Charlie Rangel supporting Hillary. no surprise to me

[bigdarryl]

I have no link but i heard this morning he has decided to back her instead of Obama or another candidate. this isn't surprising to me in fact i will make a prediction that Sharpton will back Hillary also. this is going to come down to the old democrats vs. the younger democrats with the Hillary and Obama race in my opinion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Do you mean Charlie Rangel?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Do you have a link?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

3. Well this Old Democrat is supporting Obama if Clark does not run. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

7. Hi ShortnFiery!

Have you read Clark's view on the racheting up of the ongoing PR for War against Iran that he blogged today at KOS?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478

[ShortnFiery]

9. I noted that Clark was blogging at KOS.

Yes, I look forward to reading his comments. :hi:

[tishaLA]

33. I'm in the same boat

I'm rather disappointed, I have to admit, to hear that Rep. Rangel is supporting Sen. Clinton. I wish he'd held off until we see what Gen. Clark is going to do...

[bobbie]

56. Is that an indication that Clark isn't running? Rangel supported him last time.

C'mon General! Tell us whether you're in or out, and I'm rooting for "in."

I'm tired of having the media ram Clinton and Obama down our fuckin' throats. I don't think either are viable candidates. And in fact I think that's WHY the media is propping them up only to knock them down later in the process after the good candidates are gone.

Clark and Kucinich are the good candidates. Clark needs to commit. Perhaps his loyalty to Clinton is preventing him from entering. But Clark needs to know that Clinton is too sullied by her Iraq vote to be an acceptable choice for many. She's a typical (i.e., bad) two-faced cowardly corporate-coddling pol.

Gore isn't running. Edwards is also sullied by is Iraq vote. We need you General. Do it!

I'm disgusted that Rangel is backing Clinton. I have no respect for her, or more accurately, she has not earned my respect.

[incapsulated]

57. Bobbie, there is no link confirming this "endorsement" at all

All we have is this OP stating he did without any evidence.

Wes' decision has nothing to do with any "loyalty" to Clinton, I assure you.

There is plenty of time in the next few months to announce. Now would not be a good time for anyone, given the attention to Obama and Hillary, it would get drowned out.

[bobbie]

59. Oh... Knowing the facts does have a calming effect on me in this case.

Thank you incapsulated. I thought Prez Clinton was a force behind Wes last time, and assumed...

Ok, I'll try to chill. Do you have additional insights? Do you think General Clark will run?

He's seriously the best of the pack. He'd be the best of almost any pack.

[incapsulated]

61. I believe the odds are he will

Thing about Wes is, and this sounds like pure Clarkie pap but everything I know about the man over these years confirms it, his decision will be based on what he honestly believes will be best for the country. He is extremely concerned about Iran right now. I don't know how current events or how the field looks to him will effect his choice but it will.

As for when he does make his decision public, I know it's hard to be patient with other candidates announcing now, but there really is time. He isn't going to get in at the last minute like before, heh. But we are only a two months into the very beginning of the looong primary season. It would make more sense to wait until the hysteria over the current candidates dies down a bit, then it will be news.

:)

Did you see his blog on Kos btw?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3108994

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Clark won't let Clinton Stop Him

He gives her all due respect but Clark has some serious policy differences with her on an issue that is very close to his heart; avoiding another war.

Someone posted on another thread a letter Hillary Clinton sent a constituent about Iran. In it she used this phase about Iran:

"we should engage with our enemies "


OK, that is Senator Clinton's wording. Today at kos Wes Clark did a live blogging session following his posting a Diary called:

"Is War with Iran Inevitable?"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478

Clark was asked a question by a kos blogger:

"Short question: do you consider Iran to be an enemy of the United States?"

Clark replied:

"An enemy?

I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling."


I don't know who Charlie Rangel will end up supporting, obviously he has great respect for Wes Clark, but he has always been close to the Clinton's also who are very popular in Charlie's CD. Clinton is a New York Senator who Rangel has to work with closely. It wold be a difficult choice for him either way.

[SaveElmer]

4. Well if you mean Charlie Rangel...it is a nice endorsement,...course

He is a New Yorker...which I am sure has a good bit to do with it...

Still a good guy to have on your side!!!

[sandnsea]

5. Who do the Clintons have dirt on

Who is more afraid of them than for change. That's what we'll be finding out with endorsements the next few months.

[bigdarryl]

6. good point

[FrenchieCat]

8. Do you have that link?

I'd like to read where you got your info from. Thanks!

[pampango]

13. Anyone who supports HC is a victim of extortion?

I prefer Obama to HC, but I don't consider all of her supporters to be the victims of a criminal plot. I am sure than anyone who has been in politics for a while has learned about some dirt about others and has probably accumulated some grime of their own.

[incapsulated]

36. Yeah, that seems to be the reasoning here

No one is actually supporting Hillary, they are all terrorized into submission. They don't want to wind up like Vince Foster, those Clintons will put your ass in the ground if you don't play ball.

:silly:

[oasis]

15. Congratulations, you have taken "Grasping at Straws-Anti-Hillaryism" to a new level.

:party:

[ElizabethDC]

16. I, too, thought it was impressive . . . n/t

[SaveElmer]

19. Apparently we now have a left wing sleaze machine to go along with the right wing version...

Apparently no rumor, innuendo, or right wing news source is too low to use in criticism of Hillary. It is this kind of over the top, hysterical type attack that just engenders sympathy for her...

So by all means, keep up with the sleaze!!!

[sandnsea]

20. Somebody had to say it

The Clintons play dirty. It's not a secret.

[SaveElmer]

21. No...somebody did not have to say it...

Its slimeball innuendo...for which you have provided ZERO evidence...

Another typical anti-Clinton tactic...no evidence required!!!

[sandnsea]

23. The evidence has been posted

The attacks on Dean when he was running. The attacks on him as DNC chair. The attempt to replace him with Harold Ford. Hillary's attack on Kerry in October. The attempt to move up the California primaries so she won't have to run against Edwards in Iowa. All these smear stories on Obama, including not really being 'black'. Get a clue.

[SaveElmer]

26. Oh brother...first of all that has nothing at all to do...

With "having dirt on someone"

Your contention that Hillary is behind the attacks on Obama's race is even more scurrilous than your original attack.

Provide any proof at all, that someone is supporting Hillary because they have dirt on them...and provide any evidence that Hillary is behind the attacks on Obama's race....

You ought to be ashamed of yourself...

Absolutely pathetic!!!

[sandnsea]

27. It's common sense

Anybody who has been paying attention to the Dem stories that get in the media and the ones that don't would see the Hillary thread running staight through them all. They control everything in the Dem Party. If they wanted the Feith story in the news, all one of them has to do is make a controversial statement to get it there. It's been all over the news for at least a week that they are leaning on people to not give money to Obama. I didn't make it up. How many times does this crap against the Clintons have to come out before people believe what is right in front of their face. They aren't good for the Democratic Party.

[SaveElmer]

29. Complete and utter Bullshit...

And a sterling example of the kind of pathetic desperate attack the left wing sleaze machine is engaged in...

[sandnsea]

32. lol, I'm left wing now??

One week I'm a freeper troll, the next a leftard troll. :rofl:

I have no doubt the truth will be exposed over the course of the next months.

[SaveElmer]

34. It already has been....

You are desperate for any attack you can make on the Clinton's, and so any sleazeball source will do...or for that matter no source will do...

Thanks for demonstrating my point

[ElizabethDC]

22. Do you have specific evidence of this?

because I would be interested to see it. I mean, I'm sure the Clintons play politics like any other . . . well, politician, but I wasn't aware of any particular horribleness on their part.

[incapsulated]

24. I'm sure they have compromising photos of Rangel....

Dirty Dancing! :scared:

Charlie doesn't bend over for anyone, he is his own man.

At this point I see no link to this story so I don't even know why we are talking about it. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he backed Hillary, nor would I be shocked if he didn't.

[Adelante]

28. I have SEEN Charlie Rangel

Dirty dancing :D

[incapsulated]

31. I'm sure you seduced him into doing it....

You Siren!

:P

[sandnsea]

30. Excuse me, what can they manipulate

One doesn't need to be dirty to be the victim of a smear attack by a political opponent with the media in their pocket.

[incapsulated]

35. lol

If the Clintons came after Charlie the whole fucking world would know about it, he isn't anyone's fool. Really, you don't know much about Rangel. And it wouldn't be worth it to them to "punish" him, given the popularity the man has in NY and the fallout that would ensue.

They are not evil incarnate and they aren't stupid, either. Guess what, the Clinton campaign will roll right along with or without Charlie's endorsement, they only have the Governor, Schumer and most of the State behind them already.

[sandnsea]

37. Oh please

There's a beltway Democratic machine and nobody is completely immune to it. People hitch their wagon to that machine for a variety of reasons. I swear, I'm not telling any state secrets here.

[incapsulated]

38. ah, but that isn't what you were saying at all, was it?

You said that the Clintons had "dirt" on people, hence the endorsement.

I would still argue with you but at least that would be a rational argument, instead of paranoia.

The Clintons play to win and they aren't above playing dirty, I've always said they are formidable and not to be underestimated. Neither is almost any politician this far up in the game. If you think Kerry was above a few "dirty tricks" in the primaries you are deluding yourself. Politics is dirty business. But the idea that people are endorsing Hillary because of some extortion is just silly, especially an established politician like Rangel. They are from the same State, this would be rather a non-story if he did back her. It would be a disappointment to Clarkies simply because he endorsed Wes last time and we would love for him to do so again. C'est la vie.

I still have no link to this story so it's all meaningless speculation anyway.

[sandnsea]

41. "they aren't above playing dirty"

And they play a lot dirtier than most. You summed it up pretty nicely. No paranoia involved.

[incapsulated]

44. "and neither is any politician this far up in the game"

Please don't edit my posts to make a "point".

Playing dirty can be nothing more than counter-leaflets in front of another campaigns HQ, deliberately misrepresenting an opponents position to make him look bad, etc. Taking that to extortion for endorsements is extreme and without any evidence rather slanderous.

[sandnsea]

46. But that's not what you meant

The Clintons play dirty and aren't above smearing a Democrat if they think they have to, well beyond mirespresenting a position or two. Interesting that Rangel endorsed the Clinton's preferred choice in 2004 too. Oh well. Just all my imagination I guess. lol.

[incapsulated]

48. I give up

And there still isn't any link confirming any of this, fyi.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

49. #23

As stated, the evidence about the Clinton's tactics has been posted repeatedly at DU. My post about Rangel, specifically, was obviously my opinion of Clinton tactics - not Charlie Rangel. He wouldn't have to have done anything wrong for them to try to smear him, as is evidenced by the smears they've run on others.

[incapsulated]

50. Link to confirm endorsement. n/t

[sandnsea]

51. Well I'm not the OP n/t

[Adelante]

39. You're not making sense, though

Charlie Rangel has served 17 terms in Congress already. What possible difference could it make in his life to endorse Hillary Clinton? It's his state; it's her state. Really, it's that simple.

[sandnsea]

42. 17 terms in Congress

Who knows what might be said or done with a 34 year record. As the above poster said, Clintons aren't above playing dirty. Same thing as I said. Something to keep in mind as the endorsements fall.

[Adelante]

45. Look, the Clintons are tough fighters

Nobody would deny that. But Rangel does not get pushed around. That's how he's lasted 40 years in New York City politics.

[sandnsea]

47. Consider

if he is. Consider what that actually means as to the power of the Clinton machine.

[Adelante]

53. You need a friggin vacation

It's clear you are on some kind of crusade here against the Clintons. That's more than obvious lately. It's a cause you've taken up. But unless you have something on Charlie Rangel that backs up your claim that he has (if he has) endorsed Hillary Clinton under duress, you need to drop this line. It is not fair to him.

[sandnsea]

54. It's not fair to anybody

to have the Clintons have so much power in the party and to not always use it in the best interest of the people. You bet I'm on a crusade against them. I want change.

[Telly Savalas]

67. Consider if monkeys fly out of my ass. Consider what that actually means.

Given that Clinton is by far the weakest of the "Big 3" when it comes to the issues, it's baffling why you keep posting this sort of innuendo.

[pampango]

40. Someone did say, long ago. His first name is "Rush". n/t

[sandnsea]

43. No no

I'm part of the "left wing sleaze machine". :crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

10. I googled, and didn't find anything.

shouldn't you at least give us a source or something? Not that I distrust you or anything....just last I heard, Rangel was keeping his powder dry. :shrug:

[ElizabethDC]

17. I think I heard him say recently that he hasn't made a decision yet

but I think he said that he was leaning toward supporting Hillary. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw it - it may have been a story on CNN or MSNBC or something like that.

[PresidentObama]

18. Yeah, I remember him on one of the news shows giving....

....an interview saying he was undecided. Leaning towards Hillary, but hinting at Obama too.

[PresidentObama]

11. Didn't Rangel urge Obama to run?

He was on MSNBC and CNN a few weeks ago, one of the two, talking about how he wasn't supporting anyone anytime soon but hinted at Obama and Clinton both.

I would like the OP to please provide a link or something of proof to back up the post, please. Thank you :hi:

[Adelante]

12. State loyalties are very strong

If this is even true.

[PresidentObama]

14. Very, very true.

Durbin for Obama, and before he announced he wasn't running Kennedy and Patrick for Kerry. Perhaps this is true, but I'd like a link please. Because last I heard Rangel was leaning towards Hillary, but hinting at Obama too. And again, didn't he urge Obama to run in the first place?

[Adelante]

25. I still hate to lose Charlie

But I can understand it, if it's true. What he said when asked is that he encouraged Obama to run, but Hillary was his own state's Senator, and also he mentioned Wes Clark might run. That's how I remember it.

[Adelante]

52. Where did you hear this?

Even if you have no link.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Rangel is from New York. He would be expected to support a New Yorker.

I hope people will support a candidate because they agree with his or her position on the issues, and not because of the colour of one's skin or gender.

[SaveElmer]

58. Correction...A New York Democrat...I don;t think we will see...

Rangel supporting Guiliani!

[PresidentObama]

63. Well, yeah. Duh. Thats obvious!

;)

[Hippo_Tron]

62. The only thing I find funny about this is two years ago he called Bill Clinton a redneck

Because Hillary didn't support him on the Amadou Diallo case. I guess they've mended fences since then.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Well since we have no source for the headline of the OP......

and Op author has taken a vacation, we will just have to wait prior to making pronouncements.

Considering no source and having a discussion on this as long as this has gone on is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. :shrug:

[Gloria]

65. This should dash the hopes of Clark fans who hoped Rangel would

suupport him....

[incapsulated]

66. *sigh* This is nothing but rumor

There has been zero confirmation, links, quotes or anything about this OP.