The New York Times is starting to have a bad reputation; it is allowing reporters and columnists to edit Hillary Clinton’s comments and then bash her based on that edited version.

The FACT is that although Martin Luther King was extremely active in the Civil Rights cause during the President Kennedy years, Kennedy was never able to move the stalled civil rights legislation through Congress. After Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became president, LBJ used his knowledge of how to get things done in the Congress (where he had served as a powerful leader in both the House and senate) along with the emotion built up by the murder of Kennedy to get the historic Civil Rights bill passed and the voting rights bill passed the following year.

At the time LBJ signed the long-desired Civil Rights bill, he remarked that he had lost the South to the Democratic party for at least the next 25 years — and that prediction turned out to be true.

Not only that, but LBJ’s skill and courage in pushing and then signing that legislation led to a lot of hatred toward him that smolders still. Today, most younger people know only that LBJ is reviled for his Vietnam war failures, but few know how skillfully he worked to get the Civil Rights and voting rights legislation passed.

Of course, it was the courage and bravery and leadership skill of Dr. King and his colleagues plus the activism of this nation’s black population that created the national awareness that something had to be done to protect blacks and make it possible for them to enjoy the promise of America’s Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. but Dr. King was not in Congress and had no way to write or pass legislation and had to persuade those who were in legislative office to do the right thing. For years, those in Congress did not get the legislation passed. LBJ did get the legislation moving successfully through Congress, using his celebrated strong-arm methods when necessary and his persuasive skills when possible. Maybe another president might have been able to get the job done, but the fact is that none of them did — until LBJ did.

That takes NOTHING away from Dr. King’s historic leadership and courage; it merely states that Congress had to pass the legislation and the president had to sign it to make Dr. King’s courageous efforts result in laws.

When President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the rebellious states, he was NOT the only one who had worked to end slavery, yet I don’t see anyone talking about that. Many white and black abolitionists died in the cause of freeing the slaves yet no one says it is disrespectful to THEIR contribution to recognize what Lincoln did.

So, why are extremists, today, saying it is disrespectful toward Dr. King to say that LBJ got the Civil Rights and voting rights bills moving successfully through Congress (where they had been stalled for years) and then signed that legislation turning Dr. King’s dream into reality?

It takes nothing from Dr. King anymore than saying Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation takes credit away from those earlier martyrs.

As far as I know The NYTimes has YET to publish Hillary Clinton’s full statement — in the print edition — and persists in allowing reporters to bash her based on the “skillfully”-edited version that suits their agenda better.

Shame on all the reporters and pundits who do the same editing and bashing.

Here is what McCaskill had to say (via WashingtonPost.com's The Fix):

The Missouri senator also said that her brief experience in Washington -- she was elected in 2006 -- has taught her that she and Obama are ideological allies. "I have staked a tent in the middle ground, and with some frequency I found Barack Obama there," McCaskill said.

How can a candidate who stakes out the middle ground--i.e., compromise--be a candidate for change? When someone says "change" it leads people to believe that something different will result.

Talk Left has a summary of some of McCaskill's positions on immigration:

* Building a border fence is a first step. (Aug 2006)
* No amnesty for illegal immigrants; no guest workers. (Aug 2006)
* Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)

All of those seem pretty contrary to Obama's stated positions. What's going on here?