40 Years Later

In marking the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., I went back 41 years to April 4, 1967, and reread his speech "Beyond Vietnam."

...I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

Read the entire speech and the obvious parallels to Iraq, not to mention some statements of Jeremiah Wright's, just jump right out at you.

After 40 years of beatifying King, it's easy to forget that his "colorblind" anti-poverty and anti-war statements were not fashionable or well-received even among his colleagues within the Civil Rights movement. It's easy to forget that it is possible to have a movement that goes beyond one's own popularity and celebrity.

...speaking of the Edwards's...

I'm not surprised.

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

Glib, aloof, shallow, perfunctory, and pat; insisting his position is something it isn't. That sounds like Obama to me.

HT to Mr. Krugman

Elizabeth Edwards Hits the Right Target

Elizabeth Edwards brings the fight to John McCain.

I freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused about is John McCain’s health care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor to McCain, thinks I do “not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator’s proposal.” The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator’s proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors.

Despite what some readers might think, we've not lost sight of the correct target this election year. It would be a lot easier if I didn't have to continually remind myself that McCain's shit stinks more than the Democrats.

thanks to Mr. Wolcott for the link