LBJ needed MLK and MLK needed LBJ

I've stayed out of most of this "Hillary insulted Dr. King" Maelstrom. I don't believe Senator Clinton is a racist or has been race baiting (nor is Senator Obama a sexist), and I don't believe her remarks insulted Dr. King. I think some people here, in the media, and IRL -- ON BOTH SIDES --just want to snipe about anything and everything, because they THRIVE on it. Some people do.

So, this is my reasoning on why HRC was correct, even if she said it in an inelegant way:

ANY movement has to have elected officials support it for that movement to become law, to be become "reality."

Even if it's under great duress, like Wilson and women's voting rights. And, elected officials who want a movement have to get "dreamers" behind it to make it reality. It's symbiotic. One can't make it without the other, whether it's Dr. King, the "Iron-Jawed Angels," or even Lenin and Hitler. You need both, whether it's to advance civil rights or to take them away.

(That includes the Patriot Act, etc. NONE of the Top Three have clean hands regarding certain things since 9/11 -- I'm throwing this in here because I know it'll be brought up.)

I'm not getting into fights with anyone over this. I'm sick of it.

suffrage history right now and a good chunk of their efforts are lobbying male state legislators and the US Congress.

Yes, women needed men to get the vote. And Blacks needed whites in power to get the voting rights act, etc.

I've been told by some folks that have seen it that it's great. They sell it at the National Woman's Party - you can STILL join - headquarters here on Capitol Hill.

Other folks involved in women's history on the Hill cringe at the ginned up romantic part.

All in all, I'd like to see it.

Much more than he needed LBJ. Does anyone wonder why Wal-Marts statement was so completely
ridiculous? Id hate to have to defend the Clinton's on race, theres a few skeletons in that closet Im sure.
All this hubbub, and nobody ever peeped when junior joked about hanging King.

K&R

No one person changed things. It took thousands of people and years to bring about change.

My sig line is an MLK quote but I recognize that change could not have taken place if LBJ had not made it his mission to move the Civil Rights Act through Congress. By the same token, LBJ and JFK probably would have done nothing if it weren't for normal people, people like Rosa Parks, who stood up for what they believed in and forced the politicians to listen to them. And it took MLK to put a face on the movement. Without his leadership the movement probably would never have become as big as it did and without LBJ's leadership the bill probably would never have become law.

despite his overwhelming commitment to the war in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson was a solid president. Yes, they both worked together. I give alot of credit to Lyndon Johnson for all his work and accomplishments domestically speaking thru his presidency- the great society would have flourished if the country wasn't spending so much in vietnam- this was his dilemma. Regardless, it took the efforts of MLK, and the commitment of LBJ to make the civil rights era meaningful and productive.

Many of you may or may not know that much of the Civil rights legislation was started BY JFK, which Lyndon carried on following his death. MLK and JFK, RFK had met several times and had planned to really tackle the issue of civil rights yet they were afraid that they wouldn't win the south with that viewpoint- thus it was put off, which then became LBJs work following JFKs death.

there is an interesting book which I am about to read entitled "Judgment Days" by Nick Kotz on the relationship and teamwork of LBJ and MLK.

the reasons he didn't run for a second term?

but the number one issue was Viet Nam. LBJ had had enough, and he thought his prospects grim.

I knew what she meant. It's too bad anyone's remarks (including Obama's) are taken way out of context and made to be something they aren't.

:hi: