No better time/place than a funeral to let it all hang out. Remember Paul Wellstone's funeral? That was quite a party, wasn't it?
 

It sounds like the crowd ate it up, too. Oh, well. It's just another nail in the coffin of Carter's legacy.
 

MLK preached mixing polics and religion -- and how one's religion should inform his/her political activity. He also worked to stop a senseless, unwinnable war started by a president nobody liked from Texas. With that in mind, there was no better place than Mrs. King's funeral to raise those points.
 

anonymous: I don't want to hog the responses, since this is Ralphie's post, but I gotta mention two little points. (1) France started the VietNam war. We took it over from them. There was already a war before we showed up. Johnson escalated it; he didn't start it. (2) I don't know who liked Johnson, but over half the voters liked Bush. You not liking him isn't the same as nobody liking him.
 

Yeah, lots of people from Texas like and liked both of them!

Also, how come liberals (I admit I assume you are a liberal, Anony) are for using religion to inform political activity only when said activity is liberal?

In any case, James Taranto pooh-poohs the Wellstone ceremony analogy.
 

The NY Times headline was
"At Mrs. King's Funeral, a Mix of Elegy and Politics"

The on-line blurb that summarizes the article went:
"The six-hour service for Coretta Scott King was marked by some overt political gibes between the Clintons and the Bushes."

Very unfair to Bush senior and junior, both of whom conducted themselves, as always, like perfect gentlemen.

I did not hear that Clinton hit any wrong notes either.

In reality, according to Taranto, it was Carter who was guilty of taking unseemly potshots at Bush. He's a nasty piece of work.


I heard Bush's eulogy, it was eloquent and dignified and worthy of the president of a great country.

Here's the URL to the NY Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08king.html?th&emc=th