Um, Eli, TPM correctly parses the full quote in context. Hillary was saying she is LBJ (who got things done) and Obama is JFK (all flash, no substance), not saying Obama is MLK.

A blog that doesn't do the work of digging up full quotes in context and instead only analyzes sound bites edited by someone else isn't all that great.

Hillary out-polls Obama in some areas with African-American women voters; this is of grave concern to the Obama campaign because African-American women vote at a much higher rate than African-American men. I think we will be seeing much more race-specific campaigning, which may get ugly in some districts if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. The GOP has proven it that no blow is too low.

Uh, elenchos, there is disagreement on that point. And it sounds, from the link I just pasted, as if the Clinton camp knows she said something provocative.

My favorite post so far from Jack and Jill Politics: "I would like to take this opportunity to thank George W. Bush, for if he hadn't of been such an utter failure on so many levels, then the country wouldn't remotely be open to the 'possibility' of a Black man as President." Heh. http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-for-president.html

I can see why Clinton would retreat instead of try to defend or explain what she said. It was phrased poorly, as Josh Marshall pointed out, and any effort to clarify is just going to keep the story alive.

And even if they could get people to understand, the simplistic image of LBJ doesn't help her much.

But that's too bad, because her point is interesting and valuable. If you are serious, then don't you recognize that Johnson was actually amazingly effective at getting good legislation passed, and Kennedy was not? And that contrast is exactly why she thinks you should vote for her and not Obama.

Jack and Jill just fans the flames and misses a subtle and interesting idea.

I've been reading it too. Good perspective.

Hey Elenchos,

Plenty of other lefty bloggers had a similar take to mine. And the main thrust of my argument is that it is racist to give credit to Johnson for "beginning MLK's dream". Johnson wouldn't have had the courage or political capital to sign that bill without The tireless activism and heroism of Civil Rights activists, only a few of whom I mentioned.

Like I said, never mistake the man in the suit for the soldiers on the street. Johnson's job was easy compared to MLK's.

Scary. Even more scary when you consider that these are the people Obama will surround himself with if he gets in office. What, you actually thought they'd be white folks? Fools.

@7

This isn't about racism. It's about reading comprehension. "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."

She didn't say that LBJ began King's dream. She did not say the dream was realized. She said King's dream began to be realized when LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act.

It's bad enough to not want to read what she said accurately, and it's worse to call it racist. Democrats ought to be better than that.

But that's not true. MLK's dream began to be realized long before the CRA.

It's not an either/or thing. It's possible, in fact necessary, to recognize the contributions of both men.

What's weird is Hillary suggesting that Johnson's contribution, specifically passing the Civil Rights Act, somehow reflects glory onto her but not Obama. She's specifically identifying herself with LBJ and Obama with King. That's really, really weird, and frankly smells a little rank.

If she's suggesting that only a President can make dreams a reality, fine. But why, then, her? Is she suggesting that she would be strong enough to get a bill as daring as the Civil Rights Act passed, but Obama wouldn't? Because I don't think that's even close to true. She not only doesn't have a record of getting difficult, controversial legislation passed, she has quite the opposite: she has a record of stuffing it up, as with health care in the 90s, or with total congressional paralysis in the 00s.

It's one thing to say "I can get things done", but it's quite another to construct this weird and insulting analogy about MLK and LBJ to do it.

I think it's part of her entitlement complex. As a liberal boomer, she honestly believes that the civil rights movement is HERS, that SHE DID IT. She passed the civil rights act, by virtue of being a member of a charmed generation, just as she ended the Vietnam War. A disturbing number of boomers believe this. You hear it all the time -- "when we ended the war", "when we fought for civil rights". It's in exactly the same class as Romney's assertion that he "saw" his dad march with King.

Clinton has NO CLAIM on King or on LBJ. They've nothing to do with her.

Well, again, it's pointless if your interpretation is that she meant to compare Obama with King. I don't think she's that dense.

She was trying to say that something as sweeping as the Civil Rights Act -- as opposed to incremental, piecemeal chipping away against institutional racism -- could only have been done by a president. That is either by JFK or LBJ. MLK's dream wasn't to take baby steps; he wanted complete and full equality now and he didn't want to wait.

All credit to the advances before 1964, but King's dream was at least as big as the Civil Rights Act, not just drinking fountains and buses.

If you follow that tortured point, then she wants to connect Obama's charm with JFK's charm. And her, uh, you know, personality, with LBJ's.

In a way she's defending her lack of accomplishment by saying that she needs to be president to get anything important done.

I can't disagree with the second part. There isn't really any reason to think she's better able than Obama to make great changes. Neither has that many real accomplishments to point to. Neither has executive experience. The mere fact that he is charismatic does not prove that he will be as ineffectual as JFK.

The boomer sense of entitlement? No doubt. No doubt at all, and I too am sick of it.

Seeing as I wouldn't pass their paper bag test, Jack and Jill are not the people I would like influencing who I would vote for.

(I know they don't do the test anymore, but given their history--I am not rich enough to appreciate their perspective so I'll pass on the blog).