The trivialization of the presidential race got into high gear in recent days, just as the South Carolina campaign began in earnest.

It was bad enough when the race was about personalities -- who was more likable, who was not. Now it's about what happened 40 years ago -- who did more for civil rights, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or President Lyndon Johnson.

Hillary Clinton was under fire as the week began for having suggested that King's dream could only be accomplished by a president like Johnson willing and able to sign civil rights legislation.

She wasn't disparaging King -- she knows better than that, and we're confident that's not in her heart. She was merely making the point that action and experience trump rhetoric -- an attempt to draw a distinction between her and chief rival Barack Obama.

It was inartful, certainly, and maybe an ominous warning of the potential faux pas possible under a President Hillary Clinton. But it's not the racial insult some of Obama's supporters want to portray it as.

It's also a silly discussion, especially in the midst of an important presidential election that's coming as the world seems ever more dangerous and chaotic, from Iran to North Korea to the global Islamic threat to a corrupt and bloated and inept United Nations. Can we just grant that it took a great number of people, black and white, to protect civil rights and then start talking about the future?

Rather than debate the racial politics of 40 years ago, how about we talk about turning around some of our major metropolitan areas that are wracked by crime and poverty and blight and often devoid of economic opportunities and hope?

It's possible that, once government had secured civil rights, King might have made such issues the centerpiece of his movement. Neither his dream nor anyone else's can be complete while people continue to self-destruct in an environment that seems to encourage it.

An Internet questioner asked the Republican presidential candidates last year what they'd do about the problem of black-on-black crime. Well, that's not something we can or should look to Washington to solve -- but it does present an opportunity for a president to lead us toward a renaissance in America's cities. If nothing else, a president can shine a light on the problems and possible solutions. The president -- as opposed to a 535-member Congress -- is uniquely situated to set the country's agenda.

Sadly, the agenda being set on the campaign trail has little to do with America's needs and problems, or about what role the government should or should not play in them.

We don't know, but we're fairly sure neither Martin Luther King nor Lyndon Johnson would have approved of that.