The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Anyone Had

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Appointed Assistant US Attorney for Civil Rights during the Clinton Administration,  

Deval Patrick
  is the first Black Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, winning another State House for Democrats that had been held by Republicans.  Diversity works for Democrats.


 A Diary Review

With under 3% Black participation,  some "progressive" Democratic blogs may  not be entirely convinced of the value of diversity among their participants, but the Clintons have been practicing diversity successfully for over three decades.  

With Blacks making up 20% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, diversity is a crucial part of the winning electoral strategy and governing philosophy of the diverse Clinton team. This diary contends that the Clintons' proven competence at involving minorities and winning loyal Black and Latino support is a requisite skill that they have demonstrated when contesting and winning the Presidency.

For the full diary with foto exposition, names and historical contributions of more minorities and women who served with the Clintons, visit the Francis L. Holland Blog, www.francislholland.blogspot.com.

Tags: 2008, blacks, Democrats, jews, Latinos, racism, sexism, Women (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

so what?

Well, it's great that Bill Clinton appointed more African-Americans than other presidents. That's a rather low bar to hurdle. But if appointments are important, should Republicans get the black vote because George W. Bush appointed the two highest ranking African-Americans ever to serve in government?

Also, what makes you think that other candidates won't have a diverse administration if they win the presidency?

by clarkent 2007-02-18 10:02AM | 0 recs
Yes, Republicans should get credit

Yes, of course Bush should certainly get credit for appointing a few Black and Latino and women Republican officials without discriminating on the basis of skin color and gender.  The Black and Latino people and women he appointed have proven themselves emminently capable of performing to the same unconscionably abysmal standards for which  the Republicans are generally known.  Justice is not achieved until everyone has an equal opportunity to be abysmal, regardless of the party in which they serve.

You said "if appointments are important . . ."?  Is there any doubt in your mind that appointments are important?  Why should I break my arse to get people out to vote for a candidate unless I feel absolutely sure that people from my demographic group will have a chance to serve in an elected Government based on our excellent past achievements, even without white skin?  

I know for a fact that Clinton's Government hired and promoted minorities like Deval Patrick and Bill Richardson.  Those hiring choices made our Party stronger and our country better.

Where is the evidence that John Edwards, for example, would do the same?  Can you offer me any  evidence that John Edwards would show similar vision?

Since Edwards is a candidate for office, the burden of production is on him to show that he would do as well as the Clintons have done in the past in this respect.  

If Edwards wanted to help the poor and downtrodden when he opened his Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, why didn't he go and offer his help to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which has been doing excellent work for decades in this area? http://www.jointcenter.org/ It's important to support the work of poor people in lifting themselves up, instead of trying to supplant that work.  These are questions to which I don't have any answers yet.

I know that Hillary Clinton's campaign manager is a Mexican-American woman and I expect this will make her team more solicitous and competent at understanding and reaching out to Latinos nationwide.  Have you seen any evidence, based on hiring patterns, that the same will be true of the other candidates?  That is still something they have to show, as far as I am concerned.

"We need to ask Americans to be willing to be patriotic about something beyond war." -John Edwards

I concur.  Let's be patriotic about equal opportunity in everything that we do.

by francislholland 2007-02-18 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, Republicans should get credit

So, under your logic, since Bush appointed Minorities to important positions, while the Clintons generally stuck to the low level "token" jobs, you should vote for Crown Prince Jebbie as opposed to Queen Hillary in your royalist crusade.

Have fun with that.

by ElitistJohn 2007-02-18 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, Republicans should get credit

I didn't know that Secretaries of Commerce, Agricuture, Transportation, and HUD were "token" positions.

Clinton appointed minorities to all of these positions.  And I don't consider them "token" positions.

by v2aggie2 2007-02-18 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, Republicans should get credit

Second tier cabinet posts, and stereotypes for Minorities. Can't appoint the "real" first tier gigs like State or NSA (which Bush did), Treasury, etc...

Again, under his logic he should be just thrilled with the Bush Dynasty far more than with the Clinton Dynasty.

Personally, I prefer my candidates non-royal, but that's just silly old me.

by ElitistJohn 2007-02-18 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, Republicans should get credit

Who says that NSA or Treasury are better?

I agree -- hiring minorities aren't a criteria for the quality of a presidency.

Still, Clinton set the trend.
Would Bush have been so inclined otherwise?

by v2aggie2 2007-02-18 03:26PM | 0 recs
you don't get it

None of the candidates have been president yet (Hillary included), so who knows how many minorities they will appoint to serve in their administration. And as far as John Edwards goes, something tells me that a candidate who has this guy as his treasurer will be sure to appoint a diverse Cabinet.

by clarkent 2007-02-18 01:34PM | 0 recs
Four Words

Clarence Thomas George Bush

by TarHeel 2007-02-18 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: you don't get it
Infoplease.com

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760626.h tml

In July, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court, to replace Thurgood Marshall. In Oct., 1991, when approval was all but assured, the Senate Judiciary Committee reopened confirmation hearings to examine charges by Anita Hill, a Univ. of Oklahoma law professor, that Thomas had subjected her to sexual harassment while she was an EEOC employee in the 1980s. Testimony and debate on the charges, followed by a nationwide television audience and revealing deep divisions among the public, did not in the end change the committee's recommendation for approval, and Thomas was confirmed by a full Senate vote of 52 to 48. Taking his seat, he aligned himself with Antonin Scalia, forming the Court's most conservative grouping.


Come to think of it, this alone makes George W. Bush the worst enemy of black people in American history.
When Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas in the late '70s and early '80s, his policies were largely driven by popular consensus. (Apparently by necessity.)
by blues 2007-02-18 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: you don't get it

Damn! It was 'H. W.' Bush, not 'W' Bush who nominated him. The plot thickens!

by blues 2007-02-18 06:40PM | 0 recs
Hiring patterns

"Have you seen any evidence, based on hiring patterns, that the same will be true of the other candidates?  That is still something they have to show, as far as I am concerned."

-Interesting; I have made the assumption that Obama would be hiring without regard to race, but I'll have to admit that I have no real evidence for or against that assumption.

by Zimbel 2007-02-19 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any
and now they are demanding payment in full.
They don't see the black community as doing them a favor by voting for them.  No.  they expect to be paid back by the community.
All hail the queen and her imperial demands.
by vwcat 2007-02-18 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

"they expect to be paid back by the community"

___

What do you mean?
Any proof that this is their philosophy?

by v2aggie2 2007-02-18 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

Seriously, you are almost repeating the same hollow statement often parroted by Republicans:  The Democrats are taking AA votes for granted when in reality they don't deserve them.  AAs just vote Dems because they want to continue the lazy and comfortable patterns of welfare dependency.  

Not that you stated the exact same fallacy, but you are using similar elements of argumentation.  

by georgep 2007-02-18 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

Frankly, Francis, I liked your exposition on this subject the other day and I respect it as a personal theme for your support, and loyalty, to Hillary.  But I don't see how you have confidence that this is going to translate in to more of the same in the event she gets elected.

So far, I must say, I have seen ample evidence that Hillary is running on a different ideological frame than Bill Clinton did, more centrist, more hawkish and more didactic about the power of the executive, which she is seeking to promote in the same way Bush/Cheney have.

This worries me and seems to undermine the apparently blind confidence among her supporters that they are electing the Clintons again.  I just don't see it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-18 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

I disagree.  I have seen lots of evidence that HRC is in fact more progressive than Bill Clinton.  She was the driving force behind many progressive initiatives he adopted as his own, both as governor of Arkansas and as President.  Her voting record is probably the most progressive of the "big 3" candidates.   I don't think you should really call differences of opinion with your view "blind support."   I, and I imagine many others, have studied all candidate's votes and positions and don't see it your way.  I believe I have lots of evidence to support my point of view.  I realize that it is not a "popular" view to some, but I could really care less.  I believe it to be the truth, and there is really only one of those (to me, of course.)  

by georgep 2007-02-18 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

Forgive me if I have offended you, George, but I did choose my words around the blind confidence phrase as relating to the Clintons theme, that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill, so to speak.  After all you were the one who introduced me to the co-presidency concept recently.

As for Hillary's progressive accomplishments in the Senate, it is hard to judge with any clarity given that she has laboured in a minority party in a legislature which has not been very 'progressive' but I agree there is no argument on her voting record.

It is the things she is saying in the campaign, particularly this strong executive theme she adopted recently in respect to her reluctance to recant her AUMF vote which concern me.  And of course her vote for the AUMF in 2002 itself.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-18 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

Voting records mean little out of context.

by jallen 2007-02-18 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

She made very clear then and has continued to do so that her vote was tied in and made in the belief that it would allow the UN more leeway to get inspectors back into Iraq to diffuse the situation.  That turned out to be correct.  The inspectors returned, but it made no difference to Bush, including the Blix comments.  He reneged on all of his promises that the UN would be given leeway, that war was only to be used as a very last resort, that diplomatic means were to be given time to work.   In hindsigth it is easy to say "Why would they trust Bush's words," but that seems pretty simple-minded.  What precedent was there to make a war assumption?  Cheney appeared specifically dovish after the Gulf War, defending time and time again the decision NOT to go after Hussein at that point.  All the things that make sense today even more:  "We would be creating a civil war.  We would be responsible for that country for a decade" etc.  Turns out Cheney has made a stunning reversal from his previous comments, virtually 180 degrees, in regards to our second big confrontation vis-a-vis Iraq.  Then there was the personna of Powell.  At the time he was a very well respected statesman.  His word could be considered golden.  He was part of the Clinton administration and has served well.  His word turned out to be crap, and he now claims that he himself was used and deceived at the time, but his WORD weighed heavily.  

So, an "apology" for a vote that was made under those circumstances is nothing but pandering, because, given the circumstances the reasons for the vote itself made sense.  It was seen by many as staving off a war (since it gave the UN more authority) whereas the previous authorization bill, which the GOP had crafted, gave Bush full, immediate authority without any conditions attached.   That is why the compromise was crafted and co-sponsored by Democrats (including Edwards) to place conditions on the vote to let the UN do its thing, to give diplomacy a chance.  

That agreement was reneged on, but it is strange how many here have decided to see things black or white in regards to that vote, instead of what really occured.  

Anyway, all I can do is offer my opinion.  IMO she was the driving force behind progressive elements of the BC presidency and that is how I would see a HRC presidency:  Progressive/liberal.    

by georgep 2007-02-19 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

Thanks, George, but no sale with me on the Iraq vote.  I was very alert at the time and that explanation doesn't work for me.  I can remember her vote as a stunning and unpleasant surprise as the world of common sense was imploding.  There were plenty of credible public voices opposing most of the justifications for using force against Iraq, notably Scott Ritter.  And most of Europe.  I didn't buy it, historically, currently or politically.  Don't forget the context of the Bush administration discrediting the UN all the while.

If you want to argue that Hillary is a progressive/liberal than fine, and good luck to you, but that vote was a terrible mistake and I felt abandoned by my junior senator at the time.  I thought the world was going mad and now look at the consequences.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The Clintons Appointed More Minorties Than Any

Thanks, George, but no sale with me on the Iraq vote.  I was paying close attention at the time and that explanation just doesn't work for me.  I can remember her vote as a stunning and unpleasant surprise as the world of common sense seemed to be imploding.  There were plenty of credible public voices opposing most of the justifications for using force against Iraq, notably Scott Ritter.  And most of Europe.  I didn't buy it, historically, logically or politically.  Don't forget the context of the Bush administration discrediting the UN all the while and running a unilateral aggresive foreign policy worldwide on this single issue.

If you want to argue that Hillary is a progressive/liberal than fine, and good luck to you, but that vote was a terrible mistake and I felt abandoned by my junior senator at the time.  I thought the US was way out of line and now look at the consequences.  I thought the Senate was the right place for Democrats to put a stop to that kind of thing, but they didn't.  Don't forget that almost a quarter of the Senate opposed that vote.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-19 10:20AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads