by Mark Silva
As The Cosby Show celebrates its 25th anniversary this coming Sunday, star Bill Cosby is posed the question:
Did the black family that he presented to the American television-viewing audience in the 1980s pave the way for President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama?
No, Cosby replies.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and the movement he led in the 1960s, had a lot more to do with the election of the first African American president, Cosby suggests.
But without the legacy of former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and "the Republican Party and what it did to people,'' Cosby adds, Obama might not have won the White House.
"Along comes this man and this woman, and he is what the people are looking for,'' Cosby says in an interview with The Root. "The people [were] trying to get out of this mess, and it didn't make a difference to them what color [Obama was], if he created a feeling of honesty and as he said, change.''
Cosby, the comedian whose Emmy Award-winning sit-com, The Cosby Show, ran for eight seasons on NBC - from 1984-92 - portrayed the fictional African American family of Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable comfortably ensconced in middle-class American life.
Cosby sat for an interview with The Root, an online magazine whose editor-in-chief, Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr., recently gained some national attention of his own in an arrest at his home in Cambridge, Mass., which Obama denounced as another instance of racial profiling in America - the president later apologizing for his choice of words in saying police had "acted stupidly,'' and invited Gates and arresting officer Sgt. James Crowley to the White House for a beer.
The Root asked Cosby if his show, displaying a "black middle class to a mainstream audience who might otherwise only have seen them as gangbangers, shift-workers or athletes,'' had paved the way for Obama. Without Cliff and Clair Huxtable, "would there have been Barack and Michelle?''
"My answer is yes, he would be,'' Cosby says in the intervew.
"Yes. Because before Cliff and Clair, there was Dr. King. ''
Cosby's talk could not be more timely, arriving at a time when former President Jimmy Carter is suggesting that the most extreme criticism of Obama is coming from people who cannot accept that a black man is president. "Jimmy Carter, True Son of the South, Hits Nail on the Head,'' reads one piece in the newest edition of The Root. The White House, for its part says criticism for Obama is not explained by the "color of his skin.''
(2007 file photo of Bill Cosby, above, by Bob Child / AP)
Cosby says the path for Obama's election was opened decades ago.
"And that movement brought down a whole lot of things that were against black people. In those participations against racism, against segregation, there were people of all colors, cultures, races, creeds, who joined, marched, took hits, gave money, were fired from jobs, were called communist and anti-American by the New York Times and the Washington Post,'' Cosby says.
" Because the government and institutions were treating black people negatively. So when these people joined together and they began to win, they also married ... integrating and marrying, so that it was Latin, brown people, black people, white, mixing. I think that this United States has come to a point--or had--where this man and his wife could do it.
"You know, I'm not sure if (Obama) didn't have a George W. and a Cheney and that Republican Party and what it did to people, he could have been elected,'' Cosby adds. "More than anything, I think people also woke up, and they were being used; they were using soldiers and holding them up as shields to keep this inept president and vice president. The nation became very, very tired of this foolishness--and they were tired of being used.
"And so along comes this man and this woman, and he is what the people are looking for,'' Cosby says. "The people [were] trying to get out of this mess, and it didn't make a difference to them what color [Obama was], if he created a feeling of honesty and as he said, change.''
The Root promises another installment of its interview with Cosby on Friday.
(The Root, as it says, " is a daily online magazine that provides thought-provoking commentary on today's news from a variety of black perspectives. The site also hosts an interactive genealogical section to trace one's ancestry through AfricanDNA.com, a DNA testing site co-founded by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who is also The Root's Editor-In-Chief. ''
Comments
The only person, Barry should of thanked was his "typical white woman"
grandmother, whom he threw under bus along with the racist, bigot Wright. Barry would be washing cars ' somewhere on south side if it wasn't for her, but his elitist arrogance won't allow her due.
Posted by: Don B. | September 17, 2009 12:15 PM
Well Mr. Cosby has been championed by the Right for his honest speaking. Is it time for them to throw him under the bus?
Posted by: Send 'em Yr Truck Nutz | September 17, 2009 12:39 PM
"Yr Truck Nutz": Nope, not time to throw Bill Cosby under the bus. But, it is a good time time to disagree with him. If Obama had campaigned on the things he has done so far, he would have lost. He won by misleading the bulk of the country. A stimulus that was mostly political payback. A cap and trade bill that the administration admits will cost up to 1% of GDP, and a health bill that is opposed by the majority of the country. That does not ever go into the hash he is making of foreign policy.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 17, 2009 1:41 PM
Rick Caird,
What are you smoking? There was never a clearer debate. The lines that seperated the two candidates and how they believed America could be moved forward was never something that was in doubt. We knew what Obama would do, what role he believed government should have to confront the crisis that was allowed to happen on Bush's watch because we are thinking, sentient beings and not FOX robots. The sky is not falling. The standard of living in America has not changed. We are still the best and will be stronger when we completely emerge from the economic meltdown.
Posted by: simply the truth | September 17, 2009 1:52 PM
Bill Cosby is right. I disagree with his support for Obama, but facts are facts. It was disgust among most Americans with George W. Bush that led many to vote for Obama. If that weren't the case, Obama certainly would have run his campaign against John McCain, rather than the straw man of W. Bush. Yet time and again, he and his supporters in the press painted the election as a choice between Obama's promised utopia and four more years of hell.
However, "simply the truth" is wrong – a great number of Americans did not really know what to expect from Obama.
Why? Because of the way he was portrayed or perceived. Many who voted for him believed they were getting a centrist – not a rigid left-wing ideologue who would seek to outdo the liberalism of Ted Kennedy.
To that end, it probably aided him greatly that his campaign spent months publicly feuding with the Clintons, a political pairing that for years had been held up (falsely) as the standard bearers of liberalism in the country, allowing him to be positioned (falsely) as some kind of centrist choice.
It also aided him that a great number of people read into his lofty rhetoric what they wished to hear. For instance, when they heard him say "there is only the United States of America," they believed he meant that he was willing to work with both sides. Instead, what they've come to know is, he actually meant, "It's my way or the highway" or, as he put it, "I won."
I know: The proof was out there for anyone who wished to see it. But many chose not to, blinded by hate for Bush. Bill Cosby is right, just as he was right when he tells young black men to take responsibility for their actions, stop celebrating thugs and fools and zip up their pants.
Posted by: JB | September 17, 2009 2:49 PM
" simply the truth": You were clearly not paying enough attention to "handle the truth". Obama ran to the left of Hillary in the primaries. He didn't move to the center, he leaped to the center. He ran as a slightly left of center moderate.
I will remind you. No one expected him to continue almost every Bush policy in Iraq and the War on Terror. No one expected him to nationalize two car companies (Chrysler will be abandoned by Fiat after it takes all the government money, and GM will not last much longer), create a pay Czar and control the major banks, pass a "not so much" stimulus bill that was mostly political payback, endorse a cap and trade the White House knew would cost at least 1% of GDP annually, show his few "common sense" changes to the health care system to be a single payer, public option while lying about the cost and what these bills actually propose, and finally proposing $11 trillion or so in deficits?
Are you really going to claim that the majority of people who voted for Obama knew they were voting for all that? I don't think so.
But, if you think they knew all that, we can go into his foreign policy disasters next.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 17, 2009 5:30 PM
Hey, Rick who was it that took over the car companies again? I was fairly sure it was some guy named Bush who started handing them billions so they wouldn't go belly up and who ordered them to restructure. I also seem to remember that same guy forcing alot of banks to take government money whether they wanted to or not. Do you know who that guy might have been? White guy, kinda funny looking, didn''t talk so good?
Posted by: A guy who actually read a newspaper | September 17, 2009 9:53 PM
I won't go into how most of our banks are bankrupt and should be seized.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 17, 2009 5:56 PM
I will remind you. No one expected him to continue almost every Bush policy in Iraq and the War on Terror. No one expected him to nationalize two car companies (Chrysler will be abandoned by Fiat after it takes all the government money, and GM will not last much longer), create a pay Czar and control the major banks"
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 17, 2009 5:30 PM
Rick, which way do you want it? One minute you attack Obama for taking over the banks, twenty minutes later you are saying that most of the banks should be seized. Make up your mind, would you?
Posted by: Ben | September 17, 2009 10:06 PM
" A guy who actually read a newspaper": Are you paying this little attention and then displaying it for all to see?. Bush LOANED money to the GM and Chrysler at the request of OBAMA because Congress refused to act. OBAMA did not loan more money, he took an ownership stake, froze out the bondholders, rewarded the UAW, and fired Wheeler. It may surrise you to learn those are totally different approaches. But, if you try really hard, you might be able to understand the difference. Unlikely, but possible. If you were actually able to read the newspaper, you didn't understand it. Too bad. Try repeating high schoold. Whoops can't do that. They have exit exams now. Nevermind.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 18, 2009 7:51 AM
Ben: fair comment, but there is a major difference between seizing the banks and taking them over. Seizing is done by the FDIC and occurs when the bank has negative equity. The FDIC shuts the bank, sells the assets (to another bank or on the open market) and pays off the depositors. Taking over the banks, as Obama has done, consists of keeping the bank open, taking an equity stake in the bank, and allowing the bank to mismark its assets so as to appear solvent.
BTW, those banks that were "too big to fail" are now even bigger. How was that allowed to happen. I will also add the FDIC insurance fund is out of money which makes FDIC reluctant to close more banks that need to be closed.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 18, 2009 7:57 AM
Rick, Obama didn't take over the banks. To the extent they were "taken over" that was done by the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has been working to extricate the Federal Government from the banks. They have allowed the banks to repay TARP funds (which Bush and Paulson refused them the right to) and have started to plan for selling the shares we now have in Citi as a result of Bush's action (which isn't making Citi very happy incidentally). If you are unhappy with the TARP, that's fine, but be honest where the fault lies, and with who actually took the actions that you are criticizing. ( I do like the "but Obama asked so it's really not Bush's fault. bit. Classic bit of spin there.) However, I know you are just looking for any stick to bash Obama, no matter whether it is justified by the facts and history or not.
Posted by: Ben | September 18, 2009 8:49 AM
Rick Caird Logic.
1) Banks should be smaller so when they fail it will be OK as they are small enough to fail.
2) Because the FDIC stated in March 09, a time when the economy and the stock market were at record lows, that it may run out of funds, this means now, some six months late when all signs point to recovery, the FDIC now has no funds. Of course there isn't factual basis to this statement but that's not the important thing. The important thing is to sound scary.
3) Obama would have lost in November because he is a steward of economic recovery, which of course NOBODY wants and he's actually focusing our military on fighting terrorism not employing them in nation building. He also hasn't raised taxes on the middle class and nobody wanted that either.
Surely the GOP gives you better talking points than you're offering here.
It might be time for you to look for another job. You're the on who is becoming disappointing.
Posted by: kg123 | September 18, 2009 8:55 AM
Ben, that is simply not true. Bush spent 1/2 of the TARP funds. The Obama administration spent the second half and all of the TALF spending. The Bush administration took preferred shares which are non voting.
I agree Paulson wanted everyone to take TARP funds so as not to single out some banks. But, Paulson also did not make any moves to control the banks and the pay scales. It was only when the Obama administration began making noises like that repayment became a necessary option. Geithner was clearly reluctant to take repayment, but in the end the government was forced to. The rationale was the government cannot force the banks to take funds and then claim the power to run the banks because they took government funds.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 18, 2009 1:48 PM
" kg123": You really don't understand this, do you. Of course I want banks to fail when they take high risk and lose. In fact, I claim when Greenspan bailed out the investors in Long Term Capital Management, he sowed the seeds for all this by setting the precedent of the Fed coming to the rescue. So, yes, I want the bank management and the investors to pay for bad investments as they would in any other industry. Too big to fail means too big period.
The FDIC has been reluctant to close banks because they can't afford to pay off the depositors. It had nothing to do with March. It has to do with the real value of the banks assets. If you didn't understand this, a banks balance sheet has loans outstanding (at market value) and capital on the asset side and deposits on the debit side. Now, since banks are typically levered at 12:1, if the value of the loans decline by 8% (or so), the asset value of the loans goes to zero. That is a big problem. So, the FDIC and Fed are allowing the banks to "mark to fantasy" rather than "mark to market". The hope is the low interest rates will widen the banks spreads allowing them to increase capital, but it is not working.
Finally, Remember that Obama inherited nothing. He not only volunteered, he worked hard to get the position. He knew exactly what he was getting into and it did not deter him. It is a bit late to complain. I have already pointed out numerous things that Obama is now supporting that he was not supporting during the campaign. If he had said he was going for single payer, a cap and trade that will cost each family in the vicinity of $3k annually, and an additional $10-11 trillion deficit, I claim he could not have gotten elected. Do you actually dispute that? Look how fast he ran away from "spread the wealth around".
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | September 18, 2009 1:50 PM
Rick, what fantasy worlsd do you live in? Your version of history bears little resemblance to the reality of what happened.
The feds were forced to take back the money against their will? Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124455528999797923.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/09/report-allow-banks-repay-tarp-money/
Paulson didn't try to control the banks? That's a laugh! Even the Republicans don't buy that crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/11/politics/politico/main5080138.shtml
There's no point in me wasting any more of my time arguing with someone who just makes up facts.
Posted by: Ben | September 18, 2009 3:18 PM
Ben,
You figured it.
"There's no point in me wasting any more of my time arguing with someone who just makes up facts."
You clearly won the exchange.
You can include Terry and JW in that mix.
Posted by: Rod Serling ♫♫ | September 20, 2009 7:57 PM