Skip to main content

In another thread, Jim Chester mentioned that he thought John Kerry didn't "get" the needs of African America. He's right, but does any white politician? We affectionately embrace Bill Clinton as the "first black president", but did even Bill do anything grand for black people? Sure, he grew up with us. Sure, he's probably had sex with a number of us. Sure, he's got an office in Harlem. But at the end of the day, does all that really matter? Did Bill do anything special for black folks? He created an economic climate that helped all of America - including African America, do better - but did he do anything - in particular - for us?

Did he apologize for slavery? Did he embrace the notion of reparations? Did he name any blacks to _key_ positions in his administration? Did he name a black jurist to the Supreme Court? Did he enact any legislation specifically designed to make our lives better? Did he do anything specific to have America embrace its racism? Anything to have America better understand how it discriminates in both overt and subtle ways? Sure he played golf with his buddy Vernon Jordan, but how did Black America benefit from that relationship?

What did he do? Remember how he cut and run when conservatives attacked (supposedly his good friend) Lani Guinier? Remember how he "ended welfare as we know it"? Some speculate that he had something to do with Ron Brown's bullet to the head even. Yes he had a Race Commission - but what was the outcome of that? How is America better because of that? He valiantly tried to "fix" the Israel/Palestinian conflict, but what about the black/white conflict here?

How should African America think about Bill Clinton these days? Clearly he was better than GWB (and probably most other U.S. presidents) - but that ain't saying much unfortunately! Was he truly our friend, or was he just perhaps better at mollifying us than have other politicians? Is black America better off, worse, or indifferent after 8 years of William Jefferson Clinton?

It kind of reminds of seeing JFK on a plate on the wall next to Jesus and MLK on black folks' walls growing up. Jesus, I get. MLK, I get. But what did JFK do for black folks?
Confused

What did WJC do for black folks?

Your thoughts?

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

How should African America think about Bill Clinton these days? Clearly he was better than GWB - but that ain't saying much unfortunately!---MBM

Little of substance.

Bill Clinton knows how to address the superficiality of the 'discussion on race' while doing nothing about the foundation pieces of Jim Crow.

Bill Clinton was president when in 1997 Congress was specified by law to 'reconsider' the life of the 'special provisions' of the Voting Rights Act protecting access to the voting booth on the basis of 'race and color'.

HE DID NOTHING.

As you noted, he abandoned Lani Guinier when her nomination to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice 'heated up'. That was indicative character of his relationship with African America.

He is on your side until you 'get hot'.

Bill Clinton is a 'user'.

He is on African America's side as long as it 'sounds good'.

He will never be instrumental in what it takes to make a difference in the circumstance of either African American-Americans, as individuals, or African America itself.


PEACE

Jim Chester
IMO, the characterization of Bill Clinton as the first Black president has much more to do with his personality than any specific actions that benefitted Black America. He was charasmatic, cool, charming, musical, comfortable around Black people, got a little freaky deaky in the Oval Office, etc. He was exactly what one would expect a Black president to be like. It is similar to how England made this big pronouncement of David Beckham being a Black sex symbol, though he's white. He gets his hair braided, he's stylish, he fits into "the box." I don't think the Average Joe necessarily pays too much attention to everything a president has accomplished during his presidency. We remember his persona and a few snapshots of activity/moments of interest. JMHO.
quote:
He was charasmatic, cool, charming, musical, comfortable around Black people, got a little freaky deaky in the Oval Office, etc. He was exactly what one would expect a Black president to be like.


Your probalby correct about this statment but it is a sad one if you think about it.

Especially in light of the fact that he, as it was stated, did little for "his people".

How should African America think about Bill Clinton these days? Clearly he was better than GWB

And isn't that the problem – our only option is to choose someone who won't fuck a much as the other guy. Not even talking about what he will do for us.

Is black America better off, worse, or indifferent after 8 years of William Jefferson Clinton?

The answer is yes and no. We may have not moved forward but we didn't move backwards which means we a going nowhere fast?
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
I don't think the Average Joe necessarily pays too much attention to everything a president has accomplished during his presidency.


Yup. They especially didn't pay attention to Clinton's battle against the use of the term "genocide" to describe the Rwanda genocide. The UN conclusion of genocide would have opened the way for troops to go in and stop it. For some reason, the Clinton Administration didn't want to go there. A few hundred thousand more people were slaughtered as a result.
His first act was to exploit Sistah Souljah or am I the only one who remembers that little scenerio.

His administration created these Executive Orders for who? Oh, Yeah! Bush!:

E.O. 10995 - Seizure of all communications media in the U.S. by the Federal Government.
E.O. #10997 - Seizure of all electric power, fuels, and minerals, both public and private by the Federal Government.
E.O. #10998 - Seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private, all farms and farm equipment by the Federal Government.
E.O. #10999 - Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways by the Federal Government.
E.O. #11000 - Seizure of all American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government has to.
E.O. #11001 - Seizure of all health, education and welfare, facilities both public and private by the Federal Government.
E.O. #11002 - Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women, and children in the Federal Government.
E.O. #11003 - Seizure of all airports and aircraft by the Federal Government.
E.O. #11004 - Seizure of all housing and finance authorities, to establish forced relocation. Designates areas to be abandoned "unsafe," establishes new locations for populations, relocates communities, build new housing with public funds. (Economic problems I ask?)
E.O #11005 - Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both private and public by the Federal Government.
E.O. #11051 - Provides the Office of Emergency Planning (F.E.M.A.), complete authorization to put the above orders into effect in times of increased tension or economic or financial crisis. tension or economic or financial crisis.
E.O. #13010 - Turns the job of the Presidency over to the Military.

He grinned, smiled, and enduring the presence of black folk while pushing forth the HD agenda of which he and Hillary are very much apart of...

Fine Wink
Off Topic: Vox, there's a documentary about that called "Last Just Man." You should check it out some time. Molto interessante. Smile

I don't know that we aren't worse off than pre-Clinton. Clinton spoiled us with all of his lip service, made it seem like the Black vote mattered, that our support was necessary and worthy of being courted. Then we were hit with a candidate/President who paid virtually no attention to us, routinely turned down appearances on our shows, sent someone else out to marginally address issues that concern us and he is no worse off. It's left a lot of people disenchanted politically. Which is not to say that Black people are the only ones who feel disenchanted after the Bush elections. And obviously that's not Clinton's fault, but it's one thing I notice that is markedly different after his terms in office.

As for the comparitive lack of diversity, I don't think a lot of people felt he needed it. With others, you sort of get alarmed if there aren't any ethnic faces around them because they just seem (and sometimes are) so racist or out-of-touch. And I think these people pick up on it and surround themselves with as many ethnic "fronts" as possible to divert attention or point to as proof of how much they care about particular issues/segments of society. There is no shortage of sambos, so I'm not particularly impressed by diverse appointments.
quote:
We affectionately embrace Bill Clinton as the "first black president"



MBM - Who is the 'WE' that you refer to?


********

The most sad and depressing part about it all is when a KNEEGROW makes a prideful reference to the supposed "Surplus" that was amassed during the late 90's as if Clinton gave them a FEMA Debit card to draw off of these funds like they did to the New Orleans flooding victims.

These same people don't acknowledge that this period was like giving the "Goose that laid the golden egg" steriods. Yes there were certain periods in the economy that had unfettered capitalism and were IPOs and Venture Capitalists were throwing money at start ups with the goal of profiting from the stocks values but not the profits from business operations. Despite all of this being counter to the IDEOLOGICAL and ECONOMIC principles of the Quasi-Socialist cheerleader they don't make note of the harm that was made upon the individual investor and the Pension funds/401k investors who were left holding the bag with those who had position cashed out and the little man was left holding the bag.

The Price Earnings Ratio graph that I posted the other day details the great amount of gambling and speculation that took place during this period in time.

The worst part about it is that these junior economic experts who know so much with national economics can't seem to take this great knowledge and apply it locally to the benefit of their own communities.

Absent INCOME REDISTRIBUTION from the very CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM THAT THEY HATE their standard of living would be like those of many other people around the world (Venezuela) as they secretly wish ill against their own government because of their resentment.
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
IMO, the characterization of Bill Clinton as the first Black president has much more to do with his personality than any specific actions that benefitted Black America. He was charasmatic, cool, charming, musical, comfortable around Black people, got a little freaky deaky in the Oval Office, etc. He was exactly what one would expect a Black president to be like. It is similar to how England made this big pronouncement of David Beckham being a Black sex symbol, though he's white. He gets his hair braided, he's stylish, he fits into "the box."


Exactly !!! "The first black president" comment is just a joke(an offensive joke at that), that is not meant to be taken serious.

Clinton being ordained "The first black president" has to do with his personality, which is stereotypically black.
Billy Boy Clinton was sort of closet Conservtive.
But to be honest? Billy Boy did nothing of importance for any one but himself.
Every action, was what, and how, it could benifit him or his liying wife.

The question should be what has Billy Boy Clinton done to AFrikan American's?

From his first days of helping to bring in cocaine,that end up in LA, right up to trying to out due Rosa Parks deed.
And right at her testament day.
Folks need to listen to his speaking at her funeral. Truly sad. as was the rest of the democrated party. Campaining at a time like this.

Bill Clinton has done nothing to help with the advancment of "Khemitian folks.
>>>>>>..
President Clinton caught telling another whopper at Rosa Parks' funeral.

Posted on 11/03/2005 10:43:59 AM PST
by Bavarian Leprechaun
Free Republic

(too short to excerpt)
President Clinton, while addressing the attendees at Rosa Parks' funeral yesterday, told of a time when he was 9 years old and learned of Rosa Parks' infamous denial to sit on the back of the bus.

He stated that he was so moved by that, that he went and sat in the back of his school bus with the black children. (This was apparently supposed to be a show of alliance on his part).

But what is also apparent - is that it's not true!

In an article on Sep. 24, 1997 in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Link), it was noted that when he was 11 years old at the time of the famous integration of Little Rock's Central High School, President Clinton had attended SEGREGATED schools.

How could a child who attended segregated schools have ever been on a SCHOOL bus with black children?
Last edited {1}
Let me be clear:

I give credit to Bill Clinton for his ability to communicate with African Americans. Many folks "test White folks" by how comfortable they feel around Blacks.

His recent comments with regard to his knowledge of the segregated bus system that had him to sit in a different place than his black friends was a nice touch.

(Unfortunately he has a bit too many "I recall my Black friend when I was a kid stories" and seems to pull out yet another one to fit the occasion.

Symbolism is important. I thought that the open dialogue on race that he sponsored was a good thing. It did not accomplish many tangeable results though.

The KEY POINT IS - that there is a SET OF ACTIONS that reside between the Mea culpa that we as a people expect to hear from White folks during these type of sessions AND the all out RIOTS that are likely to be seen when we run out of hope.

That EFFECTIVE middle point is one of MAXIMUM SELF CONTAINMENT OF YOUR OWN DESTINY. Have all of your ducks in a row internally, maximizing the use of your time and having a CULTURE that promotes this among the people. In reworking outselves to this state we will move forward. We can address the demand for reparations but NOT GETTING THEM will not derail these preexisting efforts.

Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, others are NEVER going to give Black people what we need to be MADE WHOLE. They will only give us enough to prevent a riot. The "White Conservative" is not likely to be handing out ANYTHING unless there is a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TRANSACTION.

Rather than ONLY jump on the Lib's bandwagon believing that WHEN THEY WIN BLACK FOLKS WIN as you yeild your PERMANENT INTERESTS all the while - we need to have more INDEPENDENT efforts that start at a local level so that they are less prone to changes in policies at the national level OR politicans that receive the vote but don't come through after he is elected.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, others are NEVER going to give Black people what we need to be MADE WHOLE. They will only give us enough to prevent a riot. The "White Conservative" is not likely to be handing out ANYTHING unless there is a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TRANSACTION.


Constructive Feedback ...

It's when you say things like this that I find really disturbing. You say "Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, others are NEVER going to give ..." Yet then you say "The "White Conservative" is not likely to ...." and then are incredulous when, as a Black man, you are called prejudiced!!

Why wasn't the "NEVER" also attributed to the "White Conservative"?? Do you think that the White Conservative has ever "given Black people what we need to be MADE WHOLE"?? Do you really think that they ever will??

To that you say maybe they will if "... there is a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TRANSACTION." Nobody gets anything in a "mutually beneficial transaction." Eek I mean, what is that supposed to mean, really? Confused

You get offended when you are called a Conservative and you say you want to be considered an Independent ... yet, you lean so far towards the Right and mirror and mimic everything that the "White Conservative" says that your bias towards Conservativism makes it impossible not to see where your loyalties really lie.

You need to be truer to yourself and your beliefs. Know and say what you are and be proud of it. I think you'd get a lot less opposition if you were to do so. I can say that the Dems nor the Republicans are about shyt! You say the Dems aren't about nothing, but the Repubs could be, if given the chance.

I see why you asked who was the "we" MBM referring to. It's obvious you dissassociate with the rest of "us". And, whereas I really have no problem with that, I do have a problem with you being less than honest about saying it. At least people like Cobb and Shadow show their true colors (although it's hard to depict what that color is sometimes! Big Grin). However, with you, there's this smokescreen ... which makes it hard to take you completely seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
We affectionately embrace Bill Clinton as the "first black president"



MBM - Who is the 'WE' that you refer to?
Please.... Your indiscriminate ass should be the last one asking who "WE" is when someone else reference it.

You're pretty damn liberal with that shit yourself.

  • What we don't hear is how Black people need to change...

  • We need to look to the White man to fix us and our schools.


  • This ENFORCED UNITY that we have today as we FEAR putting the results on the table...

    And don't make me have to link up all the times you've indiscriminately generalized and false slung the term *YOU* around.


  • I can only see the people you accept as Black leaders...
  • quote:
    It's when you say things like this that I find really disturbing. You say "Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, others are NEVER going to give ..." Yet then you say "The "White Conservative" is not likely to ...." and then are incredulous when, as a Black man, you are called prejudiced!!

    Why wasn't the "NEVER" also attributed to the "White Conservative"?? Do you think that the White Conservative has ever "given Black people what we need to be MADE WHOLE"?? Do you really think that they ever will??


    Ebony:

    If THIS is all that you have against me - I am in smooth sailing.

    Let us inspect what I said:

    I said White Liberals ARE giving Black folks something - crumbs that keep us alive but not fully nourished. They don't want France's current troubles to come to America.

    I said that White Conservatives are NOT LIKELY to..... In my view THIS IS a higher hurdle than what I said about the White Liberal. Did I say that the White Conservative is CURRENTLY giving anything to Black people? If SO - then your argument would be an apples to apples one.

    I made note of the QUID PRO QUO that is necessary to engage the White Conservative. The statement "not likely" HOLDS OUT HOPE for BLACK FOLKS to build up an economic powerhouse in this country and then coming to the table with a more equal and opposite force. YOU choose to focus on the White folks part of the statement.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Please.... Your indiscriminate ass should be the last one asking who "WE" is when someone else reference it.
    [/QUOTE]

    You are a damned fool Nmaginate.

    MBM Said AFFIRMATIVELY "We, Blackfolks, Call Bill Clinton the first Black president" (failing to note that NONE OF his appointed INNER CIRCLE were Black when he was president)

    THEN you point to MY WORDS in which I was saying WE, the Black community, NEED TO.......

    If you can't see the difference in these two statements then there is little hope for you. I am sure that an adult education course could help you.

    BUT, BUT, BUT had I said "Black people" or THEY then I would be accused of being mentally outside of the Black community's interests.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

    MBM Said AFFIRMATIVELY "We, Blackfolks, Call Bill Clinton the first Black president" (failing to note that NONE OF his appointed INNER CIRCLE were Black when he was president)


    If I spoke so "affirmatively" then why did you feel the need to ask who "we" is? Beyond that, you must have missed this line:

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:

    Did he name any blacks to _key_ positions in his administration?
    quote:
    MBM Said AFFIRMATIVELY "We, Blackfolks, Call Bill Clinton the first Black president"...

    THEN you point to MY WORDS in which I was saying WE, the Black community, NEED TO.......

    If you can't see the difference in these two statements then there is little hope for you.
    There is also little hope for your LYING ASS to weasel out of yet another trap you've set for yourself by LYING about what was posted.

  • What [b]we don't hear is how Black people need to change... [/b]

  • We need to look to the White man to fix us and our schools.


  • This ENFORCED UNITY that [b]we have today as we FEAR putting the results on the table...

  • I can only see the people you accept as Black leaders...[/b]

    Hardly, merely you saying what "WE NEED TO DO". And even that doesn't save your LYING ASS! When you say what "WE" need to do you run into the same problem of that BS not being applicable to any and everyone you place in the "WE."

    So, again, with as liberally as you use that type of rhetoric... you should be the last one trying to make or rather base an issue out of it.

    In any of those cases (and especially when you "editorialized" other people's supposed mindsets... *ahem* the very thing I highlighted when you used the "WE NEED TO" language)... in any of those cases, the "WE" to whom you refer to, again, doesn't apply to everybody within The Black Community much less the person(s) to whom you directed your twisted rhetoric to.

    Again, RHETORIC MAN, you should be the last one trying to revoke someone else's rhetorical license. You use that same type of rhetoric way too much, way too liberally.

    And, no, you can't draw a distinction between what you accuse MBM of and what you do on the regular.

    quote:
    This ENFORCED UNITY that we have today as we FEAR putting the results on the table...
    This is more applicable HOW? This is more inclusive? HOW?

    Who is the "WE" you are referring to when you say "as we FEAR putting the results on the table..."
    Just because that applies to you and other cowards like you doesn't mean it applies to any more people in the Black Community than the silly Clinton = Black president reference. As far as referring to the Black Community "as a whole"... however that is objectively determined as being positive for you while not being applicable to MBM's statement, I don't know and you don't either.

    You can't show how your statements are any more applicable. PERIOD!
  • quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    We affectionately embrace Bill Clinton as the "first black president", but did even Bill do anything grand for black people?


    Wait! That's wasn't me! I've always hated that and don't know what possessed Maya A, to even say it. She would have done better to think it through before giving voice to such a twisted sentiment. He's not Black and could never be Black, simply because he's white.

    The way he left Lani Gaunier twisting in the wind was my first inkling that above all else, Bill Clinton is just a white man.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    IMO, the characterization of Bill Clinton as the first Black president has much more to do with his personality than any specific actions that benefitted Black America. He was charasmatic, cool, charming, musical, comfortable around Black people, got a little freaky deaky in the Oval Office, etc. He was exactly what one would expect a Black president to be like.


    lol

    People also tend to forget that Bill Clinton was the first sitting US president to ever tour the continent of Africa. Bill Clinton had flaws just like every president before him but the man has always been comfortable around Black people.

    On the flip side look at George Bush, for all the so-called diversity in his cabinet administration, the man is so disconnected from Black Americans he couldn't even attend the funeral of Rosa Parks.
    Negrological:

    Could you tell me how AFRICANS or AFRICAN-AMERICANS have benefited from Clinton's photo op to Africa?

    Did you see "Now" on PBS yesterday? I was TOTALLY AMAZED!! They begrudgingly gave Bush credit for committing more funds to Africa for AIDS defense. They noted that had Clinton been more agressive and committed to the fight against AIDS during his presidency the situation there would be different now.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,965311,00.html
    Is that really true?

    If it is, I doubt Bush is doing it out of the good of his heart, he's doing it to pull up his bad reputation around the rest of the free world. Clinton wasn't hated so much and thus felt no need for the publicity stunt (which is all that Bush's AIDS funding really is).


    Also, Bush has not done THAT much, HE COULD STILL DO ALOT MORE. Do you know that world disease control centers are only funded by state funding and municipal funding? Fort Deitrich and CDC are only funded by their states, not by the federal government or by the UN.

    If Bush WAS REALLY CONCERNED WITH FIGHTING THE AIDS CRISIS, he would advocate federal and UN funding of disease research centers. So far, neither him or Clinton seem to have done much. Bush's half-assed AIDS fund is just as much of a photo-op as Bush's trickling of funding for AIDS defense.

    It's sad to see how eager and deseperate you are to defend this man simply because he is a fellow Republican. Just because he belongs to your party does not mean you are obligated to make excuses for him.
    No, Empty Purnata, that's not true. Just like with all his other lip service, Bush has [b]pledged/b] a very generous amount of money to Africa, but just as with No Child, he doesn't have that much money to actually give to Africa.

    That is not to say that Africa doesn't receive money from us. At one point, I believe we were the 1st in terms of aid. I believe China has now surpassed us, if I'm not mistaken.

    CF also failed to mention that when Clinton went to Africa, he didn't have the Africans hidden from view and temporarily displaced from the island where the slave port that he visted was located. With Bush, the locals were put into a football stadium during the visit ... and many lost out on wages from souveniers that are usually sold to tourists, there.

    And if we're gonna play the woulda/coulda/shoulda game ... perhaps if Bush (or his Administration) had of been a little more diligent and attentive about the security of the country, then maybe he would have read the report that said that bin Laden was plotting an attack on the U.S. and might use airplanes as weapons, the situation here would have been different now??? Confused

    I was taught, if you're living in a glass house ... Roll Eyes
    quote:
    Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
    Negrological:

    Could you tell me how AFRICANS or AFRICAN-AMERICANS have benefited from Clinton's photo op to Africa?

    Did you see "Now" on PBS yesterday? I was TOTALLY AMAZED!! They begrudgingly gave Bush credit for committing more funds to Africa for AIDS defense. They noted that had Clinton been more agressive and committed to the fight against AIDS during his presidency the situation there would be different now.


    I can't name any situation where a nation or race of people benefited from a photo-op so I don't know your angle here. My point was to say that Clinton has always been comfortable around Black people. Are you disputing this?

    as far as PBS goes, aren't they under investigation for political/conservative bias?

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×