Clinton no longer “first black president”
Here’s an adjunct note to Kristin’s post, below, regarding the Clinton Hydra. Bill Clinton has been called America’s “first black president.” This is meant both as a joke and in earnest, but however it’s meant, that idea may be dying with this campaign. You’ve probably been reading about Bill’s antics of late, where he’s cast himself in the role of (to mix mythological metaphors) a Cerberus, the hound of hell, attacking Obama like nobody’s business. Bill has gotten and is getting a lot of flack for these attacks, for acting “unpresidential,” for generally being a mudslinger, playing bad cop to his wife’s good cop. This mudslinging took on a racist subtext in South Carolina:
[Bill] Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here. He’s run a good campaign everywhere.”
What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.
Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.
On Fox News this weekend, William Kristol suggested that, if a Republican had said something like this, he’d be labeled a racist and sent packing from the campaign. Regardless, Bill Clinton’s history and legacy with African Americans, which has already been shown to be based on misperceptions, may be dead.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top43 Comments to “Clinton no longer “first black president””
And Slick Willie is almost certainly right.
Report comment to moderator
This is one of those rare occasions when Kristol is right. Clinton’s comments were an appeal to racial divisivness … uncharacteristic for him and really disappointing.
Report comment to moderator
I am not convinced that the Clintons are all that politically brilliant. The media keep telling us they are, but I don’t see it.
What the Clintons are doing now certainly isn’t so brilliant, in my view. It’s just power politics and manipulation. I don’t think Bill would have won in the firt place without Ross Perot’s antics and involvement. Bill Clinton didn’t even get the majority of America’s votes the first time (maybe the second time either, but I don’t recall about the second one specifically). I never saw Bill Clinton as the “come-back kid” since that was obviously nothing by media creation and hype.
But they are good at pressing emotional buttons, for good or ill.
Report comment to moderator
Author Toni Morrison, the woman who famously labeled Bill Clinton as the “first black president” is backing Barack Obama for president.
See Drudge
Report comment to moderator
The Emperors’ new clothes.
Report comment to moderator
LOL
That should put Obama over the top.
Report comment to moderator
Bill didn’t tell Americans anything about Obama they couldn’t see for themselves. He informed them that South Carolina, too, is half Black, and therefore different from other states in the primaries. He diminished Obama’s victory, but race was entirely accidental. In politics, a candidate’s specialized appeal is fair game. Republicans diminished Huckabee because Iowa has so many evangelicals, McCain because New Hampshire has so many independents, and Romney because Michigan was his father’s home turf. Bill made the sporting point that Obama may not be able to duplicate his performance in states with different electorates.
I don’t think African Americans seriously believe that Bill Clinton is warning white voters against a Black candidate, but, hey it’s all politics, and you can’t blame Obama supporters for crying foul.
Report comment to moderator
What the Clintons are doing now certainly isn’t so brilliant, in my view. It’s just power politics and manipulation.
Some conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, think the Clintons have executed a brilliant power move, designed to make white voters worry about the electability of a Black candidate. As soon has Hillary is ahead again, she can wipe everyone’s face and pass out lollypops.
Report comment to moderator
Reminds me the movie, “The Jerk” with Steve Martin. He thought he was black also. It turned out that he was only a “jerk”.
Report comment to moderator
Bill can be a jerk when he doesn’t get his way, and now he’s gone and made it look like Democrats have a race problem. We don’t. Democrats love to see a Black person get ahead, but we don’t give a fig whether Mr. X or Ms. Y is Black or White. Whether we be Black or White, the thrilla’s the winna. White men in the Democratic primary in South Carolina were just as likely to vote for Obama as for Hillary. The differences in voting patterns in South Carolina were in age and gender, not race.
Report comment to moderator
#9: “The Lord loves a working man, don’t trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry Scroop, but Democrats have a race problem that goes all the way back to Reconstruction.
As to Mr. Clinton, he wouldn’t have been any more obviously a racist if he had come out and said what he meant: “Y’know, them coloreds tend to stick together.”
Report comment to moderator
I left off the end: “They stick together and if y’all aren’t careful one of those people is gonna get elected president.”
Report comment to moderator
Hmmph! He was never colored to begin with. And just why should it matter?
Report comment to moderator
He was never colored to begin with.
We’re ALL colored!
Report comment to moderator
Sure, RDean. And the NAACP stands for the National Association for the Advancement of All Humanity.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, RDEAN has a good point. All humanity is but one skin tone. There are many people groups that have different pigments, or more correctly shades of that color. It is determined by the pigment called melanin that every person has. Some have less, some have more of it.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, the NAALCP (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People) is simply a very liberal (and some would say racist) organization that undermines achievement by folks of color. I have friends who are very talented in their jobs and in no way adhere to the concepts of the NAACP.
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB:
When the Republican party acquired the Dixie wing of the Democratic Party, it acquired the liabilities along with the assets. Unfortunately, it still hasn’t digested them.
What Bill came out and said was, think again if you really believe Obama can beat the Republicans. He’s not appealing to the racism of Democratic primary voters, he’s appealing to their fear of the racism of moderate swing voters in the general election — the folks in Ohio, Missouri and Florida who will determine our future.
Report comment to moderator
Clinton’s comments were an appeal to racial divisivness … uncharacteristic for him and really disappointing.
LMBO! Like Clinton actually respects black people…right. When he moved to DC, the first thing he did was make sure Chelsea went to a nearly all white private school. As soon as he left DC, he bought a mansion in town in New York that’s about 99% white. Yeah, the Clinton’s are really “committed” to integration. And please don’t tell me about his much ballyhooed office in Harlem. He’s there about twice a year, and he’s surrounded by about 20 SS agents.
Report comment to moderator
Clinton’s comments were an appeal to racial divisivness … uncharacteristic for him and really disappointing.
LMBO!
Oh yeah, the Clnton’s love black folks. That’s why they enrolled Chelsea in an “exclusive” private school in DC which was almost all white – because of their commitment to racial inegration.
That’s why they bought a house in a New York town that’s about 99% white – on account of their love of diversity.
And please don’t mention that he has an office in Harlem. Yeah, he’s there about twice a year. That’s strictly for PR.
Liberals are just as likely to lie about their true feelings about race as conservatives are.
Report comment to moderator
Someone told me the other day that he couldn’t vote for Obama because America wasn’t ready for a black president.
But America was ready for an adulterer? America was ready for an dimwitted warmonger?
America is ready for some unity. Hillary won’t bring that. Edwards won’t bring that. None of the Republicans can bring that? That leaves Barrack. Hopefully, he can achieve some unity. Maybe he can’t but at least he is willing to try.
Compared to the rest. He’s certainly a welcome change.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, a guy who attends a racist church, which gives awards to Minister Louis Chaka Kahn, is just the man to bring America together.
Report comment to moderator
Just imagine if it came out that John McCain’s church had given a Man of the Year award to David Duke. Do you think the media would shrug their shoulders and forget it if McCain said what Obama said, “I don’t agree with everything my church does”?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, lucky for John McCain that he doesn’t attend church.
Every church has racist roots. It’s not fair to judge someone by the decisions made by the church they attend.
Report comment to moderator
We’re not talking about racist roots. We’re talking about a church that last year gave their Man of the Year award to an out and out racist, the head of an out and out racist religion. And you know as well as everyone reading this what the reaction would be if the candidate and the church and the honoree were white. But they’re black, so it’s OK, and excuses can be made for it. You evvies and liberals can explain it away all you want, and the liberal liars at CNN & FOX can downplay it all they want, but lots of white people have heard about this, and they don’t excuse it, or explain it away, or justify it. And they’re not about to vote for a man whose church named a “minister” who hates their very existence, Man of the Year. So keep making excuses. And then when Obama loses you’ll be blaming “racism” for it.
Hypocrites.
Report comment to moderator
Obama won’t lose because of racism any more than Hillary would lose because of sexism. The number of whites who will not vote for Obama because he is black are likely equal to the number of blacks who will vote for him just because he is black. It is the same for Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Just like you keep telling yourself that the Farrakhan award is no big deal.
Report comment to moderator
If a church Romney, McCain, or Huckabee attends had named David Duke Man of the Year, every newspaper headline, every cable and network news broadcast, every poltical blog in America would be screaming about it non stop until he dropped out of the race. And everyone knows it.
Report comment to moderator
He’s going to lose due to racism, alright. His own. It’s not racist to refuse to vote for a man who belongs to a church that picks Louis Farrakhan, a man who hates whites, as Man of the Year.
Report comment to moderator
#20: which was almost all white
Almost all white is different than ALL RICH.
Report comment to moderator
#22: which gives awards to Minister Louis Chaka Kahn
Come on. What about Pat Robertson? My parents told me only speak good of the dead. Jerry Falwell is dead. Good that I won’t speak ill of him, but he is an example.
Report comment to moderator
Almost all white is different than ALL RICH.
Sometimes it is, but Sidwell Friends School was BOTH almost all white and (almost) all rich. There were some kids on scholarship that weren’t white or rich. But there was no way in hell Bill and Hillary were sending their daughter to a majority black school.
Come on. What about Pat Robertson? My parents told me only speak good of the dead. Jerry Falwell is dead. Good that I won’t speak ill of him, but he is an example.
Are you seriously claiming that Robertson and Falwell gave awards to men like David Duke? Or are you comparing them to David Duke? They’re both crazy, but they’re not racist. Farrakhan is a flat out racist who hates white people.
Report comment to moderator
True enough, the Democratic Party still has it’s racial issues to deal with. But they’re still light years ahead of the Republican Party.
For example, if one observes the audience at the Democratic convention, one will see a party that looks like America: white, black, brown, male, female, country, inner city, religious and not, wealthy, middle class, and poor.
When one observes the audience at the Republican convention, one sees evangelical white people, mostly middle class, with a smattering of blacks.
The Democratic field: a woman, a black man, a white man.
The Republican field: all white men.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you need to get out more often.
Have you seen a sign on any person at a Republican Convention saying “I’m an Evangelical” or do you ‘guess’ that they are “middle class” – honestly Anlir, you do ’slide down the hill’ greased for the occassion, which I might add, you added the oil.
Report comment to moderator
So the church Obama attends gave a “Man of the Year” award to Louis “Mother Ship” Farakahn? You mean that hateful rabidly racist Farakahn? That Farakahn?
That’s quite an indictment in my opinion.
If I was a member of that church, I’d never attend again, and wouldn’t want to be associated with it in any shape, form, or fashion. Nor would I want it known…
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Democrats keep minorities “on the plantation” and in the voting booth by saying, “You cannot make it without your loving federal government to stick up for you. You need our money and you need laws that give you more than a level playing field. You just can’t make it on your own. You aren’t strong enough or smart enough.” So yes, as long as one party offers to continue to give away free money, and works to keep its constituents needing those handouts, the two parties will have unbalanced constituencies.
It’s pretty silly, when we have the first race in history to have either a black man or a woman as a serious candidate, to prove that that makes Democrats the good guys. Were Democrats fellow bad guys up till this election? And by the way, perhaps you’ve never heard of Alan Keyes–not a strong contender, but a Republican nominee nonetheless. But of course he’s not “really” black, because liberals think that anyone who doesn’t swallow their party line has forfeited his right to his own skin color–one more evidence of Democrat racism by the way: “Think like us or we won’t consider you black.” How much more demeaning can you get?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Cheryl, I’ll take the Democrats good-hearted intentions of helping regular folks over the Republicans cold-hearted intentions of helping no one except their rich corporate friends any day.
If we had left things to the Republicans of this country, black folk would still be sitting in the back of the bus and segregation would still be the law of the land.
This bleating by conservatives about how we should be “color blind” and treat everyone equally would have some cache’ if they had stood up for equality when it counted. As things stand now, they appear to only want to get rid of things like affirmative action because of their intense dislike of racial equality.
Alan Keyes? He’s got no chance because he’s mean and hateful. Good grief – he threw his own daughter out of the house because she’s gay. No one wants a President who’s that mean toward his own family.
So there.
Report comment to moderator
#33: When one observes the audience at the Republican convention, one sees evangelical white people, mostly middle class, with a smattering of blacks.
That is such a lie. Shame on you. They moved ALL the blacks to the front row. There was NO smattering. It was one long line.
Report comment to moderator
“Well, Cheryl, I’ll take the Democrats good-hearted intentions of helping regular folks over the Republicans cold-hearted intentions of helping no one except their rich corporate friends any day.’
I’m sorry…. What rich corporate friends do I have again? Anlir, I thought you were more reasonable than to spew innacurate stereotypes.
Report comment to moderator
#33: They’re both crazy, but they’re not racist.
Crazy but not racist? I thought many of those Christian Colleges outlawed interracial dating. Why is that?
#33: But there was no way in hell Bill and Hillary were sending their daughter to a majority black school.
Many Rich Black people don’t send their children to a majority black school. Why? Usually, they aren’t as good because, get this, they don’t have as much money. Shhhh. Don’t let everyone know.
Report comment to moderator
I thought many of those Christian Colleges outlawed interracial dating. Why is that?
Why is that? It’s because you’re ignorant, and spout off about things you know nothing about. The only Bible college I’m aware of that “outlawed” interracial dating is Bob Jones University, and they even dropped the rule, oh, about 7 years ago or so. Try reading a paper every now and then.
Report comment to moderator
Clinton never was the “first black President”. He was just good at manipulating a large amount of people, and accepting a silly label and riding it out for votes.
Seriously, those of you who think he was the “first black President”…grow up!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!