OK, the headline stretches things a bit. But take a look... its only a bit.
I realized that she's trying to do whatever she can to win, but like her whole "don't raise false hopes" thing, this is just plain stupid. She's not going to rally people to her cause by asking them to be less hopeful.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall provides a partial defense of Hillary here, including the full quote from Clinton, which I'll offer first to make sure everyone sees it:
"I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
Josh is partially right, but only partially. The full version is less obviously offensive, but in a way that's really beside the point. The argument between Hillary and Obama is about the importance of hope, and was prompted by her claim at the last debate that people (i.e. Obama) shouldn't offer up "false hope" to the American public. Obama has offered several responses to that line of attack, and although all have (in my opinion) been effective, it was today's that prompted Hillary's bizarre response. Here's what Obama said:
"False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hope, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us."
Clinton's argues that MLK's dream couldn't become reality without the help of the president. Technically that's true, but as I said above, its true in a way that entirely misses the point. Obama's claim is that you lead by inspiring others to act, and through them, force the political process to change. MLK may have needed LBJ to act, but let's be honest here - the political system only acted because it was forced to. The movement was the cause; LBJ's action was the effect. But that's not how Clinton sees it. In her explanation MLK was important, but it took LBJ to get the job done. Although both caused the change, in her world LBJ was the proximate cause, and not the effect.
There is no way Clinton wins this argument. Yes, LBJ was instrumental in the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Yes, he did something that JFK didn't do, and that Ike was unwilling to do. Yes, his skill in working the congress was essential. But please... compared to the decades of struggle that it took to get there he is almost beside the point. He was reacting, not acting.
But as bad as that is, I think that's not even the worst of it. The key here is that this debate is part of a larger discussion about what it means to be president. And in this argument, Obama is offering a vision of the presidency that combines the power of a movement with the power of the office. It's a bottom-up, people powered phenomenon driven explicitly by grass roots organization. Clinton, by contrast, is asking us to forget about ourselves and focus on her. Her vision of change is entirely top-down.
And why is this worse? Because in making this argument, Clinton is confirming the validity of Edwards' original attack back in the debate. Just as he claimed, her vision of change is premised on working within the system as it is. It seeks to provide incremental change by working within the system. Obama and Edwards, by contrast, both see a need to change the system itself. And it was their belief that such change might be possible that prompted her "false hope" outburst.
As a reminder, here's the relevant part of the transcript:
EDWARDS: Thank you. No, you're welcome. You're more than welcome.
Let me just say a quick word about this.You know, Senator Obama and I have differences. We do. We have a difference about health care, which he and I have talked about before.
We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.
And if I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.
Now, what I would say this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That's exactly what happens.
It's fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story I think is just not -- that's not the kind of discussion we should be having.
I think that every time this happens, what will occur -- every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack -- every single time.
EDWARDS: And what we have to remember -- and this is the overarching issue here, because what we really need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries, is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change about how we bring about that change. Because we have differences about that.
But the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change. And I believe deeply in change.
And any time you're fighting for that -- I mean, I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them.
And any time you speak out -- any time you speak out for change, this is what happens.
GIBSON: With apologies to Governor Richardson, I think (inaudible).
CLINTON: Well, making change, making -- wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this.
Because obviously -- obviously making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.
There are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire who have health care because I helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are 2,700 National Guard and Reserve members who have access to health care because, on a bipartisan basis, I pushed legislation through over the objection of the Pentagon, over the threat of a veto from President Bush.
CLINTON: I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change. I'm running on 35 years of change. I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies.
So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made.
And here's today's quote from Clinton:
"I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished."
In Clinton's world, MLK's dream wasn't made real until a president signed it into law. That's true, to a point, but if that's all you see when you look at MLK, you really don't understand what you are looking at. If you think the movement was only about legislating change, you misunderstand movements and the change they bring about.
MLK understood that the movement wasn't about him, and it wasn't about the system. It was about individuals and communities, about people's experiences in their everyday lives. He understood that you change the world by changing hearts and minds, not by passing bills and laws.
Sen. Clinton may be a fine Senator, but she should never be our president. True enough, she might be good at it. But with a vision like this, she'll never be great.
