Replies

This is one of those times where I'm a bit out of step with the opinion of most posters here - sometimes, I think, we can get too partisan, and forget that a President has responsibilities that transcend day to day politics and political disagreements, and that these responsibilities sometimes need to be honored even if this makes a President and his supporters uncomfortable.

ML King was a Civil Rights Leader and and “anti-war” leader”, and toward the end of his life he had make it clear that he considered the latter as or more important than the former.

This was uncomfortable to many who – then as now - wish to embrace the former while ignoring or downplaying the latter, but his anti-war beliefs were an integral part of King’s life and King’s message, and it’s not surprising that one of his associates from that era would cite both parts of Kings message in a eulogy – in fact, it would have dishonest to Kings memory and his principles to soft-pedal this fact aspect of his life and work because prominent members of the audience might not have agreed with them.

The way I see it the President attended this event not in his role as representative of his party or philosophy, but rather as a sort of “official” representative of an American Public that’s deeply divided and conflicted about many of these same issues, he knew he was choosing to attend an event honoring individuals who espoused values and polices with which he in part disagrees; and he knew that those disagreements would likely be voiced.

In such a situation IMO a President's role is to honor by their presence that part with which they agree, and to react with the class and restraint befitting their role as President of all the people when the part with which they disagree is valorized. Which is exactly what this President did.

But this was an event honoring ML and Coretta Scott King, and as they attempted to honor King’s memory the speakers chosen by the Family owed no responsibility to tailor their comments to insure the comfort of anyone present – even the President of the United States – just as the eulogists at the Funeral of a Ronald Regan would have no responsibility to downplay his opinions and polices for the comfort of Democrats present.

he knew he was choosing to attend an event honoring individuals who espoused values and polices with which he in part disagrees; and he knew that those disagreements would likely be voiced.

He was not attending an "event". He was attending a funeral! It was about Coretta Scott King! Not about Katrina! Not about Wiretapping! Not about the Iraq war! Not about the poor! It was supposed to be to about her and to remember her and her contributions (whatever they were). This was disgusting as hell! How many funerals (other than Wellstones) do you know of where the person in the coffin was not the main reason of the event? Maybe I'm old fashioned. I just don't believe in speaking ill of the dead or ill of the person eulogizing her!

ML King was a Civil Rights Leader and “anti-war” leader”, and toward the end of his life he had make it clear that he considered the latter as or more important than the former.

MLK was speaking during and of a different era. He stood for and was many things, but we will put his affiliations and dalliances aside and remember him for getting the ball rolling as it were, to a more equal life for those of his race that wanted it. Those of that race that have exploited their brothers and sisters for personal gain - New Orleans and Jessie Jackson come to mind - are the ones who left the MLK dream on the cutting room floor.

There was some powerful preaching after the politicians left, I hope most of you took the time and listened to that.

Carter's son Jack is running for the Senate in Nevada - apparently he is as looney as his father; it was the same old rhetoric he opened with. Nevada, keep this man out of our Senate!