Let's Argue About JFK Some More

It's interesting to see Hillary Clinton evidently attempting to make the sort of criticism of JFK that I blogged on Saturday. It's a natural argument for her to make; that Barack Obama is, just as his fans say, like JFK and that's a bad thing. But based on my experience of trying to argue that being "like Kennedy" isn't necessarily what you want in a president, this is unlikely to persuade tons of people.

[I don't really think the analogy holds up though in either direction -- the legislative circumstances surrounding the Civil Rights Act were really quite unlike anything you'd ever see today. What's more, she really does seem to me to be slighting the crucial role of social movements in setting the conditions for things to happen.]

Comments

Isn't it at least possible that you needed JFK to get a President Johnson? JFK inspired a lot of people who stuck around for the Great Society and then, well, then things didn't work out so well. But we did get Medicare, right?

And who knows, maybe Obama is JFK and Johnson (and a little bit of Bill Clinton) in one.

And finally, tell it to the Germans:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/germanys-got-a-crush-on-obama/

Posted by minderbender | January 7, 2008 11:48 PM

I don't think her campaign will really peak until she can manage to put that uppity Helen Keller in her place.

Posted by El Cid | January 7, 2008 11:49 PM

A cynic might say that Hillary is angling for Obama's veep slot, letting him create the JFK-style social movement towards progressivism, and then taking all the credit after he's assassinated and she pushes his policies through a hostile congress, a la LBJ.

Posted by Ben | January 7, 2008 11:50 PM

One of the best speeches by JFK was the one in Houston (I think) about Faith and Politics (during his campaign for the White House). I thought how he spoke and engaged the audience was terrific. He tooks their questions seriously.

It is hard to imagine any of the front-runners (in either party) except Obama doing that. I doubt if even Clinton could engage his audience like that.

Posted by eorse | January 7, 2008 11:54 PM

But let's not forget the most important point:

------
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
------
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/

That's right! Wait... WHAT!??

Posted by matthewcc | January 7, 2008 11:56 PM

Counterfactual:

What would have happened if Nixon won in 1960? What would America be like today?

Posted by blah | January 7, 2008 11:57 PM

I still can't figure out exactly what Hillary's going for in that paragraph. It's certainly not an intentional knock on MLK or JFK, but somehow an attempt to say that their "hopes" (and, you know, killings/marches/disobedience/coalition-building/etc) were less fruitful than LBJ getting a law passed.

Of course, the actual history here is that Kennedy was instrumental in crafting the original bill and getting in through most steps of congressional approval (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03CivilRights06111963.htm). Johnson pushed the bill against opposition by a powerful congressional minority and succeeded, using Kennedy's death as leverage to that end.

So Hillary's either knocking MLK and/or JFK's hopes or she's just wrong.

Posted by ZH | January 7, 2008 11:58 PM

More importantly, what he really wants to be doing is getting more people to compare him to RFK. Or at least, the 1968 vintage RFK.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 8, 2008 12:05 AM

the legislative circumstances surrounding the Civil Rights Act were really quite unlike anything you'd ever see today

Well, unless they shoot Obama. Then it will be time for HRC's moment in the sun!

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 8, 2008 12:06 AM

I'm just curious about something. Has all this talk about MLK, RFK, and JFK vs. LBJ raise anyone else's anxieties a bit? The sort of anxieties that kept Powell from running in the 90s?

I'm not cynical enough to think Penn would intentionally raise these iss... okay, I can't finish that thought.

Posted by matthewcc | January 8, 2008 12:10 AM

I could see Hillary comparing herself to LBJ - probably one of the most crooked politicians and venal bastards ever to make President.

In any event, the comparison of Obama to JFK isn't over JFK's actual record or any of that nonsense. It's about the perception of JFK, nothing more.

It's about Hillary trying to wean the word "change" from Obama and tie it to herself.

Good luck with that one, Hil.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 12:25 AM

I think Hillary Clintons biggest problem when campaigning ad libs is that she goes on the assumption her audience is at least as smart and informed as she is. Her handlers control this tendency by muffling her voice and giving her some safe talking points.

For anyone who was around during the Civil Rights era what Hillary is saying is totally non-contoversial and historically accurate. But so much myth and spin has accumulated over the historical record and people today are so willing to jump to conclusions regarding Hillary's motives that the truth itself cannot help her.

She is in a real quandry, but not of her making. It is a problem of our society that after fifteen years of unrelenting attacks on Hillary the conventional wisdom is that her motives are always and everywhere suspect. This has become so ingrained in the weaker minds that even so called liberals cannot overcome their negative conditioning regarding her.

Posted by ken | January 8, 2008 12:28 AM

It's a dangerous world out there. Luckily, the men and women of the Secret Service are the best bodyguards in the history of the world, and they're giving Obama presidential level protection.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 12:30 AM

I agree with Ken.

I'd also say that this is a pretty good case study in "framing." She's trying to turn a frame that supports Obama pretty well to her advantage. I think it's a hard sell. Obama's claiming the territory of hope = JFK = MLK, and Clinton's responding by taking on the competence = LBJ role.

There's a case to be made there. But does she really want people to go to the voting booths thinking, "Hmm...LBJ or JFK/MLK?"

No. She should not. It's a losing pitch.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 8, 2008 12:33 AM

ken, it is indeed historically accurate to say Johnson signed the Civil Rights laws and that MLK was assassinated, as Clinton and her surrogates have.

It is NOT historically accurate to insinuate as they did that REAL WORK was Johnson signing the paper.

Posted by matthewcc | January 8, 2008 12:35 AM

Matt - You should re-title your post as "The JFK of Myth," rather than "The Myth of JFK."

As an intellectual with an empiracist bias you have to maintain a pretense of not caring about Myth. But the Myth is part of the overall package -

Ted Sorenson knows this. Why don't you?

Posted by Comment | January 8, 2008 12:40 AM

You have to ask: Where is the social movement Obama is leading? Where is the previous evidence of Obama leading any social movement to accomplish anything? If this is a social movement, what is its goal beyond getting Obama elected? Does it really have one? And what makes his supporters a social movement instead of just Obama supporters?

I could tell you what it's not, but i couldn't for the life of me tell you what the ultimate goal of a social movement led by Obama is about except for his election.

Posted by amberglow | January 8, 2008 12:52 AM

STFU, Mr. Comment.

Posted by gerontion | January 8, 2008 1:00 AM

Personally I think the JFK - LBJ thing was incredibly ill-conceived on Hillary's part.

This election isn't about civil rights. At least not directly. Despite the media blackout, this election is still about the war. Iraq is still the #1 issue to a majority of Americans. I'm not sure that claiming the LBJ banner is exactly the message Hillary needs to be making on Iraq.

Posted by Kent from Waco | January 8, 2008 1:02 AM

mathewee, your comment is a perfect example of the weak minded embracing right wing propoganda which always and everywhere assigns ill motives to Hillary Clinton.

Johnson did not merely sign the Civil Rights bill he did the REAL WORK to see it through congress and into law. And while MLK may have led a small part of the nation to the acceptance that it was time to live up to our ideals the REAL WORK of accomplishing this goes almost entirely to LBJ. It was after the REAL WORK was done, and MLK was assassinated that the mythological aspects of MLK could be used to great effect to persuade the rest of the nation to accept what had already been put into place by LBJ.

Posted by ken | January 8, 2008 1:03 AM

I think you have a very mistaken notion of what constitutes "real work," if you think LBJ was the most important figure of the civil rights movement.

Posted by gerontion | January 8, 2008 1:16 AM

This is the proper analogue

In fact, Canadian political history does a surprisingly good job of explaining what's going on in the Democratic primary this year. The 1968 election of Pierre Trudeau in Canada was preceded by five years of Diefenbaker's Red Toryism and five years of Pearson's minority government that was viewed with ambivalence at the time (hindsight proved Pearson tremendously effective, but I digress...).

The Hillary paradox (seen as too liberal by right-wingers and too conservative by progressives) can explained remarkably well through the lens of Red Toryism: moderate, community-minded, progressive in an incrementalist fashion domestically, fairly conventional, if not conservative, in foreign policy. The two classic Red Tory administrations in Canada (Diefenbaker and Clark) were generally viewed as competent, "necessary" alternatives to other available options in times of significant political dissatisfaction. They were, however, highly uninspiring.

Trudeau came to power in 1968 on a groundswell of youth-driven support from people not previously involved in politics. As much was made of Trudeau's candor, charm and handsomeness as were his ideas. His ideas revolved around a vague notion of doing politics differently, which did translate into some fairly significant changes. Obama's stated plan on engaging Ahmadinejad, Chavez, etc. can even be seen as an echo of Trudeau's rapprochement of communist China and Cuba.

Posted by Large David | January 8, 2008 1:22 AM

And while MLK may have led a small part of the nation to the acceptance that it was time to live up to our ideals the REAL WORK of accomplishing this goes almost entirely to LBJ.

Gettings the Civil Rights Acts passed was due to LBJ's political skills and using Kennedy's death for everything it was worth so that the law was passed. And not only was he able to get that law passed, but he was also able to get the Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act passed also. So now Obama supporters are stuck arguing LBJ was so unimportant, those laws would still have been passed whoever was President -- even if it was Strom Thurmond. What you have here on the part of the Obama supporters and Matthew Yglesias is framing, propaganda, and historical revisionism in the worst Communist sense.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 1:28 AM

Actually Ken you are the one that's wrong...

It was the people that pulled Congress along. LBJ was a power whore that knew he had to do something about *the folks* in the streets...black and white...that were disrupting civil society.

MLK was no snow driven purist, but his heart was with the people overall. LBJ was more of civil rights advocate than he sometimes gets credit for, but his reasoning was purely pragmatic.

All that said, HRC has once again overplayed this. If she would just listen to Obama is saying, she'd understand this isn't about MLK, JFK, RFK, LBJ of anyone of that era.

It's about giving the electorate permission to stop yelling at each other, stop labeling each other and start acting like we're all in this together again.

It's to reverse the political divisiveness of Nixon through GWB...including the Clintons and their approach to *the other side*.

The fella is just voicing what so many of us are feeling. We are one people and we have a mess to clean up. The work will go much faster and smoother if we all chip in on it.

It's really just that simple.

Posted by G Davis | January 8, 2008 1:31 AM

Large David,

Please respectfully GTFO with your Canadian political analogies. No matter how apt, it forces us Americans to acknowledge your country's sovereignty and try to figure parlimentary democracy. And everyone knows that Trudeau is a cartoonist, not a politician.

Thanks,

your southern neighbors

Posted by ben | January 8, 2008 1:37 AM

G Davis,

Following the passage of the Civil Rights legislation the 'folks of America' began to vote overwhelmingly for the conservatives who blamed the democratic party, not 'folks in the street', for changing the racial status quo in the country.

But, yeah, you know "power to the people and all that" if it makes you feel any better.

Posted by ken | January 8, 2008 1:47 AM

Following the passage of the Civil Rights legislation the 'folks of America' began to vote overwhelmingly for the conservatives who blamed the democratic party, not 'folks in the street', for changing the racial status quo in the country.

Here's a passage from the Wikipedia entry for the Civil Rights Act. Link for those who are able to do that clicky the linky thing. And please no accusations of "selective editing" as opposed to normal "editing".

"It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in parliamentary politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

Because of Smith's stalling of the bill in the Rules Committee, Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Committee. Only if a majority of members signed the discharge petition, the bill would move directly to the House floor without consideration by advocates. Initially Johnson had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, as even many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself were cautious about violating House procedure with the discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, fifty signatures were still wanting.

On the return from the winter recess, however, matters took a significant turn. The President's public advocacy of the Act had made a difference of opinion in congressmen's home districts, and soon it became apparent that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

The bill was brought to a vote in the House on February 10, 1964, and passed by a vote of 290 to 130, and sent to the Senate.

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance

Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation."

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 1:53 AM

Ken, folks have been voting against their own interests since voting began.

Read your history. Read Doris Kearns Goodwin...great historian, great writer.

The people pulled Congress along then just as they always do concerning large social shifts. The dear elected ones rarely take the initiative on these sorts of things without the public giving them permission to do so.

Posted by G Davis | January 8, 2008 1:57 AM

Ken,

Didn't the Democrats retain their control of congress more or less consistently until 1994?

And while I think you're right about LBJ being the real mover of the Civil Rights Act, believing otherwise is not evidence of an anti-Hillary conspiracy.

Posted by heedless | January 8, 2008 2:01 AM

It is an odd comment to make on a campaign, as opposed to a history seminar. Her support comes from older liberals. They have a halo around JFK, as evidenced by the previous JFK thread. In addition, many hated LBJ due to an unpopular war. A big part of the history of the Civil Rights Act was violent conjecture: JFK getting killed. While LBJ should get some credit for his legislation, I'm not sure why comparing herself this way actually helps, especially how in some ways the whole argument hinges on "charismatic guy gets killed and old, unfriendly fart gets something done." In addition, LBJ actually had once had a leadership position in the Senate under a rather friendly Republican president. Clinton has no record of accomplishment in the Senate under an idiot president, but she handed the idiot his Iraq War vote he needed to go and do what violent idiots do. I get the argument she's trying to make, but to make it in this context seems odd. It would be like attacking Obama for the Lincoln comparison because the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves. True, but people like to believe it did and I'm not sure a campaign is where they want to get such a history lesson.

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 2:08 AM

It would be like attacking Obama for the Lincoln comparison because the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves.

Non-obama-suppoters wouldn't say that because it's not true. Wikipedia Link:

"Some slaves were freed immediately by the proclamation. Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines were being held by the Union Army as "contraband of war" in contraband camps; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. The Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had been occupied by the Union Navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed, and an early program of Reconstruction was set up for them. Naval officers read the proclamation to them and told them they were free."

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 2:14 AM

Obama is unlike JFK in one important respect:
JFK was an unabashed partisan Democrat.

Check out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA

Those were the days, is all I can say.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | January 8, 2008 2:42 AM

Tony P.,

Kennedy also didn't have to run against the right-wing smear machine and the "liberal media". The key is to run a "moderate" campaign and then bust out the partisan policy when you're in office. W may govern like an ass, but he ran strong campaigns.

Posted by ben | January 8, 2008 3:22 AM

"I think you have a very mistaken notion of what constitutes "real work," if you think LBJ was the most important figure of the civil rights movement."

Don't be dismissive of LBJ's contribution. Read some history of the time. You can start with Caro's work about LBJ.

Posted by Comment | January 8, 2008 3:36 AM

Dan the Man, you know that the way the Emancipation Proclamation and the name "The Great Emancipator" weren't about freed slaves. They are based on the myth that Lincoln freed the slaves, not some slaves that escaped North, but all of the slaves. I probably shouldn't have said "didn't actually free any slaves," but you get the point. The way that the subject is popularly understood is a myth. You do get that, right? We don't call Lincol the Great Emancipator with those particular words because a handful of runaway slaves were freed.

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 4:19 AM

"Dan the Man, you know that the way the Emancipation Proclamation and the name "The Great Emancipator" weren't about freed slaves."

That should have read

"Dan the Man, you know that the way the Emancipation Proclamation and the name "The Great Emancipator" weren't about escaped slaves."

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 4:22 AM

They are based on the myth that Lincoln freed the slaves, not some slaves that escaped North, but all of the slaves.

You originally wrote "didn't actually free any slaves."

I probably shouldn't have said "didn't actually free any slaves," but you get the point.

Yes, your point when you wrote "didn't actually free any slaves" was "didn't actually free any slaves."

We don't call Lincol the Great Emancipator with those particular words because a handful of runaway slaves were freed.

If you misspoke then just admit it. Or is your first name "Joe" and your last name "Klein"?

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 4:31 AM

I am agape at the shit being said about these candidates. They are all better than any in the other party. Is this going to be the Republicans legacy, unabashed hatred, now and always for EVERYONE? I think it's time we all get a grip before we completely lose the election to one of those white guys. Support your candidate with all your heart but save the hatred for the Repubs. and the wingnuts.

Posted by Fed Up | January 8, 2008 7:07 AM

I wish Hillary would use more concrete language; namely, that the Republican attack machine will turn any candidate running on "hope" and "bipartisanship" into Michael Dukakis. The Republicans will not respect any electoral mandate, will abuse filibusters and nomination "holds", and will in general do everything they can to destroy the agenda next Democratic President, no matter his margin of victory. Who best deals with this ugly reality?

Posted by bob h | January 8, 2008 7:35 AM

"If you misspoke then just admit it. Or is your first name "Joe" and your last name "Klein"?

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 4:31 AM"

Dan, tell me this, why do we call Lincoln the Great Emancipator? Do we teach schoolchildren that Lincoln freed the slaves or not? Are you one of those assholes that interrupts a conversation to correct someone on the differences between "who" and whom?" You really are coming off like a nitpicking asshole.

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 7:54 AM

"I wish Hillary would use more concrete language; namely, that the Republican attack machine will turn any candidate running on "hope" and "bipartisanship" into Michael Dukakis. The Republicans will not respect any electoral mandate, will abuse filibusters and nomination "holds", and will in general do everything they can to destroy the agenda next Democratic President, no matter his margin of victory. Who best deals with this ugly reality?

Posted by bob h | January 8, 2008 7:35 AM"

That depends largely on how the Senate races go this year. The question also becomes who would have the biggest coattails to prevent the Republican filibuster Senate from coming into existence at all?

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 8:00 AM

I think y'all are missing the key point:

What would MLK have accomplished if he had been president?

Posted by Jon H | January 8, 2008 8:03 AM

Tony P wrote: "Obama is unlike JFK in one important respect:
JFK was an unabashed partisan Democrat."

Who got us into Vietnam.

Yay us.

Posted by Jon H | January 8, 2008 8:05 AM

For someone who is supposed to be disciplined, Hillary Clinton does spew a fair amount of verbal diarrhea.

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 8:35 AM

MY - But based on my experience of trying to argue that being "like Kennedy" isn't necessarily what you want in a president, this is unlikely to persuade tons of people.

That's because the majority of the public are dumb proles gift-wrapped by schooling that does not give most of them critical reasoning skills - ready to be swayed by propaganda of the Ruling Elites or the State.
JFK pure&noble. Obama good! good! MLK a saint! LBJ evil. Bad man! Bad! Nixon worse. Hillary and all Republicans evil. Except McCain who is Good because he suffered! He was a noble Victim of his superior's racism... Brown baby killers. Military evil. Nurturing caregivers like gays, teachers, Angelina Jolie good! So good!

Beam it at the prole's brains and they believe it for the most part. LBJ was the key to Civil Rights legislation. He used every tool he had as the ex-Majority Leader, powerful tools - to pass it and more importantly, execute it. He made the space program work.
Nixon also deserves considerable credit for completing school desegragtion, starting what was a small, sensible level of afformative action. Along with hundreds of other mostly brilliant or at least good initiatives that came from Nixon's formidable mind until his personality flaws did his Presidency in.

(Next to FDR, Nixon is now looking to be the most consequential President of the 20th Century. Got the most good stuff done. More so than Eisenhower, LBJ, Reagan, Truman, TDR, Wilson, or Clinton. and more forgiving future generations may rate him as a near-great President. It took 40 years for people to change their minds about Truman being a clueless asshole.)

****************************
I think y'all are missing the key point:
What would MLK have accomplished if he had been president?
Posted by Jon H

More bitches and ho's in the White House than JFK ever dreamed of. More 'ho beatings on a daily basis than a pimp has to do on his 'hos during a major convention in town. Stanley Levinson making daily round trips between the Soviet Embassy and Saint Martin in the Oval Office with new instructions.
**************************
Counterfactual:
What would have happened if Nixon won in 1960? What would America be like today?
Posted by blah

It's actually a great question that would make a fine alternate history model. One many of my white lace Irish ancestors in the Cooke County cemeteries had a significant role in stopping. No Cuban Missile Crisis - Khruschev knew and respected Nixon in a way he didn't respect JFK. Bay of Pigs could have been a stalemate because Nixon would have used air power that JFK with held to give the rebels a beach head that could have been traded for Castro agreeing to end his mass executions and moderate his Revolution.

Nixon would have tried marginalizing MLK as too close to communists and odious in his personal affairs - and work with institutions and people like Roy Innis, Edward Brooke instead. Nixon was a moderate, pro-civil rights Republican in 1960 and lost most Southern states to JFK. So the "Southern Strategy" might not have ever been created. He also might have declassified info on Hiss and the mostly Jewish communists HUAC went after to show his targets were indeed Soviet assets. Which might have ended the war the media started with him. Winning the Presidency in 1960 would have meant a less bitter, defensive version than the one we got 8 years later after considerable Nixon stewing (just like Gore had 1-2 years of bitter stewing over his 2000 defeat and was lashing out at everyone).

Nixon and the Space Race might have been less well executed than Johnson did it, and his Civil Rights Act would have been more modest but also more successful than LBJs. And Goldwaterism would have been stillbirthed by Nixon.

Vietnam would have been "Vietnamized" from the outset. Nixon had warned since the 50s of America avoiding an Asian land waar like Korea. Detente, abandonment of nerve gas and biowarfare coming years earlier.

Most significantly, Nixon would likely NOT have gone with a Great Society - that encouraged parasitism and out of wedlock births with cash rewards for each that cost America societal decay.
No Welfare State. Nixon was interested in health care for the poor and working poor, education, infrastructure, and "wars" on diseases more than encouraging people to sit on their asses cranking out dysfunctional children.

Or Nixon could have been a creep and had his downfall anyways and the "alternate history" gone entirely different. But he was far smarter and creative a President than either JFK or LBJ.

It would be a great discussion. And the complexity of Nixon, his co-world leaders of so many significant ones in that one time period, and the cultural revolutions and post-industrial society emerging would probably mean 20 authors making 20 remarkably different books and outcomes of President Nixon 1961-1969.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 8, 2008 9:13 AM

It would be like attacking Obama for the Lincoln comparison because the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves.

Reality Man, please tell me this. Do you actually understand what "the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves" really means? A yes or a no would suffice. For someone who complains abous others spewing a fair amount of verbal diarrhea, you sure do a lot of it on your own. Have you seen a medical doctor to cure yourself of the condition? Too bad we don't have a universal health plan right now because then you could see that doctor for free.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 9:20 AM

Dan the Man, I was making a point about social perceptions due to our education system. The difference among non-assholes between "freed no slaves" and "freed an itsy, bitsy, teeny-weenie number of slaves" is basically null. It was an off-the-cuff comment on a blog. Are you a troll or were you the kid in class who thought he didn't have any friends because they were all just jealous?

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 10:26 AM

Joe "Reality Man" Klein writes:

The difference among non-assholes between "freed no slaves" and "freed an itsy, bitsy, teeny-weenie number of slaves" is basically null.

How do you know it was itsy, bitsy?

It was an off-the-cuff comment on a blog.

Golly, mines was an off-the-cuff comment also.

Are you a troll or were you the kid in class who thought he didn't have any friends because they were all just jealous?

Boo hoo. Joe, you might actually start substantiating what you say instead of going ballistic because others correct your errors.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 8, 2008 10:50 AM

I have no problem with someone correcting my errors, but 1) it was such a minor point that was tangential to my larger point and 2) you showed yourself to be an asshole in your approach. Now get a life. I'm done with you. Bye.

Posted by Reality Man | January 8, 2008 11:00 AM

Wow! HRC really is (as I mentioned at Young Ezra's place) taking a page from the Rove playbook.

First she criticizes her opponants for having had views she still holds. Then she attacks Obama for being JFK-like when a good number of the things we liberals today dislike about JFK apply more to HRC than to the other candidates (well, the whole showmanship thing that paved the way for Presidents like Reagan and GW Bush applies more to Obama than HRC, but still ... the substantiative criticism from the left of JFK's policies applies to HRC more than Edwards or Obama).

Maybe HRC really does know how to play the political game -- Rove was pretty good at it, wasn't he?

Posted by DAS | January 8, 2008 11:02 AM

Tony P wrote: "Obama is unlike JFK in one important respect: JFK was an unabashed partisan Democrat."

Who got us into Vietnam.

Yay us.

Don't forget the Bay of Pigs. But are comparing, or contrasting, Barak with JFK?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | January 8, 2008 3:35 PM

Re: Bay of Pigs could have been a stalemate because Nixon would have used air power that JFK with held to give the rebels a beach head that could have been traded for Castro agreeing to end his mass executions and moderate his Revolution.

Mr. Klansman Chris Ford,

No, it wouldn't. Air power would not have beaten the Cubans any more than it beat the Vietnamese. _You_ might have given in to a bit of bombing, but evidently the Cubans and Vietnamese had a bit more courage than you and your lot.
And those 'mass executions' that you refer to, all 5,000 of them, were overwhelmingly of Batistiano war criminals, torturers, and police officers that had done things like bombing civilian villages, torturing prisoners, and serving a brutal and corrupt oligarchy. The Cuban government justified them on the precedent of Nuremberg, and they had a good deal of truth on their side. Then again, people like you probably have a soft spot for those Nazis who died at Nuremberg, anyway.

By the way, since when did USA have the right to use air power against a country just because the oligarchy that runs this country didn't like the way they were doing things?

Posted by Hector | January 8, 2008 9:05 PM

Mr. Klansman Ford,

MLK took assistance from the Soviets because he was the ally of everyone who despised people like you. In his place, I would have done the same thing a hundred times over. If people like you are what America is all about, then who would want to be an America. better to send all the Klansmen to ten years of picking sugarcane in re-education centers.

I really wonder why Mr. Yglesias allows a Klansmen to post on his site.

Posted by Hector | January 8, 2008 9:09 PM