Edwards Defends Obama Against Clinton MLK Comments
EmailABC News’ Raelyn Johnson Reports: At a campaign stop at Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Sumter, South Carolina, former Sen. John Edwards used the pulpit to address controversial comments New York Senator Hillary Clinton made about Martin Luther King – suggesting that he needed a president’s help to make significant strides in the civil rights movement.
"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician," said Edwards in front of a congregation of nearly 300 people.
"I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairytale."
Edward was speaking about a recent interview Sen. Clinton recently gave Fox News where she said, "Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon 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."
Clinton continued," That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives, because we had a president who said ‘we’re going to do it,’ and actually got it done."
Clinton’s comments were made late last Monday and were a direct reaction to what Obama said earlier in the day, defending himself against Clinton’s contention that he offers false hopes.
Today Edwards defended Obama saying, "We’ve come a long way in the 54 years that I’ve been on this earth. But not far enough. We still have work to do. And the hopes that both Sen. Obama and I have for this nation and this country that we love so much these are not false hopes, they’re real hopes."
At the start of his remarks Edwards noted, "As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Sen. Barack Obama having in this campaign." He joking added, "I’d be less than honest if I didn’t say that some days I wish he was having a little less success."
Edwards attended church service Sunday morning to celebrate the 24th anniversary of Reverend James Blassingame.
"James, you’re a testament to the fact that good things can come out of South Carolina," said Edwards. "When we were in school we weren’t allowed to go to school together. But glory be to God we were allowed to worship together."
Edwards was joined by Rep. Leon Howard, head of the legislative black caucus and state senator John Land who has also endorsed Edwards’ campaign.
During the service Edwards sang the hymn of praise, "At the Cross" along with the choir. At the meet and greet portion of the ceremony, members of the congregation flocked to Edwards, taking pictures with their cell phones and asking the former senator to autograph church programs.
The love fest between Edwards and Obama has some wondering if Edwards is in the race to be Sen. Obama’s VP, rather than sit at the top of the democratic ticket.
"I’m running for the democratic nomination, I think maybe he should be running for my VP," Edwards clarified, following a campaign stop at in Florence, South Carolina.
In town to greet voters at Roger’s Bar-B-Que and Seafood restaurant, Edwards reiterated his sentiment that he takes pride in the fact that Sen. Obama and his campaign have been so well received.
"I think it says good things about America, good things about the progress that we’ve made," said Edwards—who wasn’t short of compliments as Sen. Clinton and her husband former Pres. Clinton have recently come under fire for scrutinizing Obama.
Edwards has said unequivocally that he does not want to be VP. Late last week his 2004 running mate John Kerry endorsed Sen. Obama.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
I agree with Edwards on this. Clinton’s comments are highly offensive and indefensible. For her to suggest this criticism is just coming from the Obama campaign is insulting to me and everyone else unaffiliated with that campaign who found her comments offensive.
Posted by: Tom | January 13, 2008, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Now the attacks turn racial? With Obama having the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson behind him what else could we expect.Personaly Im offended by Obama not being strait forward with his “change” slogan and who he represents for his change. It sure isnt me.I have to work for a living.
Posted by: ftec | January 13, 2008, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
Edwards recently said that Obama was in never never land, I guess he forgot about that. Every time Edwards joins the Obama band wagon it means a win for Hillary, you think he shut up by now if he really want to complete.
Posted by: Kardasia_Prime | January 13, 2008, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
nicely put, john edwards!
Posted by: lori | January 13, 2008, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
Good job John! Clinton has alot of experience – of REWRITING HISTORY! No shame from the Clinton’s! I do not want dishonest people in the White House, especially our President! All people are included in Obama’s Hope and Vision message. Whereas the Clinton’s are working the Rove/Washington D.C. PLAYBOOK TO A ‘T’. VOTE FOR OBAMA! BY THE WAY, I AM WHITE MALE AM OFFENDED BY THE CLINTON’S COMMENTS!
Posted by: Dave | January 13, 2008, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
John Edwards is the most vindictive candidate for either the Democrats or Republicans. He’s a professional stirer, he starts it and then sits back and laughs. The camera was on him when Hillary got animated during the last debate and he was almost licking his lips waiting on her to mess up. Too bad, so sad, she didn’t. Can’t he see after 5 years the American public doesn’t want his negativity?
Posted by: Lynn | January 13, 2008, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
What happened to races working together? I have never heard the Clintons give anything but admiration to Civil Rights leaders. Does that mean that you can’t even mention a white american who had the vision to see a color free nation, or are we just switching from a white to a black nation. The African American community has a lot of work to do in pulling together also, it’s not just the white community.
Shame on you John Edwards! If Hillary opens her mouth she’s a negative campaigner, if you attack her it for negative campaigning. She’s talking about policies and records, you’re twisting words. I find it humorous that the only thing she can be attacked on is when someone takes something she says and talks about it out of context.
Posted by: Lynn | January 13, 2008, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
lynn, edwards vindictive?
obviously you havent taken time to listen to him. his unselfishness rides above all the others, he could be riding out the last years with his wife and kids off on some island of paradise, instead he put himself out there to fight for the people like me. i appreciate it, i believe he is straight and true to his word. also human, like all the others, and that is ok.
and girly, edwards doesnt ‘pander’ for anything, what you see is what you get- he is sincere.
unfortunately as i have seen over the years, you gotta be a little bit crooked and a little twisted to do well in u.s. elections. nice guys often can’t win., prove ‘em wrong, edwards! we need you!
Posted by: lori | January 13, 2008, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have not endorsed Obama. In the meantime, it is Hillary Clinton who is playing the race card. Both she and Bill and a host of aides and surrogates throw out lines right and left, and if someone notices, they claim Obama twisted it! What, did he put the words in her mouth? And if you think they have explained things up to now, how are they going to explain this one- One of her advisors told a Guardian reporter:
“If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”
disgusting! How is she going to get out of this one? say Obama made her do it? Fire another advisor? It is clear that racism is a tactic that the Clintons have now chosen to use in this race. It is dispicable, and as a 50 year old white woman, I am offended.
Posted by: katharine | January 13, 2008, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
Thank you John Edwards for your honesty. I sincerely hope that a President Obama will ask that you become a part of his administration or cabinet.
Posted by: Coonsey | January 13, 2008, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
Jesse Jackson HAS endorsed Obama!!
The Clintons are just like Karl Rove only for Democrats. They will say and do anthing to get elected.
Both Edwards and Obama are the candidates who speak to the real needs of the nation…not just one party or the other.
Posted by: Henry | January 13, 2008, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
I am completely offended that Jon Edwards, who claims – and has claimed ever since I met him in 2003 – that his campaigns would be above board and positive, would join in this false “racist” fight. I have contriubted to Edwards’ campaign more times than I can afford because I believed he was honest and forthright, and would keep the campaign focused on the real issues. By joining the Obama campaign in its pursuit to label what the Clintons said about MLK needing LBJ to pass civil rights legislation as “racist”, he has joined in a campaign of deception. I am so disappointed. Edwards has lost me as a supporter now.
Posted by: leslie | January 13, 2008, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
I have no problem with Sen Clinton making a mistake about MLK bc everyone can make a mistake. But what I find totally offensive is that today she tried to accuse Sen Obama as being behind the storyline.
This to me is disturbing bc she wants to bring race into these elections.Obama has nothing to do with this.To me , this is simply politics from Sen Clinton to trying to play the victim on every occasion even when she is caught in her own mistakes.
This is troubling to me.
Posted by: EE | January 13, 2008, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Yes, Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson Jr have both endorsed Obama. But Mrs Jesse Jackson has endorsed Hillary.
And Jesse Jackson, Jr has become one of th ehatemongers for the Obama campaign. That way, Obama can “remain above the fray” and stay clean. Just as he has in the other slimy enterprises he has engaged in. It’s never Obama, cause he can’t afford to look tainted. Otherwise how would MSM be able to crown him as “the Second Coming”?
You would do well to look into how he was so easily elected to the Illinois Senate, and how he was so “remarkably” elected to the US Senate, with nary an aspersion cast against him.
I fell for his hype in 2002. But after he backed away from his “Anti-war” position and said he and Bush differed little in their perspective of Iraq, I lost every bit of respect for him.
I won’t vote for him again – unless he’s the only one on the ticket.
Posted by: leslie | January 13, 2008, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Obama has lost all my support! If someone simply criticizes Obama’s policies, that does not make him/her a racist. I am offended that he would allow Hillary & Bill, who have stood for Civil Rights their entire lives, begin to be labeled racist for critiquing his record. America will not stand for a President who shouts “You are a racist” every time someone questions his policy. We don’t need that negative culture…so much for “hope “Mr. Obama. I’m now supporting Hillary!!!!
Posted by: Bob | January 13, 2008, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
Clinton’s comments represent what she truly believes- that the larger culture and the will of the people don’t matter because, ultimately, only the state can save us. Not all of the statist authoritarians are on the right you know.
Posted by: rufus | January 13, 2008, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
Hillary was right. In 1964 the majority of the country was vehemently opposed to Civil Rights. LBJ used the shock following Kennedy’s death to ram the bill through Congress. If we had had a less experienced President in office, one who had not spent years in the Senate mastering that art of negotiation and debate, it is doubtful that the bill would have passed when it did.
And Edwards is being less than truthful. Hillary never said that change begins in Washington. She said that it took a President to get it DONE.
I’m tired of this lie that black people were the only ones responsible for Civil Rights. PBS promotes that view. A lot of white people were involved in the movement–at personal great cost.
Many white legislators who voted for the Civil Rights Amendment lost their jobs, and the Democratic Party lost the South. We lost the New Deal coalition, and as a result we have only had two Democratic Presidents since 1968.
And now your brining down the Democratic Party by playing the race card. Some nerve!
Posted by: Susan | January 13, 2008, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
I have serious problems to see any hope, change and unifier qualities in Obama and Edwards. If one thing is sure about the Clintons: They are not racist!!! Obama and his followers are such bad loosers after NH. I hope Hillary beats Obama and Edwards up in the next dabate as she always does.
Posted by: GimmehopeObama | January 13, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
As a professional historian, I’m deeply offended by everyone taking offense at various interpretations of the origins of the 1964 Civil Rights act.You are showing great disrespect to those academics who have done quality primary source research on the law. Let’s get back to inserting “change” in every sentence.
Posted by: Jeff Singleton | January 13, 2008, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
All of this nitpicking is irrellivant because we can’t afford three wars, socialised canadian-style health care sponsored by HMO’s and other increases in domestic and discretionary spending when the Canadian dollar is stronger (with the Mexican peso not far behind)and all of our jobs going overseas, never to return. The biggest job market this past quarter was in bartenders and the service industry. It’s nice to know that were all paying off college loans to work in fields like that. And that we’ll all be working fulltime jobs during our “retirement.” None of the canidates care to change the status quo. And why should they when they can distract us so easily with meaningless drivel such as this topic. Change means CHANGE, not the same tired old tired policies that contribute to continue our downfall as a world power.
Posted by: rw3 | January 13, 2008, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm
This presidential election is exposing elite hypocrisy on both sides. Obama has made clear that this election is not about him but the people. He has not failed to make clear his vision to build a new majority coalition that would make change possible. Why can’t people understand this, an old strategy employed very fruitfully by none other than Ronald Reagan in service of capital. I remember whenever Congress would not do what Reagan thought important and desirable, he went straight to the People who then put pressure on their congressmen.
The agents of the staus quo are hell-bent on frustrating not Obama the messenger but that aspirations of the American people across the racial spectrum. Those paying close attention to the emerging campaign will no doubt observe that there is a gulf between the aspirations and desires of the People, the majority coalition that Obama is seeking to empower on the one hand and the hegemonic interests and desires of the dominant elite, their agents and intellectuals. They talk about “false hopes,” they racialize the campaign with talk of “one drop rule” as Shelby Steele was discussing in a PBS interview with Bill Moyer. Probably the most damaging statements have come from the camp of the so-called black conservatives and liberals. Glen Ford insisted that Obama is a destroyer of the “Black Agenda,” something only he called the core of progressive liberalism in the United States.
Of all the candidates, only Obama seems to be standing in a central rostrum addressing both Americans and the people of the world. The rest of the candidates are clearly facing and speaking to Americans while they all have their back to the rest of the world. It would be narrow-minded to think presidential election in the United States, the world’s only global leader, is only about American life.
Barack Obama is the “political Jesus” in this presidential election and we will all do well to let his message reach the people without opprobious distortion and corruption.
Posted by: omo | January 13, 2008, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
Please vote for the most polarizing candidate.nothing will change(status quo).The oceans wil rise and my hillside property will become ocean front.The sick without insurance will do without.Voters will grow old enough to find medicare is not free,Social Security is taxable if you have a pension.Widow get nothing if they’re not 65.The man who sent jobs to Mexico will return.And we’ll all live happily ever after.
Posted by: skvira | January 13, 2008, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
The Clintons can’t loose with this one. If they make a few comments about Martin Luther King, they can move the issue over to Black Leaders.
Then they compliment LBJ and stir up a little race history question.
Nothing major. Just a little tidbit for the press to go crazy with. The tidbit gets blown into a full scale story.
This leaves Obama with a choice. Do I not answer this and #### off Black voters who already accuse me of being “too white” or do I call the Clinton’s on this and get accused of playing the race card?
Either way the Clintons win.
**
Posted by: Mark Greene | January 13, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Edwards can go home and learn to sell used cars. He is just like the user car dealer.
Posted by: Henry Vu | January 13, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
GOD BLESS John Edwards. I think I speak for a growing majority of grassroots Democrats and Independents that would have preferred to see the Democratic Race be about the future of America. Hillary is a wedge making moving forward more challenging. In the end, I think more Americans will rally to OBAMA & EDWARDS and I hope that the two gentleman UNITE to defeat and destroy the CORRUPT CLINTON MACHINE.
Posted by: Christopher London | January 13, 2008, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
I wish people would listen to the entire comment by Clinton. I was lucky enough to go to a few different candidates rallies in NH, and I heard her speak of this the Monday before the primary. She basically said MLK was an inspiring leader who headed a great movement for civil rights, but he still needed help in Washington having his dreams become law. As necessary as religious and civic leaders may be to any cause, you still need the votes to make it law. I didn’t see any insult to MLK in that statement. As much as some people may not like LBJ for a number of reasons, I do think he has to be commended for his work on civil rights.
Posted by: Ann | January 13, 2008, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
If Hillary had a vision,she should have joined the formers Bill C,George and Barbara Bush,Jimmy & Rosilynn Carter,Al Gore and done something truly altruistic(a selfless act for others)N.H. voters please note meaning.There is no I in team or tears.Sometimes experience makes a better coach than player.Yes I agree list to the entire comment of Hillary.Its about her losing the opportunity overhaul health care to redeem herself for her previous failure.
Posted by: skvira | January 13, 2008, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
The Hillary people need to stop claiming that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are behind Obama’s campaign….stop it. Spreading such lies is not helping your candidate Hillary.
Posted by: Chima | January 13, 2008, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
Of course Edwards “defended” Obama – he is kissing up to him, hoping to be named as the Vice President candidate! He is so transparent! He started ganging up with Obama, attacking Hillary tag-team, during the New Hampshire debate. He was even caught whispering to Obama in the middle of the debate, during the break. Now Edwards is intentionally distorting what Hillary said; Edwards is distorting the facts to the point that he is lying. As a lawyer, he really should know better – that is slander. And to think I used to respect and actually like Edwards – what a shame. Well, I still like Edward’s wife – maybe she should be the one running – she seems more ethical.
Posted by: Ravenn | January 13, 2008, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm
Hillary said what she said. Her own supporters, along with most neutral observers criticized her.
When Obama refused to criticize Senators like Kerry, Edwards and Clinton for their Iraq votes in 2004, she was grateful. Now she’s angry? And Bill “I was always against the war” Clinton is the one saying Obama wasn’t?
Even campaigning for Senate, just as now, Obama has refused to offer empty promises of ending the war instantly, because he recognizes that we have to live with the mistakes of Senator Clinton and others. She needs to stop blaming him for her mistakes.
Posted by: drew | January 13, 2008, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
This dude Edwards is a demagogue who feeds on people’s emotions, nothing more. No substance – just talk, talk, talk.
Posted by: Otillap | January 14, 2008, 12:38 am 12:38 am
The only person who is playing the race card is Hillary! I have not heard anything about the matter from the Obama campaign. The thing I love about Obama is that he is not a black candidate.He is running not on the mere fact that he is black but on the faith that america can change and become as great to americans and people in the international community as it once was. I believe he is very capable and I am behind him 100%. The clintons need to just admit that there was a misunderstanding and apologize for the mistake and move on with their campaign. This whole debate is not doing anyone any good. In fact the more I hear about it the more I feel like we as a society have not made as much progress as we should have by now. The clintons should stop the finger pointing and grow up. And one more thing,just because some members of the black community have seen those remarks as racist doesn’t automatically mean everyone including obama has viewed them the same way. I think if you are going to switch from supporting Obama to Clinton based on this silliness you really did’nt believe in Obama’s campaign in the first place, and thats okay. Fact is he is a great leader, inspiring with a world of potential and I believe he is what america needs.
Posted by: cheech | January 14, 2008, 1:58 am 1:58 am
This whole thing is a non story, MSM is making a mountain out of a molehill. Clintons comment about LBJ is right on, if it had not been for LBJ MLK would not have lived long enough to see his dream come true. Nixon or Ford would not have signed the act, Carter may have and you can bet Bill Clinton would have but that would have been 24+ years after MLK’s death. Lets move on to some important issues facing America!
Posted by: Rick | January 14, 2008, 9:55 am 9:55 am
Rick: Martin Luther King led the movement, and the movement pressured the political situation. Just because a physician pulls out the baby with forceps, does not mean the physician can take credit for the new life. Obama is right. Change is spurred when we the people get behind a purpose and have a competent and inspiring leader. Hillary has shown little evidence of appreciating this process. She is a policy wonk who loves power. But she displays no talent to lead a movement towards change. She can’t heal divisions, convey a vision, nor shepherd towards a future that requires trust.
Posted by: Iris | January 14, 2008, 11:34 am 11:34 am
It has been interesting reading the coments. I did not read all as I have to work but as much as I detest the Clintons, what Bill was trying to say, is that LBJ was instrumental in getting civil rights legislastion past. MLK was not in government. He was a charimastic Baptist preacher trying to stir people up to get change to occur. Sadly his legacy, as well as LBJ’s have been distorted over the years. Had MLK not had someone like LBJ fighting for this already in the government, it may have taken another 10 years to occur. Neither lived in a bubble and both had their faults but together change did occur. As to Edwards “I grew in the South.” We’ll Bubba, I did too and MY south was not as weirded out as YOUR South. There were some ugly moments but nothing like the big cities. On a side note….does anyone know how Edwards really made all his money? Check into it and then decide.
Obama for President? A freshman Senator from Illinois with NO international experience? THAT is scary!
Posted by: Adrian | January 14, 2008, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
I am so very disappointed in this so called race for the white house. The bible say’s he who is without sin, cast the first stone. I could care less about Obama, Clinton, and Edwards past. None of these people are perfect and and it seems to me that they all are electable and if they weren’t they wouldn’t be running.
I must agree with Obama when he said during a recent debate that” words do mean something” The mud slinging with words has cause so many statements made by all the candidates to be taken out of context.
Here is what should happen, Clinton should run her experience, Obama should continue to run on the platform of change and Edwards should go home and be with his family.
The American people aren’t stupid and when the time comes for us to vote, we will.
Posted by: Richard | January 14, 2008, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
obama edwards 2008. You guys would would make a great team for the little people. My husband provides well for me and my family. I know it is hard out there for a lot of people. Let’s start a movement. Go Edwards! Go Obama
I don’t care what order its in. No one would care. This seem to be the ticket. John stay in no matter what anyone would say to you. You do matter.
Posted by: poopoo | January 14, 2008, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
John Edwards is speaking with such complete CLARITY and drive in these past few months, I cannot see how he cannot be thought of as the most deserving to actually and truthfully FIGHT for our interests (the poor and working class) in DC!
READY.
TO.
LEAD.
Posted by: dal | January 14, 2008, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
Race IS a social construct. Therefore, we are arguing about something that is in our minds, but that is not tangiably real. To stop racism, we need to stop given it value. This doesn’t imply ignoring the struggles of African Americans and several other minorities in this country. Gender on the other hand is tangible and real, it is an unspoken and socially accepted form of bigotry, and it looks like these two are playing their hand at it.
Posted by: Maris | January 14, 2008, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
This is what you get when you “attack” instead of building the country up, which is Obama’s central message.
If Hillary focused on the campaign, and how to help the American people, etc, instead of attacking Obama, we will not be having this discussion.
The Clintons should stop attacking Obama, since Obama is not attacking them.
Posted by: I love America | January 14, 2008, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
THIS BOARD IS CENSORED???
Somebody removed contributions to this board from Jan 13, 2008 3:21:43 PM to Jan 14, 2008 8:52:52 AM. Few contributions well crafted and critical of Clinton dirty politics, posted yesterday evening are missing. The gap is filled with few pro-Hillary comments, instead.
WHAT IS GOING ON???
Posted by: pds | January 14, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm