics, History, Media