you're wrong. if people knew of the REAL king, he wouldn't have been effective.

i agree that a man doesn't have to be a saint to be good or do great things. but, when someone and his supporters promote his very saintliness as a main weapon or tool for the cause, then he has to be judged by higher standards.

for example, a loveually loose person can be a fine senator or or manager of a company. but, a religous-spiritual-moral leader who pontificates about higher values to the rest of us while leading a totally degenerate lifestyle is not okay. in other words, that mitterand had a mistress is forgivable since he never pretended to be mr. saint. but, when jimmy swaggert proved to be a loveual degenerate, it did matter.

king wasn't ONLY a political leader like some big city mayor. he won support and admiration for his presumed higher morality, his saintliness, his spirituality. it turns out he feigned all these qualities in the name of the cause. the cause was justified BUT the means by which it was effected was largely a hoax. in fact, martin king was morally not much higher than rodney king. of course, when rodney--a total pooty bastard who'd caused trouble for other people thru his life(he NEVER tried to get along)--did the saintly negro scthick and asked us so humbly in front of 100s of cameras to all 'just get along', white liberals like you swallowed it whole hog. i'm not justifiying what was clearly police brutality, but rodney largely brought in it on himself by leading a long life of crime and violence. and then black thugs used this as an excuse to beat up and terrorize countless innocent people.

anyway, both martin and rodney tactically played roles as saintly negroes it was all fake on a personal level. granted, martin did it for a big cause as well as for personal glory while rodney did it just to collect several million bucks.

the point is... we didn't expect high moral standards from clinton and so even with the scandal, he remained president. those who tried to bring him down morally couldn't succeed because clinton never made himself out to be a saint. however, king consciously did make himself out to be a saint while doing nothing whatsoever to practice what he preached. he preached to us not only political but personal values derived from jesus and gandhi, but it was all just a sham. non-violence was merely tactical, to butter up the guilt-ridden liberal white catboy.

besides, it's not like king had a fling or two which would be understandable. but, he was a total lout who had endless drunken orgies and even beat up women(HE BEAT UP WOMEN!) while condemning the violence of whites. the king image was all just an act. worse, those who profess to respect king--rappers to leftwing radicals--have been calling for violence and any means necessary all the time. to them, king's legacy is just one of those means to butter up whites. it worked back in the 60s but more whites are beginning to discover king's nobility was just a myth. also, those who profess to admire king are also greater admirers of marx and che guevara. king is just a human face they hide behind. they bait our guilt thru that noble sounding negro and then try to ram our buttes with the likes of noam chomsky, michael moore, and che.

we should dispense with cult of personalities. we should honor the civil rights movement, but should also recognize that it was headed by a devious lout. simiarly, though we may honor the FBI and its role in fighting and crime, let's admit hoover did alot of bad things. neither king nor hoover discredit the entire movement or organization, but we should note the mechanics of deception, mythmaking, and fraud in both cases. it could be argued that their false positive images were crucial in their endeavors. king had to convince us that he was a moral saint. hoover had to convince us that he was a straightarrow law-n-order guy.

however, if we're adult enough, we must admit both were far from honorable men who, while maintaining a squeaky public image, played low and dirty. .