Posted on 12/23/2007 8:07:55 AM PST by pjsbro
On March 4, 2007, at the 42nd Anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, Mrs. Clinton recounted how as a young girl she had the great privilege of hearing Dr. Martin Luther King speak in Chicago: “ The year was 1963”, Clinton said in her speech. “My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear someone that we had read about, we had watched on television, we had seen with our own eyes from a distance, this phenomenon known as Dr. King.
At Selma, Hillary said she had seen MLK in 1963, so she would have been 15 or 16 at that time. But authors Don Van Natta, Jr. and Jeff Gerth, (“Her Way”, 2007) seem to think that Hillary was then 17, which would have put her at a King speech in late 1964 or 1965. A Washington Post article a few weeks ago had Hillary at an MLK speech “on a Sunday night in 1962”. Carl Bernstein, the former WaPo writer in his book “A Woman In Charge”, says Hillary saw King in the the fall of 1961 (Hillary would have been 14 at that time). And the Boston Globe also recently had Clinton with King in the spring 1962.
So when was it? Was Hillary at King’s speech on that “cold night in January” 1963, or the spring of 1962. Was it 1965 or the fall of 1961?
Why can’t these “journalists” get their facts straight? Don’t they read each others accounts? Why hasn’t the media looked into these details, which are strikingly different in each account?
I bet she was at Woodstock, too.
In the scale of all things ? Yes.
It is well known fact the Clinton's make up stories all the time to pander to certain segments of the voting public. That is a known fact.
Even if it was true about half the US population would think Hillary is fabricating or outright lying about the event cause because of who she is and her history
I would much more prefer the media would focus on Hillary current political ideologies rather than trying to figure out whether or not she is a liar which vast numbers of the population already know as a fact.
How do you know this?*****
Google, then I went to their (CHS) website.
(and I grew up in Chicago when MLk was here causing trouble)
Anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life liar and her enablers BUMP!
If she says she saw him she probably did. I just think there are bigger fish to fry and I would prefer to catch her in a more substantive lie.
It all depends on the meaning of the word “see”.
That sounds like a story that needs to be told.
Hit the abuse button on yourself, ask nicely, and the mods are generally very helpful. (Also useful when you post something to a thread and have second thoughts - although they sometimes let you twist in the wind a little while to teach you a lesson before they pull those.
Well... the answer is a little to obvious. Having the BIG 'D' after your name makes you immune to the truth and free from disclosure or prosecution. And then there is BDS syndrome... where anything goes.
I would appreciate it if you can provide me with a link that definitively states that King first spoke in Chicago in 1964.
Eleanor Roosevelt introduced them during the seance.
She was with Mitt’s dad.
Actually, it says something about how PC our nation is that Huckabee got ridiculed for running a Christmas ad at Christmas time. But candidates are falling all over themselves to find some way to link themselves to the deity known as MLK.
And, BTW, I don’t support Huckabee! :-)
Some kind of new line should be inserted into the classic tune:
“Has anybody here seen My Old Friend, Martin?,
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He’s freed a lot of people.
I just turned around and Mrs. Clinton is trying to rewrite, co-opt and distort his song.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703120008
Novak falsely accused “Goldwater girl” Clinton of “re-inventing her past” to include MLK as influence
In his March 12 column, syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) “was re-inventing her past” because Clinton’s March 4 speech in Selma, Alabama, included a “claim of her attachment to Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student in 1963.” Novak suggested that this conflicted with her description of herself as a “Goldwater girl” in her memoir, Living History (Simon & Schuster, June 2003). As Greg Sargent noted on his weblog The Horse’s Mouth, Novak made this argument to support his assertion that the Clinton campaign is “panick[ing]” in response to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) rising poll numbers.
In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Clinton reported both in Living History that she heard King speak when she was a teenager and that she was a Goldwater girl.
Furthermore, Novak falsely stated that Clinton was “the 17-year-old class president at Maine East High School in the Chicago suburbs.” In fact, as Clinton wrote in her memoir, she “successfully ran” for “junior class Vice President” at Maine Township High School East (Page 21). But as a senior attending Maine Township High School South — which, she wrote, was “built to keep up with the baby boomers” — she “ran for student government President against several boys and lost” (Page 24). Some Internet sources, such as Wikipedia, incorrectly claim that Clinton was “class president.”
From Novak’s March 12 column:
While Hillary Rodham Clinton came out second best to Barack Obama in their long-range oratorical duel at Selma, Ala., the real problem with her visit there a week ago concerned her March 4 speech’s claim of her attachment to Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student in 1963. How, then, could she be a “Goldwater girl” in the next year’s presidential election?
The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy. Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 voting rights bill was not incidental to his run for the White House but an integral element of conscious departure from Republican tradition that contributed to his disastrous performance.
Of course, no political candidate should have to explain inconsistencies of her high school days. What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign’s panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
[...]
Speaking at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the “bloody Sunday” freedom march there, Sen. Clinton declared: “As a young girl [age 16], I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.”
Young Hillary Rodham answered that challenge the next year as the 17-year-old class president at Maine East High School in the Chicago suburbs. She described herself in her memoirs as “an active Young Republican” and “a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.” As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King.
[...]
While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her campaign was shaken by the first serious, public internal Democratic criticism of the Clintons since the 1992 presidential campaign. The sharp rebuke of Hollywood producer David Geffen, the erstwhile Clinton friend now backing Obama, was approved unanimously by a campaign conference call presided over by consultant Mark Penn.
Hillary Clinton’s road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handler were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a teen-ager in Chicago’s suburbs who never really existed.
From Living History (Pages 22-23):
My quest to reconcile my father’s insistence on self-reliance and my mother’s concerns about social justice was helped along by the arrival in 1961 of a Methodist youth minister named Donald Jones.
[...]
Rev. Jones stressed that a Christian life was “faith in action.” I had never met anyone like him. Don called his Sunday and Thursday night Methodist Youth Fellowship sessions “the University of Life.” He was eager to work with us because he hoped we would become more aware of life outside Park Ridge [Ilinois]. He sure met his goals with me. ... We visited black and Hispanic churches in Chicago’s inner city for exchanges with their youth groups.
In the discussions we had sitting around church basements, I learned that, despite the obvious differences in our environments, these kids were more like me than I ever could have imagined. They also knew more about what was happening in the civil rights movement in the South. I had only vaguely heard of Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, but these discussions sparked my interest.
So, when Don announced one week that he would take us to hear Dr. King speak at Orchestra Hall, I was excited. My parents gave me permission, but some of my friends’ parents refused to let them go hear such a “rabble-rouser.”
Dr. King’s speech was entitled, “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” Until then, I had been dimly aware of the social revolution occurring in our country, but Dr. King’s words illuminated the struggle taking place and challenged our indifference: “We now stand on the border of the Promised Land of integration. The old order is passing away and a new one is coming in. We should all accept this order and learn to live together as brothers in a world society, or we shall perish together.”
Though my eyes were opening, I still mostly parroted the conventional wisdom of Park Ridge’s and my father’s politics. While Don Jones threw me into “liberalizing” experiences, Paul Carlson [Clinton’s ninth-grade history teacher and “a very conservative Republican”] introduced me to refugees from the Soviet Union who told haunting tales of cruelty under the Communists, which reinforced my already strong anti-Communist views. Don once remarked that he and Mr. Carlson were locked in a battled for my mind and soul. Their conflict was broader than that, however, and came to a head in our church, where Paul was also a member. Paul disagreed with Don’s priorities, including the University of Life curriculum, and pushed for Don’s removal from the church. After numerous confrontations, Don decided to leave First Methodist after only two years for a teaching position at Drew University, where he recently retired as Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics.
In the same chapter, Clinton related how her history teacher Paul Carlson encouraged her to learn about Goldwater. Clinton highlighted what she admired about Goldwater, both as a teenager and “years later.” From Living History (Page 21):
My ninth-grade history teacher, Paul Carlson, was, and still is, a dedicated educator and very conservative Republican. Mr. Carlson encouraged me to read Senator Barry Goldwater’s recently published book, The Conscience of a Conservative. That inspired me to write my term paper on the American conservative movement, which I dedicated “To my parents, who have always taught me to be an individual.” I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide. Years later, I admired his outspoken support of individual rights, which he considered consistent with his old-fashioned conservative principles: “Don’t raise hell about the gays, the blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please.”
Clinton concluded that she did not see the “beliefs” of Jones and Carlson “as diametrically opposed then or now.” From Living History (Page 23):
I now see the conflict between Don Jones and Paul Carlson as an early indication of the cultural, political, and religious fault lines that developed across America in the last forty years. I liked them both personally and did not see their beliefs as diametrically opposed then or now.
She also sees dead people.
The pandering is amazing. What does it really matter if she went to see MLK, or when? Are we supposed to stand up and applaud? “Thank goodness, she saw MLK speak, she can’t possibly be racist” we’re supposed to think. Who cares? I want to know what she thinks, not who she can vaguely hitch her wagon to.
I think there’s at least a realistic chance that Mitt has seen old film footage of his dad marching with Martin Luther King. I think Hillary’s just making stuff up.
Like Novak, I think it is somewhat of a stretch to think that Hillary's youth minister, who was just out of school, took Goldwater-girl Hillary and a bunch of other 15 year-olds out of their white middle-class suburb into downtown Chicago to hear Dr. King on a cold January night in 1963. And, by the way, in the books I cite in post #22, Hillary's minister actually took Hillary and her friends backstage to introduce Hillary to MLK.
I have difficulty believing that happened.
Hillary saw MLK, Dennis saw a spaceship, Fred Thompson ses reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.