I've been watching the silly ass back and forth between the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters over the Hillary comment in regards to King, Johnson and "the dream." I'm not a Hillary supporter but I shockingly had to agree with non other than Bob Johnson, when he said that some people think we are stupid enough to not understand the comments in question.
The comment in question is "King's dream became to be realized when Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act." Oddly, when I first heard it I didn't hear it like that, but we know how rumors go. In any event I took the statement at face value, something Ishmael Reed, whom I'm usually in 100% agreement, thinks would be a problem.
The way I saw the statement and how I think it is historically, is that the Civil Rights movement had been putting pressure on the government for ages and it took Johnson (in the establishment) to finally make the government own up, at least legally. And we know what that cost the Democrats don't we. In other words I believe Clinton was saying that someone needs to be in office who will make the right and hard decisions. A person in office who will hear the people and act. Again, I'm not a Hillary supporter so I'm not going to say that she is that person. Nor am I an Obama supporter, so I'm not going to say that he is that person.
Similarly, there is outrage about Billy Clinton, calling the Obama campaign points a fairy tail. The Black Agenda Report and I have a similar position on the matter. I agree with Billy that the Obama camp is getting away with not address policy issues and instead the media are focusing on celebrity status. In fact I think the Democratic primaries are sorely lacking in policy discussion and since barring some last minute show of force by Edwards, the Democratic ticket is all but printed up on placards, there's no point to even listening to, or watching either Hillary or Obama. The Republican field is far more entertaining where there is still an actual candidate involved who is not only "way off the party line" but also has the potential to cost someone the presidency should he remain involved through November 2008.
I will say is that it is sad that both of them, like the rest of America, is still stuck on the "I Have a Dream" King and not the " We do not want to be a part of this system" King. If we're going to be all bothered about the besmirching of the King legacy, perhaps we ought to question the candidates position on the war. King was clearly a pacifist and would not approve. Since the candidates love King so much perhaps they will immediately end all wars the US is involved in. Perhaps both candidates will refuse to sell arms to Israel, Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter. Since King was so concerned about the poor, perhaps the candidates will spend their time actually discussing the poor rather than the middle class. Am I the only one who's noticed that everyone talks about the middle class as if there are just rich and middle class folk around?
it is pretty clear that neither candidate is actually committed to the ideas that King had post March on Washington so it's pretty nauseating to watch them go at each other. But hey, this is supposed to be a "new kind of politics." Oh well.
PS: A note to Mr. Reed. No way no how black folks would line up behind Cynthia McKinney. I love the sister and contributed to her campaign, but black folks in Georgia sold her out, the CBC sold her out and I'm willing to part with cash that nationally black folk will sell her out too. They won't even vote for her friend Kucinich (yeah I know; it's Diebold's fault).