Charles Rangel: Obama Remark "Absolutely Stupid"

Well I wonder how long it would take this to make it to the forum. A couple of things, Rangle is obviously a supporter of Clinton. That's fine. Secondly I think Hillary Clinton is the one backing off her statements. I also think Rangle took Obama's criticism of Hillary and tried to project out too far. That's my opinion.

 

Of course it is.

 

Rangel is an idiot- a very small step up from al sharpton, and someone who has never hesitated to use race as a cudgel when it suited him.

 

do you actually have anything of substance to respond with, or are you just going to try and continue your personal feuds, which is more comedy from the self proclaimed eastern religioner.

 

That is all that needs to be said.

 

It's one thing to criticize Obama's comments, but that last quote, about his book, seems like Rangel is just trying to be a jerk.

 

Hussein Obama is a complete sham. Now he's pulling the race card in an attempt to paint Slick Hilly as the bad guy. Wow, I didn't think he'd stoop that low, but he did. The more people find out about him, the less they'll like him. He needs to milk the "articulate black guy"/white guilt card for all its worth.

 

please get your facts straight before commenting. tell us how he pulled the race card? do you even know the details of what happened?

 

Let's face it. It took both MLK and Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act. The Democratic Party has paid dearly for it as the South has voted in block against them every since. Not the time to self destruct within the party over this.
*****************
Kristen Breitweiser (9/11 widow and reformed Republican)

That's the Ticket! Clinton-Obama Unity after Super Tuesday

Posted January 14, 2008 | 10:32 AM (EST)


First, apologies to all the political strategists, pundits, consultants, and media personalities who will undoubtedly hurl tomatoes at this column since it threatens their lucrative empire that thrives on political drama and divisiveness.

Second, apologies to everyone else for my being so naïve and, dare I say it, hopeful.

Lately, it seems that the Democratic Party is falling back into its bad habits and foolish ways. Just walk down the streets of NYC and mention the words Hillary or Obama and you find good friends screaming at each other, family members sleeping on couches, and more divisiveness than unity. It is sad -- but apparently unavoidable. Just look at yesterday's nasty exchanges and today's New York Times headlines.

Reality: We are a nation arguably on the cusp of a third war (with Iran) and already in an economic recession (heck, even President Bush is starting to admit it). We are overdue for another domestic terrorist attack. We are disliked (if not outright hated) by much of the world. We have made little progress when it comes to global warming. Millions can't afford health care.

Given this situation, I am sick and tired of Democrats being disorganized, self-interested, and destructive to each other and to our country. It is high-time for LEADERSHIP and SACRIFICE, which should begin with our top two candidates for president.

If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton really want to be uniters and not dividers, then why don't they both do something so out-of-the-box and head turning that it would virtually guarantee the White House to the Democrats in 08? Namely: if Clinton is ahead in delegates after the 22 primaries and caucuses on February 5, Obama should stop running and join her in a national unity ticket. No divisive battles like the Reagan-Ford contest in 1976 or the Kennedy-Carter contest in 1980 -- struggles that probably doomed both Ford and Carter.

Democrats simply can't afford that in 2008, not after the disasters of Bush & Cheney.

Obviously, Obama won't withdraw now when he's still a possible presidential nominee. He wouldn't simply toss aside some 400,000 donors and millions of supporters who've been stirred by his words and promises.

But if Clinton takes a real lead on February 6, here are the benefits of a merger between these two titans.

First, it is the smartest long-term strategic move for the 46-year-old Obama. He spends eight years as VP, and then runs for President in 2016. Who could then criticize him for lacking "experience"? During Obama's eight years as VP he would be able to hone skills, gather experience, and produce good works. And if the Clinton-Obama administration is as good as I suspect it would be, it would assure Democrats 16 years of White House governance.

Second, for anyone who thinks this suggestion is an insult and/or demotion for Obama, I have two words for you: Dick Cheney. Not that Hillary would need a #2 to rely on as much as Bush did. But the state of our country right now really does call for a form of powerful, intelligent co-parenting. Truth be told, there is an awful lot of work to be done--too much work for one man or woman alone.

Of course, this arrangement would also require an amount of graciousness and sacrifice on behalf of Hillary Clinton. With Obama as her VP, she'd need to share the limelight with an eloquent, luminous star -- and she'd surrender the normal nominee's option of choosing a running mate only on the basis of politics and chemistry.

But just think about the message that this would send to the world. The two most popular and powerful Democrats would be putting aside their egos for the good of the post-Bush America, based on the theory that their whole is greater than merely the sum of their parts.

Sure it's hard to arrange such a result. But here's what's far worse: wasting tens of millions of dollars in the mutual destruction of our two best and brightest. Because the next few weeks have the potential to get ugly. The bickering. The name-calling. The fratricide. It is such a waste of time and money. And, frankly, we are better than that. Let's leave such antics to the Republicans.

Would this be viewed as an unseemly "deal," just the kind of thing that an untraditional Obama would scorn? If a similar arrangement worked for another Illinois legislator in 1846 -- when Abe Lincoln agreed to sit only one term in Congress and then defer to a rival to serve the next -- it should be okay for Obama. Surely Obama can frame it as surrendering his personal ambition for the larger good of the United States of America, to quote him.

Except for extreme partisans and crazed staff, the truth is that the differences between Obama and Hillary are insignificant compared with the risks of, in effect, handing the White House to the Bush Republicans for a third term.

Both Hillary and Barack are great people and they will both be great leaders. We deeply need their complementary styles, experience, personalities and vision to fix our ailing country.

Bottom line? Its either Clinton-Obama next month or (yikes) the risk of McCain-Giuliani next year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/thats-the-ticket-clinto_b_81367.html

 

Clinton was the one who started the whole mess. Obama has once again stayed above the fray and called her on it.

 

Rafer sucks! Put in James!

 

No one has ever infered that Chuck.

 

Ms. Breitweiser severly underestimates the element of ego involved in the decision to run for President. No one wants the #2 job.

To quote that acerbic Texan John Nance Garner, " the vice presidency wasn't worth a warm bucket of p*ss"

 

Not only that, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Assuming Obama is behind, he doesn't make sense as a VP. His whole thing is bringing people together - the role of VP doesn't give you that ability. He'd have to accept Clintononian tactics and all that because the tone of the campaign (and administration if they won) would be dictated by Clinton. It would basically sell out the whole idea of what he is.

On Clinton's side, it could make a bit more sense as a stepping stone to the Presidency, but I don't know that she wants to wait 8 years in a VP role. Besides this, from most accounts, Clinton & Obama have developed a really strong dislike of one another. I don't know that this combo could ever really work.

 

Obama would be wise to not bring race into this because that would divide voters. I think Hillary is loving every bit of this.

 

I support Obama, but am not sure exactly how Clinton started this. I think the MLK-LBJ remarks certainly should not have been grounds to start all this.

 

It is hard for me to know if Clinton and Obama have that much of a dislike for each other in real political terms. They both are politicos and seem willing to compromise to attain their goal, which is to be president. Certainly there is precedent. JFK and LBJ weren't exactly good friends.

If Clinton beats Obama in a bruising fight that alientates black voters, she could lose to McCain who has carefully honed his moderate-maverick image, though he is about 90% conservative.

Hillary is older and I doubt that she would want to be VP for 8 years. I think that if Obama wins he doesn't need Hillary, but if Hillary wins, Obama as VP would help her.

If Obama loses the nomination and counts on being president after Hillary's term or perhaps another term or two of a GOP president if Hillary loses, he could lose his moment and the future is hard to predict. Certainly being VP would keep him on the short list for future president.

 

Obama is pathetic for dragging race into this. He is trying to create an atmosphere where any criticism towards him is morally off-limits simply because he is black. Hillary tried it much earlier in the campaign, but on the basis of her gender. It's pathetic.

And don't give me the line that he didn't drag race into it -- he did -- through his staff. That's a real chickenschitt way of introducing controversial items, but is done on a daily basis. Hillary is now countering with the Rezko/Obama real estate fraud, through her backdoor site, Hillaryis44.com.

I think the thinking is that Obama wants the momentum that winning South Carolina will bring. With half of democratic voters in the state being black, he wants to play the race card to win their votes. Of course it may backfire, as in the larger Super Tuesday states, whites will decide and he may face a backlash. After winning Iowa, the media splooged all over themselves to anoint Obama the next JFK/FDR/Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha. Obama wants the second verse of that media blitz by winning South Carolina.

 

I think Dubious is right. Can't see Barak settling for VP. And it would be tough for Hillary to accept such a prominent VP -- one who many would have prefered as pres. It would certainly speak volumes for his
bringing people together' skills, however, if he could make it work . Has there ever been a front running candidate who later was made VP? One who had a legit shot at getting the nomination himself?

It's too bad the nomination race has become so divisive. Especially when the candidates are pretty close on the substance stuff. It's made reading political dialogue -- including this forum -- pretty tough to do. Makes the Kerry / Bush discussions seem intellectual by comparison.