Rangel: Obama remarks 'absolutely stupid'

I believe the media participates in damage control for the candidate of their choice. Mr.Obama's campaign never commented - except to dismiss blame. I ve watched every speech and meeting for each candidate Obama does not once bring up HIllary's name. I must say the majority of HIllary addresses are abouT obama. Wake up People - there was not argument The Clinton's were wrong.

Poor poor simpleton. I don't think Rangel got the point. Yes, we know that Dr. King couldn't actually sign legislation, but legislation is just a stamp of approval, the content of that legislation was inspired by civil rights activists. That's the whole point.

Hillary is stupid to even bring up that point. That would be like someone saying that the only reason the Colts won the Superbowl last year is because they were handed a trophy.

I think my point is made, can we subtract a point from the Hillary machine and move on now?

Poor poor simpleton. I don't think Rangel got the point. Yes, we know that Dr. King couldn't actually sign legislation, but legislation is just a stamp of approval, the content of that legislation was inspired by civil rights activists. That's the whole point.

Hillary is stupid to even bring up that point. That would be like someone saying that the only reason the Colts won the Superbowl last year is because they were handed a trophy.

I think my point is made, can we subtract a point from the Hillary machine and move on now?

If Hillary were running for President of the NFL: "The Colts wouldn't have been Superbowl champions unless someone handed them the trophy." Who cares? If they hadn't played the way they did they wouldn't have one.

If MLK hadn't inspired so many Americans to push for change, it wouldn't have happened.

"How race got into this thing is because Obama said 'race,'" Rangel said in an interview. "But there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said that baffles me."

There is however plenty about Charlie's remarks that baffle me. Rep Rangel inserts foot in mouth. I thought that was the dude from Arkansas job? Mike Huckabee I mean. You know the former lard a%s, guitar playing tax and spead republican. Hang on to your wallets if this guy gets elected.

Charles,

Why are you weighing in on this with more partial information? It was not Obama who brought up the problem with the word "race". Clinton brought up the problem with the way she phrased her comment about Dr. King and LBJ. What Obama said was her comments were ill-advised and unfortunate. And they were. She clarified them partially, then had another foot shoved in her mouth for her by the idiotic comments of Bob Johnson.

Obama was reasonable to call her out. He was also the first to call a truce to the matter saying it had gone far enough.

For you to distort the nature of the argument and conclude that Obama is dumb...well, let me offer you a mirror.

Well, since Obama never said anything about this, in fact remaining silent, Rangel is either stupid, or a liar. And since we know he's not stupid....

He is 100% correct. I am not a huge CLinton fan but one of the few things you can not call the Clintons is rascist.

OBAMA all the way!!

I would like to see a Clinton/Rangel ticket for the White House.

I tip my had to ya Mr. Rangel. Thank you for seeing things for what they are...no nonsense, precise and "black AND white".

Regardless of whether you're on the Obama Camp or Clinton camp, who do you believe got damaged the most from this ordeal?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1538

.

Rangel is both a fool and an idiot.

I dont know who is stupid here. Obama never talked of Johnson, this was Hillary's idea to try to diminish the power of hope and speech. Along the way she deep dived into controvercy. She should have owned her word and said sory but instead she pushed it to the oponent and it then became a hulabaloo. For Rangel to say that Obama, a consititutional professor, said Dr. MLK would sign a prez order, is another spin from a 'stupid' Clinton suppoerter. Obama doesnt want race to be an issue because he does belong to both races, white and very balck.

Wow....If that isnt the pot calling the kettle black...

I dont know who is stupid here. Obama never talked of President Johnson. This was Hillary's idea to try to diminish the power of hope, words and speech, because she can't challenge Obama on oratory. Along the way she deep dived into controvercy. She should have just owned her words, said sory and moved on. But instead she used the old politics books by pushing it to her chief oponent. It then became a hulabaloo. For Rangel to suggest that Obama, a consititutional professor, said Dr. MLK would sign a prez order, is another spin, a 'stupid' spin. Rangel as an employee and suppoerter of the Clintons should have played a better role in advising them how to deal with it. By just spinning it, definitely it goes no where in the black, it stick. Obama doesnt want race to be an issue because he does belong to both races, white and very balck. The high road he took make him a more attractive candidate to end the old politics and surely looked very presidential.

I think Hillary was implying that herself and Johnson were doers and Obama to King, as just inspirators talkers. You can see why some people may take issue with this distortion. In fact the first people to object were Clinton supporters who saw what she said on Fox News.

She falsely blamed the backlash on Obama.

I see it as unintended endorsement of Barack Obama. With a President Obama we will have President that can both inspire and get things done.

I would like to see a Clinton/Rangle ticket in hell.

They both look like idiots,since they stopped talking about the issues in the election, you would think 8 years of Bush fodder would tide them over for a while. Two Affirmative action Candidates, they are.

put me down in the camp that thinks Rangel is an idiot.

They both look like idiots,since they stopped talking about the issues in the election, you would think 8 years of Bush fodder would tide them over for a while. Two Affirmative action Candidates, they are.

Obama did not call or imply that the CLintons were racist.

He said the comments upset "some people" not him specificially and he said they were ill advised.

That was the only comments he had. He never said the Clintons were racist or against civil rights, etc.

That is all media spin.

There is a difference between Black leaders vs. Leading Blacks

Black leaders actually do the yeomans work in AA community

Leading Blacks just say "Yo, man..." in AA community

For the first time in my life, i felt stupid to have this idiot represent me in the congress. For Charles Rangel to suggest that Obama started the whole thing is mind bugling.

FYI: The Clinton can do damage control all they want. I have made a decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton Inc. be it primary or general election.

I am sick and tired of Politician who thinks they are God.

Does anyone wonder why it's always the Clinton campaign getting mired in controversy?
That should tell you something. It's pretty clear they're running scared and know they'll lose. If it wasn't the crybaby incident(trick), she would have been history.So much for the strength candidate!

The more Clinton talks about Obama, the better it is for Obama. Why they cannot understand that is beyond me.

As for the MLK/LBJ, both of their contributions were crucially important, but MLK's had to come first. In short, no MLK, no civil rights legislation.

Lastly, did you EVER think you'd live to hear a top-tier Democratic candidate compare themselves to LBJ?

Ever?

It's a wonderment, I tell you.

This has to be the most ridiculous controversy in political history. I suggest that everyone commenting here go out and buy the book Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America." It's a detailed, compelling history of the relationship (and lack thereof) between those two great men, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Nick Kotz. It demonstrates how both of these men contributed -- in very different ways -- to the amazing political victory that was the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And, yes, it leaves little doubt that both men were equally essential to this monumental advance in our society -- King with his inspirational rhetoric and grassroots awareness campaign and Johnson with his arm-twisting political strategy. They represented a rare and winning synergy. Instead of arguing about this non-issue, why not seize this opportunity to learn something about our history, something that will make us all better equipped to fight the battles for equality and social justice that are still upon us and those that are yet to come?

This is one issue that Charley Rangel, and all of the Black politicians who line up to support Hillary Clinton and are defiantly opposed Barack Obama should leave alone. What is left out in the MLK/Johnson discussion is whether or not the dream has been reached or is still a work in progress. If the dream were realized already there would not be a "Black Caucus" waiting to pounce on every Black issue. If the dream were realized then we would judge these candidates on the "content of their character" and not their gender or race. If the dream were fulfilled then race would not have taken center stage in the political discussion.

Hillary did not come across as expressing a deep revelation about the historical events, but she obviously was making it a political attack against Barack comparing himself to two legendary men with the gift to inspire people through their oratory. She was trying to bring him down. What does that say about her character?

The bottom line in the whole political debate is whether White people are still afraid of Blacks, and vice versa, and whether America can get beyond the artificial divisions. Barack Obama has clearly outdistanced the old guard civil rights leaders, who's raison d'etre is girded in old fears. Their support for Hillary, while mainly politically based, is also based on fear - the fear that they will be accused of being racists themselves if they backed a Black candidate.

Hey guys --

Ain't it time to make your text available to all by allowing cranking to a readable size? Right now it's a foreign language to many people -- way too small. See the way Reuters does it -- every page has that little button, and it'll crank to a dang good size. What are we waiting for there in Chicago?

Thanks.

Sam

It is rather humorous that Bill and his "wife" are on the defensive! They keep trying little tricks that backfire! If they were to stay on the issues...instead of trying to take Obama down...this would not have happened. Those who are on the defensive are losing!!!!

How does acknowledging the role of Johnson in the civil rights legislation in any way diminish the importance of Dr. King or any of the thousands who marched with him? Does praise for Abraham Lincoln somehow minimize the nearly 100 years of efforts of the abolitionists that preceded him? Dr. King marched not only for social change but for political change; to ignore that fact, and Dr. King's own recognition that political alliances were critical to the success of the civil rights movement, would be to fail to understand the true moral and intellectual genius of Dr. King.

Clinton articulated what Dr. King understood. For Obama to claim to be "baffled" by this recognition is, in itself, baffling.

I am disgusted by the racism of commenters here who attack Charles Rangel as "a simpleton" or "foolish." Next thing you know, they'll say something REALLY racist, like accusing him of spreading "fairy tales."

WITH THE OBSESSION OF SOME PEOPLE, TOWARDS A BLACK CANDIDATE,
CLEARLY UNQUALIFIED FOR 8 YRS OR MORE
AND NO MATCH FOR THE CLINTON CANDIDACY,

THEY ARE FALLING FOR A TRAP ,
TO MAKE IT RACE, DESTROY
THE POOR OBAMA[POWER DRUNK, NO REAL SUBSTANCE, JUST UNPROVEN RHETORIC]

AND THEN IF SELECTED, oBAMA IS SO EASY TO BEAT
AS THE RACE WOULD HAUNT HIM,
AND WILL ASSURE HIS DEFEAT
AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION.
WILL NEVER MAKE A COMEBACK, JUST LIKE jESSIE,
PEOPLE ARE NOT READY FOR ELIMINATION OF RACE,
CULTS, CALLED RELIGIONS, EVANGELISM, CATHOLIC POWER,
ABORTION[TO FOOL AND DISTRACT IDIOTS]
AND ANY SUCH NEW CULT
AND A MIXTURE WILL SURELY BE SUFFICIENT,
TO FOOL A FEW
OF THE MANY ILLITERATE VOTERS
AND GET THE VOTE
OR THE SUPREMECOURT
TO APPOINT THE LOSER
OR SOME NEW TACTIC.

FORGET OBAMA,
TRY TO READY HIM FOR 8-10 YRS
HE MAYBE OK THEN
OR SELF ELIMINATE HIMSELF, BY PROVING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE,
AND THEREFORE WILL NOT WIN.

THE SUPPORTERS, MAYBE PLANTED BY THOSE WITH VESTED INTERESTS.
THEY ARE AFRAID OF CONCEDING THAT hILARY CAN DEFEAT THE gop, HANDS DOWN.
CLINTIONS ARE THE SEST SUPPORTERS OF THE MINORITIES, FOR DECADES
ALL ARE AWARE OF IT.
BUT THE MAJORITY
ARE PREJUDICED, RACIALLY
AND ANYONE WHO PLAYS WITH IT,
WILL DESTROY WHAT KING AND THE OTHER SUPPORTERS ACHIEVED[IT IS STUPID TO THINK kING COULD HAVE EVER DONE IT ALONE,MANY OF YOU WERE NOT ALIVE, AND DID NOT KNOW THE ROLE PLAYED BY OTHERS,kING BECAME PROMINET DUE TO THE MARTYR EFFECT MOSTLY, AND HE DESERVED IT,BUT HE COULD NEVER EVER HAVE DONE IT ALONE]

This was all spin to act victimized. They were reasonably questioned for a rather dumb remark. But noone called them racist. However, to act victimized, they pretended people were calling them racist. It was a trick - rather than respond to the criticism, respond to something else and act like a victim, thereby blaming the opponent. And of course the press went along with it.

Every one is stupid to think that race will not be an issue. It will be because idiots like the people commenting will make it an issue. We are not a race neutral society, and you, the media, and the republican will continue to fan the fires. Where do you live that racism is not an issue, Mars. Please, the election will be lost because of race or gender bias.

Regarless who gets the nod... History will be made... Pray on it and you'll get your answer!

As many have said on here; Obama never even commented on this so-called "race" issue. So what the hell is Rangel talking about? I have read some of the Hillary supporters comments, and either you know you are lying, or you are a Hillary plant. Or both!

Rangel? Is that the stupid Democrat that recently rammed through another free trade pact with some South American countries that caused more American jobs to disappear?

Rangel, Clinton, and Obama can all go to hades. The issues are jobs, health, safety of our food, drugs and even toys, iraq, rape of our environment by corporations, corporate welfare, border and port security, amnesty = slave labor causing an economy that americans can not live with.

Issues. Not race. Who gives a damn about race. JFK, MLK, LBJ and all other initials from tghe 60's and 70's are dead. What about the living?

This issue between hillary and obama,about who is a better candidate can be resolved if you look into the republican camps. Hillary is just mentioned en-passe. they are asking the voters to select someone out of them to stand up to obama. Obama is considered to be the real threat to their nominee.

Mr. Rangel should shut up, He just kissing up to get a cabinet position. I tell you, if Clinton is the nominee I will vote republican. I'm a diehard democrat. People need to understand Clinton will not win. It not because she is woman because I would support a Woman candidate, she and her husband would tear this country apart

I cannot think of a better expert on stupidity than hillary. She personifies stupid, ignorant, unqualified and moronic. Maybe that should be her campaign platform:
I WILL MAINTAIN STUPIDITY IN WASHINGTON!!!

Dear Mr. Rangle,
Senator Obama DID NOT criticize Senator Clinton when she made her comments about presidential leadership. WE DID. Bloggers from all over America did. The majority of African Americans did. And then, as some of Clinton's surrogates’ added fuel to the fire, Senator Clinton felt the heat and pointed the finger at Obama and accused him, of all things, of playing the race card. Let's see; Obama uses change as his message, and Clinton steals his message and then says Obama's message lacks substance. Senator Clinton says that Obama doesn't have a plan for America, but Obama talks about his energy plan during the New Hampshire debates. Clinton has to endure a week of criticism from the media and bloggers across the country, and she accuses Obama of playing the race card. Mr. Rangle, you should know that one of the rules of politics is that if you see your opponent committing suicide in the middle of the road, you don't go and help complete the job. Senator Clinton, along with hubby Bill and her surrogates have gotten themselves into this mess, with the bad timing being just before the South Carolina Primaries. Both Obama and Clinton stated that they want to move on from this situation. But it's the Clinton's that fixed this concoction, and they have to stew in it. It’s going to be great, seeing Obama win in `08.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but it's clear Clinton's comment was taken way out of context, especially by the Obama campaign. We all know what she meant by it, and in no way was it meant to belittle Dr. King. This has been the Obama campaign's tactic from the get-go, to remain innocent in the presence of cameras and to point fingers like the brown-nosing tattle-tale teacher's pet we all remember in grade school.

Get over it.

The thing that is really stupid about of this is that the Clintons were trying to say that Obama tried to compare himself to MLK and therefore their comments were fair. However, the real truth of the matter is that obama was stating that MLK's vision and JFK's vision were seen as empty hope at one time. His point being, was not to let anyone tell you not to hope (like the clintons were doing). Here is a person running for the highest office and one who held the highest office who just doesn't get it.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with Rangel knows him for what he is, a crude, loudmouthed, Boor. The Clinton's have NO compunctions whatsoever about resorting to any means to achieve their ultimate goal of getting back into the white house. Impugning reputations comes quite naturally to them (They've committed far more egregious offenses during their careers as we all well know). Barack Obama is a conscientious, introspective man. You can see this when you listen to him speak. And I personally tend to trust the judgment of a man who thinks CAREFULLY before he answers Yea or Nay (Obama), as opposed to one who merely tries to ASSUME what it is I want to hear and then say that (Hillary). And I find it particularly ironic that the only people who are truly fooled by the Clintons are those who choose to fool themselves. But putting on blinders will NOT help us solve the problems facing our country. We're going to need someone who will TAKE a stand and fight the unscrupulous, profit minded, corporate entities that prevent Economic stability, Ecologic stability, Social stability, and international stability. What we don't need is yet another insider, sneaky deals done behind closed doors, sell out your own people and their children's future, politician who values only power, money and influence. Lest you forget, we've had that for about 25 years now, How's that workin' out for you?

In the midst of all this in-fighting, how about taking a second (or first) look at Edwards. Research his stances on the issues and review his ideas to tackle our problems, he really has a handle on how to help the middle class and the poor. Don't forget Edwards!

What everyone here is failing to see here is this so called “controversy” is just another RNC motivated spin to put words into the candidates mouths, that they will try to use against them in the general election. Personally I don’t think ether Clinton or Obama tried to inject race or criticism into their speeches, it’s all media spin and it’s time to drop this bull and move on.

It's moments like these that I hope the nation sees the only viable Democratic candidate is John Edwards. If not we are certain to have another republican elected this November. History shows us that the nation tends to vote for a Southerner. They did it with Jimmy Carter and they did it with Bill Clinton. Recent history needs to repeat itself.

I am black but Rangel is only a "brown-noser" for even suggesting that Obama had some sort of powers over my thought processes is absolute "stupidity"!!!
I am a woman of color and I heard what Hillary said and the tone she used and I was immediatly offended.
Dr. King forced the hand of change mainly because of boycotts and not beatings as Clinton stated. The American system of government respects money more than brave men.
Barry Goldwater was vehemently against the Civil Rights Act and Hillary Clinton worked for his campaign. If she was a racist Republican then, her nasty disposition tells me she is still a racist Republican!!!
Realistically, what have the Clintons ever done for minorities???

Mr. Rangel, Get a Job !!
'cause as a representative you are not doing very well.
How Stupid can you get, Randal?

How old are you commentors? first, you don't read the ENTIRE QUOTE by Clinton, and second, you have no sense of history - what she said was that MLK brought the momentum of the country to a place where the Civil Rights Act could pass; that in itself was monumental - but he also needed a partner to shove the Civil Rights Act down the throats of congress to make it happen. MLK could not have passed the Act alone without politicians working with him. UNBELIEVABLE - you're mostly all idiots. Go read a book.

It seems to me by these posts, that the real issue is who you like, not race!

Wow! "Stupid" huh? Great vocabulary! I see the Clinton's haven't called off their surrogates yet.

GO OBAMA!!!

I don't think anyone disputes the role MLK played in the Civil Rights Movement, that includes Hillary Clinton. To suggest that she intended to say, or actually said, that MLK's role was ANY less than it was is pure politics. MLK was the C.R.M. in America but, if a president wouldn't sign the Civil Rights Act into Law, it wouldn't have happened until a president did unless there was intervention by the Supreme Court. That is accurate. I am also very saddened by the Obama campaign's willingness to let this issue go as it did creating racial tension in this campaign. I say shame on Obama and I would NEVER vote for him now because of this, even in the general election. Further, I will vote against him in the general election if he is the nominee.

Rangel calling a brilliant, talented, educated man an "absolute idiot"?! Classic case of someone spitting straight up in the air - you know where it lands, right?

bbln, you are so funny, and correct!

Thanks to Republicans, the Civil Rights Act became law. Not sure why this has been overlooked by blacks. Who is really looking out for you?

By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%

Also, why in the world is it so wrong to make an issue of Obama's drug use? He is running for President. I joined the Marines and they asked me about my possible past use. Now, being a MArine is a great thing and it's important to know that those applying are worthy. Why not when running for President?

Stupid are you "bloggers" who follow this guy like he's Jesus Christ. If you want to be for this guy, fine, but to suggest he and his staff didn't try to milk this and turn it into an issue when it wasn't is pure bull. You guys are practicing Bush politics. Your man can do no wrong while the opposition is sinister. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. All of you clowns need to wake up.

Because we are a nation of laws, nothing can be achieved of social or political substance without the force of law. All the civil rights protests, marches, sit-ins and demonstrations would not have produced lasting effect without the force of law.

Anybody who know about American (civil rights), history and politics should clearly, honestly and unequivocally agree that President Johnson almost forcefully "sealed" the civil rights struggle with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Laws.

And that is the reason we are all free today and are not forced to go to different toilets, drink from different faucets, enter private/public places through different entrances or attend different schools.

Those who mitigate the role of the law should remember last year's Spanish immigration protests that didn't get legislative backing. Where are they today?

Even the civil rights efforts cannot be associated with MLK alone. There were many other activists including Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammed, SNAKE, Black Panthers etc. etc. depending on one's point of view of activism.

The more I see Clinton emulate the Republican spin and smear machine the less likely I am to vote for her. I can't be the only one who sees her campaign's tactics as warmed-over (if a bit softer) Karl Rove.

It's so hard to decide between these two candidates. On the one hand I'm amazed at how Obama's followers have taken his message and gone out and made the world a better place now through concerned social action. But Hillary's reluctant supporters are also out there making the world a better place in so many ways! We haven't seen people actually motivated to get off their internets and work to create a better society since the 60s! God bless America.

"I would like to see a Clinton/Rangel ticket for the White House."

So would most Republicans. I cannot think of many other, more divisive negative candidates out there.

Obama has the best chance of winning; Hillary has the highest negative numbers in recent history and Rangel.... well, he is a joke.

The more Clinton defenders speak, the more they damage their candidate. Not once did Obama or any of his surrogates call HRC a racist. And for Rangel who has used race as a wedge issue for decades, it is unconscionable that he is speaking on this matter. For all of Obama's accomplishments he does not deserve to be disrespected by men like Rangel and Bob Johnson or the Clintons, for that matter.

We have no proof Obama said anything- except a bunch of foaming at the mouth Obama supporters who attacked Hillary on her comment hoping it will show some ineptitude on Hillary's part and win votes(black votes at that)- on behalf of Obama. In response over the media's take (looking to run a rat race) and the reaction from the public (most ardently opposed at the comment-Obama supporters) the Clinton camp defended, responded, by an endorsement who stood in for Hillary by attacking Obama in much the same way Obama usually attacks- always neither here nor there, sort of like a suggestive Johnson commnet, unless it's safe (and makes a great headline). If it's not safe the Obama internet bots try to spin (playing it by ear).

We have no proof. We never will. Yet we do have a bunch of postings from his clan attacking Hillary. I don't buy books because of their cover, but I'll judge them by the friends they keep; the supporters that are drawn to them. When you read them you get a sense of fanaticism with a touch of armegedon when Hillary's name comes up.

I dont know who is stupid here. Obama never talked of Johnson, this was Hillary's idea to try to diminish the power of hope and speech. Along the way she deep dived into controvercy. She should have owned her word and said sory but instead she pushed it to the oponent and it then became a hulabaloo. For Rangel to say that Obama, a consititutional professor, said Dr. MLK would sign a prez order, is another spin from a 'stupid' Clinton suppoerter. Obama doesnt want race to be an issue because he does belong to both races, white and very balck.

Posted by: French | January 15, 2008 9:37 AM

I dont know who is stupid here. Obama never talked of President Johnson. This was Hillary's idea to try to diminish the power of hope, words and speech, because she can't challenge Obama on oratory. Along the way she deep dived into controvercy. She should have just owned her words, said sory and moved on. But instead she used the old politics books by pushing it to her chief oponent. It then became a hulabaloo. For Rangel to suggest that Obama, a consititutional professor, said Dr. MLK would sign a prez order, is another spin, a 'stupid' spin. Rangel as an employee and suppoerter of the Clintons should have played a better role in advising them how to deal with it. By just spinning it, definitely it goes no where in the black, it stick. Obama doesnt want race to be an issue because he does belong to both races, white and very balck. The high road he took make him a more attractive candidate to end the old politics and surely looked very presidential.

Posted by: Nyari, NY, NY | January 15, 2008 9:49 AM

O!mama grass roots movement foot soldiers really need to better disguise how they operate. It is beyond fascinating how they play everything by ear and mostly hit up blogs passing off the "truth," (trying to frame the debate) also know as the information disiminated by their mother board websites; credible pro-Obama web sites that work to "dispel" the myths about Obama updated by the Obama camp memos sent out to them by the Obama camp nation wide. Amazing how each post says the same thing but tries to disguise it in a different way. (Most HILLariouse, the two posts above.) No original human like tone to any of them. Just a need to say something and repeated it a lot; by a lot of different people. They starkly contrast to the people who regularly post for Obama against Hillary on here. Watch your key words they are a dead give away. "Stupid huh." Yes it was stupid when you guys up roared, it is stupid now to see you guys use the word stupid without realizing you guys played a part in the stupid spheel play by play on news blog and site.

This will all end when Hillary fake-cries again. Can't get more phoney than Hillary.

What is this idiot talking about? The Clinton camp need to apologies to Obama and move on really!

What does any of this (including the initial article) have to do with THIS year's election?

At the time that MLK and Lyndon Johnson were working on getting the civil rights bill enacted, Barry Goldwater was campaigning against the desegregation bill. Guess who was supporting Barry Goldwater at that time. None other than "Goldwater Girl" Hillary Rodham-Clinton, that is who. That means that she was actually working to elect a Republican Right winger who wanted to block the civil rights bill. So, if you want someone who was on the wrong side of civil rights history, she is Your Goldwater Girl. You go Goldwater Girl. You can fool some of the people all the time.

Perspective is a bitch, y'all. Here i am, way across the globe from the good ol US of A but let me tell you, the ABSOLUTELY WORST THING americans could do in november, is to elect hilary rodham clinton as president.

Its unbelievable the turn her campaign has taken.

And what a joke it was, her finally finding her 'voice' in new hampshire. How many years of political experience did she say she have? 35 years? and only now finding her voice?

Are you people willing to elect a shill of a person like this to be your president?

Go ahead then; america is fast becoming irrelant to the rest of the world.

In addition to the accounts of Rangel above, I think it's of particular import to note that he is the foremost voice in Congress calling for reinstatement of the draft.

As a 20-year-old, I say, "Oh fuck!" With Hillary in the White House to "export democracy" (see also: invade Iran/Pakistan/Somalia) and Rangel pushing universal conscription, I may never get to get married or have kids!

Clinton said nothing wrong as did Rangle. No where in the Clinton statement did she attempt to belittle or lessen the importance of Martin Luther King and his drive behind Civil Rights. Her statement that it took the President to get it accepted by congress and thereby signed as law was correct and merely indicated it took the drive and courage of King to bring it to a level that allowed Johnson to follow his responsiblity of getting it passed into law. It took black and white to make it happen. That is truth and not racist.

Obama created the storm by injecting racism into a non racist statement for campaign purposes and if you follow his speeches you will find that, while somewhat more sutle, he works race into much of his message very well.

Cheree: you obviously did not read all the comments because Barack Obama said pointedly after Hillary Clinton's Meet the Press appearance that "Hillary Clinton's politics are wrong for our party," dismissing her as a viable candidate in preference to himself. Pretty arrogant and self-aggrandizing, but I'm sure the Obamanians will spin it to be a divine inspiration.

Barack Obama did not do a noble act to announce that he was backing off from the vitriol. He saw it was boomeranging on him. The California NAACP, the day after Obama's "answer" to Clinton, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

As a life-long democrat, I'm so disappointed in the Clintons and their tactics against Obama. But then who else is bringing Obama down? His own black people like Bob Johnson - who I've lost all respect and Charles Rangel - who I never had any respect for in the first place. Rangel calling Obama's comment stupid is like - a dog barking at it's own shadow. Whatever the case is, the Black Leadership will change and Rangel, Dinkins, Sharpton and all the sellouts will be shafted for a new Black leadership with some vision. For the first time, I'll vote Republican if Obama doesn't win the nomination. The black man is always brought down by his own people and here's a typical example of it.

Get real people: Obama is playing the victim card, not the race card. He's been perfecting and sealing his victimization stance ever since Hillary won NH.

Here is the negative spirit of Obama at work: anyone who speaks well of any other candidate or dares to make any valid criticism of Obama, is called "a simpleton" or the favorite: racist bigot.

No one, including Hillary Clinton, ever contested the point that Martin Luther King inspired change. Obama "read that into it" to throw some red meat at his base, and it worked admirably. Can you say KKKarl?

Down on the Clinton plantation, Rangel works in the house.

As for passing legislation. LBJ went to Senator Everett Dirkson from the state of Illinois to gather enough votes in the congress to give him a piece of legislation that he could sign. It was the work of the senator bringing together a bi-partisan coalition in Congress that resulted in the Civil Rights Bill that LBJ signed. It was the work of MLK his supporters that gave Senator Dirkson the history and passion he needed to do the right thing and bring together the coalition in support of the bill.

I thought that both sides had embraced a truce and agreed to include their surrogates.

"We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side," the New York Democrat said. “And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”

That lasted a long time, Hillary. One day later, Obama is "stupid."

We shouldn't be surprised by anything the Clintons will do to win.

Maybe I should not have defended them during the impeachment, after all.

SUMMARY/TIMELINE
1) Clinton said Obama was all talk, no substance
2) Clinton said talk alone doesn't get things done
3) Clinton then used MLK and Johnson to illustrate her point
4) Many people were shocked at Clinton's implication, and spoke up (such as Rep. James Clyburn)
5) Clinton then tried to extract her foot from her mouth by blaming Obama for 'playing the race card'

I can't believe so many people here fail to see what is going on. Hillary is simply using surrogates to sling the mud and appear above the fray. First she had her campign chair in NH try out the drug story. He had to resign. Then a week later BET CEO, Robert L. Johnson tried the exact same thing and had to back track and lie about what he was referring to. THEN in order to "clear the air" she sent out her national campign cahir, Mark Penn, to say the following:

“Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising.”

Notice how he managed to use the word "cocaine" when even the other idiots had not? If he thought he could have gotten away with it, he'd have probably added, "And we don't think COCAINE SALES should be part of the campaign either."

The criticisms about MLK are no different. Just look at what Rangel said Most people here do see that it doesn't even make sense.

Sadly for America, both sexism and racism are flourishing. Based on all of the blogger comments and media analysis of Hillary Clinton, I think it is safe to say that sexism is more publicly acceptable than racism. Much of the negative attributes assigned to Hillary Clinton would be viewed in a positive light if she were a man. The Clintons may be many things but racist and stupid are definitely not applicable to them. The Obama camp should be extremely cautious in supporting and perpetuating this charge because up until this point Barrack has been viewed as a mostly raceless candidate (neither black nor white). Charges of racism, especially leveled unfairly against the Clintons' innocent remarks, might backfire by associating Obama with the confrontational style of black activism that could alienate many of his white supporters. I am delighted that for the first time in our history we have a black and female candidate who have achieved front-runner status for the highest office in the world. Either one would make a very effective president.

What Hillary said was technically correct - no problem there. The problem was she did not need to say it at all. Stop trying to belittle your opponent and you won't accidentally belittle MLK in the process.

OBAMA IS STUPID AND IGNORANT- THATS HIM-NO COMMON SENSE;TO BAD HES THAT WAY- HE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE SENATE AND HAVE COMMON SENSE AND EXPERIENCE;; WITH OUT EPXRIENECE CAN MAKE CHANGE-
WITH HILLARY EPXREIENCE CAN HAVE CHANGE DOUBLE;BOB JONES A PROMENT BET FOUNDER THAT MEAN SSTUPID OABMA-ACT LIKE NON EDUCATED AND NAIVE ABOUT THE KING.

Can you imagine four years of this race baiting nonsense with Obama in the White House?

Whatever happened to good old American debate? Debate is now stiffled with cries of "racism" and Obama is handled like a wounded 3rd grader by the media. Ridiculous.

You either worship Obama and agree with everything he says -- or you're a "racist." Let's get medievil on this con man's lack of record on the issue of "change" in Illinois. Obama is NOT the direction we should be moving in this country. Nobama. No way.

Correct if i am wrong, and I am sure that the Obama cultists will, but didn't Obama say that he would be the better candidate than Hillary Clinton because she was still fighting the battles of the 60's and 70's? Didn't the Civil Rights movement with Dr. King take place in the 60's?

Earth to Vince, Ken and others: it was the Clintons that made this an issue. Obama didn’t say anything about her MLK comments until after SHE accused HIM of making it an issue and brining race into this.

Please answer this question. How could Obama be attacking Clinton if he didn’t say anything about it until AFTER she accused him of attacking her?

In response to the Clinton war machine, Obama said her remarks were “unfortunate.” Only in the land of Clinton would those be considered fightin’ words.

All through out the campaign, while Obama ran a "clean" campaign, his supporters blogged with negative attacks on Clinton. The same goes for Clintons we can say. In this day and age with blogging, we no longer know the source of these negative blogging, nor can assign them to any campaign. The way the recent controversy is dividing the Democrats is troubling.

It discredited hard working advocates for their years of work in advancing for equality. Obama supporters, who may or may not be affiliated with him campaign, should be ashamed of their rash judgements. If we don't learn from history and distort the facts, we will have defeated ourselves in the Democrat primaries before the national election.

All of us who stand on the shoulders of others, should not step on their heads in the process of getting ahead. Don't let your emotions get to your head. Before you hate someone, ask yourself why do you feel that way. Read an issues from all angles and more than one source before jumping to conclusions. Put yourself in their shoes and think if you would of done differently, or mean to say the things that might be quoted out of context.

The change we need is not there. I don't support Obama because his supporters sound just like lunatics recycling right wing attacks. That to me is politics as usual.

As the issue of race dominates the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Monday received the endorsement of the president of California's NAACP.

"Over the years, Hillary Clinton has earned my respect as a staunch advocate for the rights of people invisible to our nation's government, including women, minorities, children and seniors," said Alice Huffman, who heads California's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Charles, your quite wrong. This whole situation was caused by Clinton. SHE made the remarks about King Jr, not Obama. Accusing him of playing the race card is incredibly stupid.

It was Obama's folks who made this about race. Geez, maybe Obama & his friends never saw Schoolhouse Rock. "I'm just a bill, just a little old bill & I'm sitting here on capitol hill"...If not for Prez Johnson signing that act, there would have been a hell of a lot more marching King would have had to do. It's takes a bill crafted, passed in the Congress, signed into law by the President. Without that, you've got squat. Obama should know that -- Bush's veto pen is still smoking!

This whole debate between adherents of Obama and Clinton and the self-styled Civil Rights experts has reached the level of super ridiculous.

1. Stop dumping on Charlie Rangel and telling him he's an idiot. Rangel was in Birmingham with MLK and was up to his neck working with him and supporting him. He's earned the right to his opinion by being a participant instead of someone who's read about it.

2. Clinton could have been more deft if the way it was phrased, but she was completely accurate. King was always aware that he had to win people's hearts and at the same time use direct non-violent action to keep the pressure on. LBJ's overall record includes Vietnam, so People don't like to give him credit. But while other people talked, LBJ put together first the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned segregation in restaurants, hotels, buses and the like. LBJ made his commitment to Civil Rights his Hallmark. The Selma March was the immediate trigger for the Voting Rights Act, but it was legislation that LBJ had put together (through Democratic Hill leaders) and then pushed through.

3. LBJ never failed to give MLK credit and the two were together when significant legislation was signed into law. MLK would be the first to tell you that it's one thing to have support and sentiment on your side, but until you have someone who will walk down the path with you, you get nowhere. LBJ took a giant step forward. If you think that same legislation or anything close would have gotten passed under Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or Bush, your head is not screwed on properly. They all opposed it or in the case of Shrub would have.

4. LBJ worked with MLK on enacting the legislation even though he knew it would destroy the stranglehold on politics that his party enjoyed thanks to the "Solid South." LBJ predicted as did others privately that the South would begin going to the Republicans, at least once the Wallace Phenomena was over.

5. In 1964, Southern anger over the Civil Rights bill of that year gave the Republicans their first deep inroads into the South with what was called the Goldwater sweep. He was beaten everywhere else. It was a message that Richard Nixon understood in implementing his Southern Strategy.

6. LBJ understood and so did MLK that the right wing would capitalize on the Southern white shift away from the Dems -- and there is no state in which the black vote can offset a vote in which most whites vote for the other side. Both of them hoped in time that would change.

7. MLK and LBJ fell out not over Civil Rights as such, but over the Vietnam War which they saw in opposite ways.

8. Could LBJ have passed the legislation on his own without the work of MLK. Of course not. Could MLK have passed the legislation without LBJ to muscle members of Congress. Of course not, so MLK did the sensible thing and got LBJ on his side -- although LBJ was more committed to Civil Rights than any president before or since.

9. Would MLK have been a preacher withot a congregation and a choir? NO. And no one understood better how the work of other people was needed to achieve the needed goals.

10. The only way for MLK to have achieved his goals without LBJ would have been an actual revolution, a civil war.

This all has nothing to do with MLK or LBJ or who did what to who. It has to do with wet behind the ears surrogates and bitter old partisans who are playing their own game.

Both of these candidates are good on civil rights and both of them will do a better job that the other idiotic candidates from the GOP and certainly a better job than the idiot-in-chief. What is alienating me is this warfare.

Save some of the anger for this fall when it's time to get rid of this bunch and show your feelings about Bush and his Corrupticans. Those are the really bad people. They want to take the country back to 1907 when Lynching was quasi-legal, the rich were happy and the country was in recession or depression most of the time (that's true).

Clinton campaign = DIVIDE DIVIDE DIVIDE. If she wins the nomination, I hope her and her people remember how she ran her campaign instead of being so confused about how the clintons didn't eventually win the white house back. Dirty Dirty Dirty, just as bad as republicans. As a democrat I will vote Bloomberg or 4th party.

I read the comments made by the bloggers regarding Rangel's assessment of Senator Clintons comments about the civil rights act and once again I am disappointed by the lack of knowledge americans have of our history. People forget that President Lyndon Baynes Johnson had been a very powerful senator from Texas who decided to do the right thing by listening to the voices of the civil rights movement spearheaded by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Those of us who were moved by the Rev. Martin Luther King,jr. followed him and supported him, but only a fool would not give President Johnson credit for not just signing the civil rights acts but forcefully pushing it through....he was that powerful!.....I am afraid to say that another president might have hoped to do it, but would not have the political power, strength and determination to accomplish it... which by the way is the key to the results we want in this election....someone who can be powerful enough to push the legislation we want through congress. We forget how great President Johnson was... he champianed human rights at home..he is primarily remembered by his vietnam war fiasco. I love my country, I love the people who have laid down their lives for this country, I love those who have served to protect us, including by he way Rep. Rangel. show me what Obama has done to serve us and I might consider his candadicy more seriously. He gives good speeches ..but don't be fooled by his words...read his record..he rarely voted on any issue in the Illinois legislature...he answered "present"...what does he stand for...? I want specifics....not pie in the sky...race is not the issue...I would vote any person who deserves to lead us because he/she has done the time...I don't want a closeted Republican like Oprah telling me who to vote for as a democrat..check out her voting record too. She votes her pocket book. Obama is an empty suit that Oprah has propped up...I hope you are not fooled by her/him. If you are going to support a black candidate at least pick a Colden Powell who has a record we can all be proud of and support. Both his parents were black and he has served our country with distinction.

C. Ragel is a smart and talented man who has helped the banking industry allot since becoming chairman. What can you do Charlie when over 50% of folks do not have abstact thought? You are 100% corect and Obama is a nice man but clearly not ready. Good for him to get the Jacksons' and Sharpens' out of the picture but let's get on with experiece. After all it's bush / cheney et al that has done the worst damage to this country ever.

Rangel is absolutely stupid. First of all the clintons wanted this back and forth it's the only way they know how to play politics, I'm sorry that Obama fell for it.

That being said, shut up Rangel, this whole thing is your fault, the media's fault and our fault (the citizens) because we would rather spend our time and energy discussing irrelevant issues such as this instead of using our time more wisely.

Rangel you have just illustrated exactly what is wrong, instead of using your position of leadership to move us past this little squabble and get us back on track by talking about the differences between each candidates plans and positions. Instead it seems as if you have resorted to petty name calling of someone that is a true inspiration to millions of americans. Shame on you Rangel, shame on you for perpetuating this whole retarded non-issue.

Just who I wanted to hear-WRONG-Charles Rangle.

Wo