http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE7D9143CF93AA35757C0A961958260&scp=1&sq=As+His+Legacy%2C+Clinton+Seeks+to+Improve+Race+Relations&st=nyt

WEDNESDAY APRIL 6 1997
As His Legacy, Clinton Seeks to Improve Race Relations

WASHINGTON, April 8 - President Clinton has ordered his staff to suggest a way for him to play a prominent role this year in improving American race relations, a goal that he is trying to make a focus and legacy of his second term.

Two chief options that his aides are preparing include a conference on race led by the President and a short-term panel modeled on the Kerner Commission, which found in 1968 that the United States was "moving towar two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal."

Mr. Clinton made racial division a central theme of his Inaugural Address last Jan. 20, calling it "America's constant curse." Two weeks later, underscoring his renewed sense of mission on a subject that has preoccupied him since he was a boy, he returned to it again in his State of the Union Message by reading aloud the biblical passage he had placed his hand on when he took the oath of office: "Thou shalt be called the repairer of the breach."

Now, anticipating a major announcement next month once the President decides how to proceed, his aides have been scheduling events in which Mr. Clinton stresses race, or more broadly, unity. He plans to take part next week in ceremonies at Shea Stadium in New York City on the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's first game in major league baseball.

Under fire for months over Democratic campaign finance practices, the White House has been searching for issues and events that make Mr. Clinton appear intent on the people's work, rising above what his aides hope will seem by contrast to be inside-the-Beltway nattering. A high-profile stance on race would seem to fit snugly with that strategy.

Wonderful post! Thanks for your personal insight.

Here's how Hillary lost the black vote. A black man became a candidate. A bogus charge was leveled at Clinton saying she belittled Martin Luther King when she said it took Lyndon Johnson to push through the civil rights legislation of the 1960's. Blacks, who had previously viewed the Clintons as heroes, and who often referred to Bill as the first black president, used that bogus excuse to abandon the Clintons in droves. Why? Not because they really disliked the Clintons. They disliked looking like they were voting for a man based on the color of his skin. So they convinced themselves that the Clintons had done them wrong. That way they don't have to see themselves as behaving like racists.

Thank You for sharing your story. I enjoy reading personal stories -- I find them compelling and authentic.

I have never been "actively" involved in politics, in fact I had little interest in doing so. That changed ...not only did I become a delegate for my CD in Dallas, my neighbour and I agreed, if Obama won the nomination, we'd actively work as volunteers to get him elected and shook hands on it.

Personally speaking, (being in HRC's demographic white female, mid-50's), from the very beginning I leaned toward Obama as my first preference. I did research, just for good measure on some of the republican candidates, too, yet the more I read about Obama the better I liked him. I am solidly in his camp.

Hillary was never a choice for me; I never trusted her. I did not know why exactly; it was just a feeling. I could care less about what happened between Bill and Monica. That was personal and should have stayed personal. I have no opinion about Hillary's decision to stay with Bill. But the more I became acquainted with her the less I found to like. I still think she is engaging, intelligent and funny.

Let me make this clear I do not hate Hillary -- I abhor her double standards. Her background is filled with inconsistencies. For instance as a lawyer protecting the interests of Monsanto and sitting on the board of WalMart are part of a culmination of things that form a pattern. The disconnect between what she says and what she does are, a lot of the time, 180 degrees apart.

The nomination was Hillary's to lose. At the start of her campaign she had every advantage going her way: more money (over $200 million dollars), name recognition, DNC support, loyal voters, her husband's record, over 100 super delegates, and inevitability; yet she is still losing by every mathematical equation to a "rookie."

Mathematically HRC cannot catch Obama even if you add in Florida and Michigan. He is ahead in every category: popular vote, delegates, money, and has won almost twice as many states. However Clinton is ahead in Super delegates barely. In December 2008 Hillary led by 106 supers. Since 4 February 2008 Obama has narrowed that lead down to less than twenty. This nomination is about winning the most delegates, but the Clinton camp keeps moving the goal posts. And that is another issue I find distasteful.

Obama supporters are upset with the underhanded rovian tactics, the republican's signature, Clinton uses to attack Obama. Obviously she learned the wrong lessons when she was at the brunt end of the far-right attacks. Going after Obama with a vengeance to destroy him Hillary could very well cost the democrats the WH. Thus she loses, Obama loses, the party loses and the country loses in the short and long run.

If the super delegates give Hillary the nomination they ought to note trivializing the African American voters, the youth voters, new voters, and discounting small states primaries and big state caucuses translates into Hillary winning by losing the general election. We cannot afford -- in every sense of the word -- another 4 years of Bush and Cheney via proxy.

I believe in him. I trust him. Barack Obama "gets" it. I commend those who have chosen to and/or are defecting to Obama.

By the way, for truth in advertising, I belong to HRC's demographic as well - I like policy wonks and I was alive in the 90's and hated the Republicans screwing Democrats on everything and really liked it when people fought back.

Listen Desidero, although your analysis might seem quite thoughtful at first glance, it's really not.

First, Bill Clinton was asked a question that had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson. He was asked, "Why does it take two Clintons to beat one Obama," his response, "Well Jesse Jackson won here in 1988". Execuse me? What does 1988 Jesse Jackson have to do with 2008 Barack Obama? Answer: Absolutely nothing. If, as you suggest, he was merely saying that this is about longevity, then why not just say that directly? Why use language so coded as to render his intended meaning ambiguous. And why respond to a question about two Clintons with a response about longevity? Listen, the Clintons aren't stupid; everything they do is calculated and is done for a reason. And this was race baiting, plain and simple.

As the for the MLK thing, come on! Nobody is claiming that Hillary is a racist or is race-baiting because of what she said about MLK, at least I'm not. My problem is the dichotomy she set up between Lyndon Johnson and MLK, between action and words. If her anaology was supposed to illustrate the dichotomy between words and action, then what she says flies directly in the face of the historical record. If you call getting your ass whooped by the police just words, if you call being jailed just words, if you call breaking the law in the name of justice just words, then there is probably something wrong with your historical account.

Moreoever, if it wasn't for MLK, Johnson would have never passed the civil rights legislation. As a rule of thumb, cultural revolutions always precede political revolutions. There can be no political change where there are no rabble rousers as it were. (For this you might want to see Lincoln making slavery a moral issue). So when Clinton says that "MLK's dream couldn't be realized without Johnson," she is partially correct but mostly wrong. The way Clinton frames it makes it seem like if Lyndon Johnson didn't want to listen, then he could have just said f- you MLK. But, the truth is he had no choice, precisely because he had to yield to this cultural revolution we call the civil rights movement.

P.S. as for you touting the record of Bill Clinton in terms of helping out the "the po' black masses" you sound like Pat Buchanan more than anything. What? We should bow down on our knees and say: Oh thank you benevolent Clinton, we are forever in your debts! Get real. LOL