Who’s responsible for “race?”

I haven’t followed that closely this whole “race-baiting” thread that’s been going back and forth between the Obama and Clinton camps that much. To be honest, it doesn’t really interest me that much other than it did not raise it’s head until now, when we are about to head into the Nevada caucuses and the SC primary, the first two primary states with substantial enough minority populations for race to be a factor. But today I read this article about good ole New York Rep. Charlie Rangel. He was once the man that I took the unpopular stance among my friends to side with over the issue of reinstating the draft. The way that issue got portrayed was that he was saying the draft is pure good and that we need it, when he was actually saying that if the sons of politicians were eligible to be conscripted, the congress might not take so lightly the decision to declare war. I understood this logic. But today I am baffled by his statements supporting Hillary Clinton’s recent MLK faux pas.
(As an aside, I am not so sure that I still agree with Rangel’s idea to reintroduce the draft. Upon further consideration over the last couple of years I have realized that the rich and powerful have always figured out ways to keep their kids from having to really be in the shit – e.g. our president (W))
Whereas the subsequent fallout of the Clinton MLK/LBJ statement does seem a little overblown to me, I do believe it is validly available for critique. She was being a politician, a white politician, and a white politician trying to win minority votes in the upcoming primaries. I do not disagree with her ends, I do disagree with the means. Stating that none of MLK’s dream would have been realized without an LBJ signature on the Civil Rights Act etc. is historically true. But what is also historically probable is that no white politician would have ever pushed for such legislative measures had MLK and others not put their lives on the line in creating the groundswell of support and indeed need for such measures.
All of the actions that MLK took (marching in Alabama and on the mall in DC, supporting the strikers in Memphis etc. etc. etc.) were selfless, heroic and courageous efforts. Whereas LBJ’s signing of the Civil Rights legislation could be considered all of these things given the political climate of the times, it cannot be said that all of his actions were as such, nor that they were done to nearly the magnitude and potential (and ultimate) cost to self that MLK did.
For Hillary to state things the way she did is reminiscent of all of those Hollywood movies about apartheid and South Africa in the 80s and early 90s. There always is a heroic black figure fighting for the rights of the people, but there is an even more empathetic and heroic white figure through which the American movie-going public can empathize with the effort and understand it’s importance. I am not saying that LBJ is a bad man. What I know of him I like (outside of the Vietnam stuff). But this many years on, we can recognize the LBJ efforts while recognizing that it pales in comparison to the civil rights efforts of MLK and his like. To state it like Hillary did is politically and rhetorically awkward and likely irresponsible.
With that said, I don’t think it really should be a factor in the upcoming primaries. I think that both Clinton and Obama have the best interest of the poor, the needy, minorities etc. in mind far more than most of the candidates on the Republican ticket do. All that they are able to talk about lately is tax cuts (how you can decide to take a pay cut when your credit card debt is as high as America’s is baffles me), 9/11, and how cool war is. I don’t imagine the plight of the poor, needy and minorities being any more improved by a Hillary or a Barack in the White House. I think they both mean well and will do all that they can.
So back to Rep. Rangel. His statements today wreak of so much political bullshit. Realizing that neither Hillary nor Bill can seem to fix this thing, and realizing that as the Nevada and SC primaries are approaching they don’t want to appear as still being on the attack, you get Rep. Rangel to do your attacking for you.
I did not agree with his statements in the article at all, but I was willing to take them as simple matters of opinion until I got to the end where he is quoted:
“I assume that the book was not written for political purposes. It was honest….It was a big mistake for him to have done it [used drugs.] For him to be honest enough to write about it, I guess he thought it might sell books.”
What would you rather him do Charlie? Would you rather him not addressed the drug-use issue in his memoir and just wait until the election where it would have likely arisen and then have to be addressed (surely better than the awkward “i tried but didn’t inhale” defense of Bill Clinton, or the outright denial and “will you shut up about it now” defense of our current president). Surely if this information would have been kept out of the book and revealed now, it would’ve been just the ticket to get Hillary to the general election most expeditiously. In it’s absence, Charlie’s left beating the dead horse that he hoped Hillary would use to take her there. Who looks stupid now?