Obama Messin' With Charlie Rangel

This is from Politico so who knows how true it is (messin' is a euphemism for the eff word here), but if it is, then the Obama camp is showing some real stupid now:

The Obama campaign is denying House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel a speaking role at this month’s Democratic National Convention — a move those close to the powerhouse Harlem congressman view as a spiteful snub.

As the Rangel confidant states:

“It’s crazy. … This man [Rangel] controls tax policy in the United States [Rangel is Chairman of Ways and Means]. He’s a lot bigger than just a regular member of Congress. He deserves more respect than this,” said a Rangel confidant. “Basically they have told us they can’t help us, that there are too many Obama supporters ahead of Charlie on the line.”

Crazy is right. Full disclosure - Charlie Rangel is one of my favorite pols of all time. I'm a bit of a cultist when it comes to Charlie Rangel.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Can We Cross Off Richardson, Biden and Bayh from Veepstakes? | Context: U.S. Strikes Missile Deal With Poland >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have always like Charlie too (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    I think men like Charlie have done more for democracy by insisting we, Americans, take a long good look at ourselves.  
    I also loved Al and Jesse because they made people uncomfortable.  For me, that discomfort made many rethink things they are so eager to believe.  
    Thinking outside one's comfort zone is what really causes REAL CHANGE, not the so called inspiring or cheerleading speeches of orators.

    It seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Amiss on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    that if you are not in-step with Obama the Annointed one, then you are shut-out and he has no use for you in this "new" Democratic Party. Where is the democracy in that?

    (Heh, if you belong to this cult you get to think for yourself!)

    I couldn't agree more:

    Thinking outside one's comfort zone is what really causes REAL CHANGE, not the so called inspiring or cheerleading speeches of orators.

    Well said, Jjc!


    Thanks (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM EST
    Here's the thing for me: I don't hate or even dislike Senator Obama (though I truly do not believe he is the best choice).   But I believe that Senator Obama allows many voters (especially some of the white liberals) to stay inside their comfort zone internally, while outwardly bragging about how open minded they are.  
    Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangel make  (some) white liberals uncomfortable.  Senator Obama "fits."  Less I be called racist, let me explain.

    I came from a poor immigrant family. My mother was born in Sicily and English was not her first language.  At 14 or so she was pulled out of school to work in a factory.  She and her siblings lost their parents early on and were raised by an abusive, brother-in-law who believed education was a waste of time.  My mother was an intrinsically intelligent woman.   But her language was not grammatically correct.  It was basically "of the street", i.e. of her neighborhood.  Her sisters were the same.  My cousin, who was really into being accepted in the white anglo saxon circles, was always correcting her mother's language, gestures, dress.  I was younger and watched as my cousin told my Aunt what utensils to use, how to dress, and corrected her grammar in front of us.  It just bugged me.  I wondered why she would do that.  As the years went on, I saw my Aunt lose self confidence and sense of self.  Even my own mother was effected.  When my mother visited at my college, her normal vivacious, funny, warm persona disappeared. DUH. It took me a while to understand.  My mother had learned to be uncomfortable with who she was.  

    I saw that with Jesse and Charlie and Al.  Some folks are uncomfortable not only with their challenge to the status quo but with HOW they challenged: their speech, their look, their inability to blend.  NOW let me clear, I do not believe Senator Obama has changed who he is to run for office.  I simply think who he is fits more with what some want those "different than them" (whether it be race or gender) to be: the same.   I still find it odd that comparing Senator Obama to Jesse was perceived as an insult but comparing him to JFK got an almost spiritual sigh.  Same thing with women. (Some) liberals would be much more comfortable with a Selibius than with Hillary Clinton.  One comes off, in my view, as the classic, midwestern, unassuming, soft spoken woman.  The other is the classic "ambitious," assertive, comfortable with her own successes woman.

    It's just my pov but I see it.


    Very good points (none / 0) (#182)
    by splashy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:51:35 AM EST
    And may partially explain why he has so much trouble with working people. He comes off as upper class, which makes them uncomfortable. Seems phony, as all upper class behavior does to those that want to know the plain truth in no uncertain terms, without all those rules of behavior that are there pretty much just to advertise the people are upper class.

    In the experience of working people, when people don't spell things out - when they just hint at things without any details - they are trying to screw someone.

    Well, actually they often are. That's how con people work, they baffle people with bull crap. They talk a blue streak without really saying anything.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    If Rangel's not getting a speaking role, maybe he's the VP candidate! :-)

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    Thanks for the chuckle.

    BTD, What a great sight that would be (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by cpa1 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:15:33 PM EST
    Charlie Rangel in the oval office, but as the president not as a FOO (Friend of Obama).  It appears that Obama only wants Kool-Aid drinkers around him.  That's not a good sign.

    Burning bridges (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    instead of building them ain't smart. Particularly when you may be forced to work with these folks down the line. President Obama might need to work with Ways and Means if he manages to achieve the WH. Antagonizing the guy who heads it,( particularly when said guy gave you a hand in convincing Clinton to clear the way for you ) doesn't strike me as particularly bright.

    Although I Doubt (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by The Maven on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:20:02 PM EST
    that this would have played a significant part in the decision here, recall that Rep. Rangel has come under a fair bit of criticism the past few weeks for having four rent-stabilized apartments in a prominent Harlem building, receiving favorable treatment from the landlord, a major real estate developer.  Perhaps the spectre of anything at all having to do with ethically questionable issues in real estate possibly causing the media to mention the name Rezko was one of the factors in their decision not to feature Rangel, however.

    Nobody cares (5.00 / 15) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
    And nobody will remember whether Charlie Rangel spoke or not at the Convention. . .  except Charlie Rangel.

    And next January, Charlie Rangel will be Ways and Means Chairman. And he'll remember this snub.

    It is crazy. just crazy.


    It really is. I couldn't believe it ... (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:38:01 AM EST
    Crazy! Crazy! Crazy!

    Whatch u talkin 'bout Willis?!? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Exeter on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:36:56 PM EST
    If memory serves, it worked out quite well to snub Dem leaders in Congress for the Clinton and Carter administration!

    True (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cpa1 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:02:58 PM EST
    but Obama came from Congress and he was supported by leading congressional Democrats, Senators though.

    I disagree with BTD, a snub of beloved Charlie Rangel is not what Obama needs.  It will hurt him in NJ, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio (Cleveland). It will tell people like me that this guy is more of an egomaniac than I thought and I might not want him in the White House for maybe his homies will rise up after election day and be regulars in the White House.  Snubbing Rangel tells me a lot.  


    The last thing Obama needs... (4.93 / 15) (#40)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:49:49 PM EST
    ...is to suggest that anybody who has "questionable" real estate transactions should be presumed to be guilty of wrongdoing.

    Isn't that the truth! (none / 0) (#100)
    by cpa1 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:03:30 PM EST
    I honestly don't remember this (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    but I can tell ya, if you have a rent stabilized apt or 3 in NYC, you hang on to them. My friends get first crack at mine when I leave.

    Jim Clyburn has a speaking slot (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    and not Charlie Rangel. Crizzazzy.

    Yep (5.00 / 14) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    Sort of confirms that Clyburn was an Obama man the whole time and was lying the whole time too.

    Next thing (5.00 / 17) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:25:22 PM EST
    you'll be telling me Brazile wasn't really neutral. Say it ain't so. ;)

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:26:41 PM EST
    and Clyburn's righteous indignation (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by cpa1 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    about what Obama lied about regarding Clinton in SC wasm the great deception that led jerks like Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd to attack Bill.

    I can't believe I wrote that about Frank and Maureen but what they and everyone else did was reprehensible!


    Didn't Bill Clinton say as much? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:34:29 PM EST
    So much for (5.00 / 13) (#15)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    not making the campaign about race, eh?

    This is a huge slap in the face to one of the best politicans the Dems have, regardless of background or colour. I'm sure because Rangel didn't drink the Kool-Aid, he's being punished. It doesn't make me feel any better about a likely Obama presidency. Another four years of "you're either with us, or you're against us" is just what we don't need.


    If it came down to a street fight between (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    Rangel and Clyburn....my money is on Rangel :)

    or between Rangel and Obama, (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by nulee on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
    my money would still be on Rangel.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:49:36 PM EST
    Clyburn is an arrogant southerner, Rangel is a tough New Yorker.  

    Rangel was the one who managed to bring down Adam Clayton Powell.


    Big mistake (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    Huge.  He thinks because it's Democrats, they'll just roll over for him...Sorry, Mr. Obama, Democrats only do that for Republicans. ;-).

    Oh, yes, yes, yes! (none / 0) (#181)
    by zyx on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    Obama doesn't know Democrat Leadership 101: It. Is. Like. Herding. Cats.

    And I was appalled, just appalled, that he didn't have a clue what Hanford was-and-is.


    I'd hate to see... (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    ...Obama win and have the same trouble with his own party that Jimmy Carter had. I think he needs to show a little more awareness that the party is not just the walking embodiment of himself if he wants to avoid that.

    Also (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by Jackson Hunter on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:36:16 PM EST
    to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton.  He didn't bow and scrape enough for the bigshots in Congress and they jammed him up pretty well out of pure pettiness.  If Obama thinks he is just going to waft into DC on the wings of angels and get his way, he is more delusional than I thought.  You DO NOT cross the Ways and Means Chairman if you expect to get anything you want through Congress.

    I realize this is close to a personal attack, but I really mean it as an illustrative joke, but I find it hard to believe that Sen. Obama's head doesn't droop from having such huge ears comprised of tin!  ;)



    Judgng by the results of the state polls today (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    Obama is unlikely to ever have that problem.

    Judging by the polls today. (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by delacarpa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:03:50 PM EST
    It seems lots of people are pouring their kool-aide down the sink these days. The DNC are scrathing their heads trying to figure what's happening.

    Really? (2.50 / 2) (#66)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:40:25 PM EST
    That's the best news I've heard today.

    Look at Rasmussen's latest polls (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:56:12 PM EST
    Obama's lead fell from 12 to 4 in Minnesota, and McCain took the lead in Colorado in polls from this afternoon.

    That leaves Obama with leads in the Kerry states, Iowa, and New Mexico-  264 EV.  Not enough.


    A really good AA friend of mine (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:36:34 PM EST
    who is not an Obama supporter told me why.  "He is arrogant and he doesn't acknowledge whose shoulders he is standing on."

    Well, it goes along with the threat (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:22:52 PM EST
    to others of primary challenges. And the New Yorker not being invited on his Euro Tour.

    I like Charlie also. Was a bit miffed when he started pushing Hillary to concede immediately (Hello Obama Camp?! Did you miss that?), but otherwise . . .

    I got bad news for these brand new Dems (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:25:14 PM EST
    who think Charlie never faced a primary - Adam Clayton Powell IV, who was Puerto Rican, challenged Charlie and got his ass whupped.

    These newcomers are so stupid sometimes.

    Charlie will not face any challenge in 2010.


    Couple of others may (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    Obama needs to gain some control, imo. It leaves a bad taste when going to vote. He's not setting a good example as a "leader".

    I do think it would be amusing to see someone challenge Charlie :)


    Powell was invincible until Rangel came along (none / 0) (#130)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST
    Seems to me the Obama camp (5.00 / 15) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:26:10 PM EST
    is about as smart as you are.

    Snubbing the Ways and Means Chairman (he ASKED to speak) is stupid for any President,

    Considering how little time Obama has spent (5.00 / 7) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:43:23 PM EST
    in the Senate, maybe he just doesn't know who Charlie Rangel is, or what the "ways and means" committee does.

    LOL JavaCity Pal....Good One :) (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    He really is a jaw dropping (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    surprise every day, isn't he?

    I went to YouTube this evening to see why I was impressed with him at the 2004 convention. He actually appeared humble then, his speech pattern wasn't that roller coaster preacher style, and he didn't strut.


    Pro-Life Casey could step aside (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:26:19 PM EST
    imo  :)

    Particularly if (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    Kaine(a pro lifer) is his VP pick. Unless the DNC really wants to be called out on their lip service when it comes to women's issues.

    seems like the obama campaign still (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    has fantasies of getting the right wing religeous vote. excuse me while a try and drink my coffee. i was laughing and almost choked.

    BTD, I join your cult (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:26:57 PM EST
    I absolutely adore the man.

    Although I don't trust Politico, that story was posted something like 17 hours ago, and if it weren't true, we would have heard a sputtering angry denial of it by Rangel.  Crickets.

    They just might wanna do that then (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    they need Clinton supporters. By the way, Keep on taking states for granted. It's a sure way to win (so much for that 50 state strategy thing).

    Charlie Rangel is not (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:30:53 PM EST
    somebody you "make room for."  It's pretty shameful he apparently even had to ask.

    Do you actually have the slightest idea who Charlie Rangel is?  Dismissing him as nothing more than a "Hillary surrogate" is really quite an astonishing thing to say.

    He's an old guy ta boot! (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    Talk about double whammy! Old guy Clinton supporter, tsk, tsk . . . under da bus he goes  ;)

    Hey, he's welcome under my bus! (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    A lot more fun under there with Charlie around to tell stories and chuckle.

    It's dumb on sooooo many levels (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:34:10 PM EST
    Politically this is dumb even if NY is bright blue. Camp obama really needs to learn to build bridges instead of burning them left and right.

    If the story is true, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    the denial of a speaking role to Charlie Rangel certainly appears to be racially motivated.

    What? your evidence for that? (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    The question outside of how good he is (I have hung out with the man myself- back in college when I was working on the Peter Vallone for Governor of NY, as my boss was his close god son- cool kat) is how does his speaking help the DNC tickets?  How does having him not speak hurt?

    Serious question: (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    Does Pelosi help DNC tickets more than Rangel? She has a speaking role, but she has also angered and baffled many Democrats with her seeming lack of leadership on constitutional matters and on holding the Bush Administration accountable.

    Rangel is actually working to push through a health care plan that many Dems say they want.

    At this point, who is more relevant to, and believable on, the party platform/agenda?


    Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Amiss on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:45:26 PM EST
    is a puppet tho, Obama is her puppeteer.

    She is, but I think (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:49:02 PM EST
    her puppeteer is the same as the one controlling Obama. The only way they will succeed in taking over the democratic party is if the dissenters give up, give in, hold their noses, bite their tongues, and let this sham go to completion.

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:56:36 AM EST
    Not only is Rangel "more relevant to, and believable on, the party platform/agenda", he is also more personable. He is much more of a real person. The rest of these folks are, relatively speaking, gas-bags.

    In terms of a demographics (3.50 / 2) (#61)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    It is certainly Pelosi.  One of the important things that all Black people unfortunately understand, is that you can't have too many Black people in one place at one time.  I would be a wealthy man if I had a dime for every time I have heard a well meaning white friend ask why, "why do you guys always hang out together?"  In our country there is just too much ingrained fear of blacks or minorities taking over (see- The Drudge Minorities will be the majory in 2042)

    In terms of nothing does Pelosi help (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    She is a drag on Dems in this election.

    just a big ol' reminder (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:35:01 PM EST
    of what a big disappointment a Dem majority has been.

    Nancy's demographic isn't that deep (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    and she certainly doesn't speak as well to the average Dem. She's out of touch and has a pitiful rating. Get Ol' Charlie out there and you'll have someone who's speaking to the people (lord knows we need that!) and who is also engaging. Nancy was absolutely horrible on the sexism issue. HORRIBLE. Charlie can speak to the Clinton Dems, Nancy, not so much . . .

    Sam, I read your comments with (5.00 / 12) (#70)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    interest, although I often don't agree with you.

    But on this I think you're really missing the point.  There are few people in the Democratic Party right now who are supporters of Pelosi (beyond her district) and many hold her responsible for Congress' low approval ratings.  Highlighting her at all offends most demographic groups. (in fact, in a rather equal opportunity way).

    Rangel is an extraordinarily powerful and popular legislator -- of far more stature than say, Clyburne.  If the convention/Obama campaign were trying not to agitate the 'ingrained fear of blacks or minorities taking over', they could easily sub Rangel in and take Clyburne out.

    Regardless, snubbing him is stupid.


    I agree with this, Valhalla (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:54:24 PM EST
    most Democrats don't even know who Jim Clyburn is. But they sure know who Charlie Rangel is.

    Well, Clyburn (none / 0) (#133)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:37:58 AM EST
    would like to change that!  Hence, the payback by letting him speak.  They owe him, bigtime.

    I don't really have a strong opinion about it (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST
    It was more academic then anything.  I really like Charlie Rangel (and Clyburn- though that is more for his historic role- I don't know much about his current work). Is subbing one for the other to make the Clinton supporters happy? This is a goon enough reason for me if it does make some happy.  I am very de-tached from this level of electorial politics.  I find the analysis of the convention more interesting then the event personally.  Why don't we get rid of both Clyburn and Rangel and have my man John Conyers speak.

    It isn't about (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:12:24 PM EST
    making the Clinton supporters happy.  It's about making Charlie Rangel happy.

    We weren't talking about Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:13:15 PM EST
    We were talking about how bone-headed a move it is to snub Rangel, and whether Rangel would be more of a demographic problem than Pelosi.

    But it helps if the speaker (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:39:16 PM EST
    can engage them. Charlie can. Obama needs to keep on his good side AND engage the Clinton Dems.

    clyburn,rangel, and conyers all deserve (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:54:58 PM EST
    respect. rangel however is a powerful man and only a very foolis person would diss him.

    Follow up question to my comment (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:11:06 PM EST
    Outside of the people at the convention, who are the target audiences of the convention?  What is the goal of this orchestrated event?  This matters in terms of having Pelosi speak, Rangle speak or joe bob speak.  For example if the goal is to get more Wite women who aren't that politically active to the polls, I would say having Pelosi speak is a good decision.  As she isan articulate attractive white women, that these women might more easily identifiy with.  If the goal to get the audience of TL (and other groups not as happy with Obama as other Dems) to the polls in Novemeber for Obama, having Rangel speak is a a good thing.  I don't think it matters in terms of the Black vote personally.    

    White women? Obama needs white men (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:41:25 PM EST
    Check the pollsters.  Obama has almost the usual share of white women voters.  But he's losing badly with white men, well behind Kerry and Gore.  And you know how they did.

    This demonization of white women as "the problem" is just inexplicable based on the polling.  So what is this repeated error by media really about, hmmm?


    I was not talking about (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    Obama numbers at all.  Getting any group to the polls in larger numbers for your candidate is a good thing.  I used Pelosi as a example nothing more.

    And I quote (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:42:29 AM EST
    "if the goal is to get more Wite women who aren't that politically active to the polls."

    You weren't talking about getting more white women to the polls to vote for Pelosi.


    Sam, Sam, Sam (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:51:10 PM EST
    As she isan articulate attractive white women, that these women might more easily identifiy with.

    What the women who are resisting the urge to vote the Democratic ticket are impressed by is smart, strong, ethical, and self-assured. Pelosi is an embarrassment, not a draw nor an identity for the demographic of which you speak.


    That is not totally fair (2.00 / 1) (#110)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    She has not been the best House leader for sure, but she served and does serve the Berekeley area very well.

    She is Speaker of the House (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    What she does for Berkely is of no import by comparison to how she does her job for the country. She has been an embarrassment to women of strength during the entire primary and we do not relate to her, admire her, or find her substantive enough to follow her lead.

    I really, truly enjoy your participation in the discussions, Sam. I often don't agree, but I certainly appreciate your point of view.


    I thought she was SF? (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:36:47 PM EST
    She does serve SF (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    I think so, too, (none / 0) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:46:29 PM EST
    I was just responding to Sam and not thinking about the accuracy of her district location.

    Go to the previous (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    post topic of Hillary being put into nomination and read:

    [new] Pelosi has been too busy buying delegates (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by chopper on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM PDT

    The people in her district are only a tiny fraction of the people who depend on her doing a good job.


    Pelosi serves Berkeley well ? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by andrys on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:45:09 AM EST
      Email to her SF office is refused unless I am in her district (I did grow up there and am across the bay now).

      And the official senate mail to her office bounces -
    the one used for all the superdelegate sites.

      I'm 10 minutes from Berkeley and work there, but I didn't know Pelosi had done good things there.  Let me know what.  I saw her on Larry King show, and she just seems so unnatural to me.  If she has good points, I'd like to hear them.


    jees (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:38:21 AM EST
    this is as bad as all the people claiming all Hillary's supporters were women who only voted for her because she's a woman.

    Pelosi, of all people, is not going to bring in the white woman demographic, and particularly not the over 40 demo which Obama is struggling with.  Yes, he's winning them a lot of places, but by much less than Kerry.  Esp. not with her everywhere insistence that there's no sexism these days, or that sexism if it exists is irrelevant.

    But then, I guess your comment gives some insight into how the O campaign probably IS thinking.  Heh!


    What about all the new voters and... (none / 0) (#119)
    by EL seattle on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:36:48 PM EST
    ...young voters that Obama's campaign is attracting and (I would assume would be) trying to keep?  What is there at this convention that will draw these folks, as newbies, into the family of the Democratic party?

    the Rock Star (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:02:55 AM EST
    acceptance speech, of course....  Some much needed style over substance

    tell you what, most attractive white women (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    don't like pelosi. maybe her california voters do, but beyond that she has lower poll numbers than bush. so if obama loses, you can put part of the blame on pelosi for her oh so sorry lack of leadership. she is beyond pathetic.

    'Most Attractive White Women' (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    Whoa, where do you find THAT demographic broken out in? That's one I want to read--along with what most unattractive white men like/dislike!

    Not a Pelosi fan at all. I just found that comment hilarious in this season when we're crunching so many polls around here.


    It was in reply to this: (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by tree on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    As she isan articulate attractive white women, that these women might more easily identifiy with.

    When in doubt, check "Parent" to see what someone is responding to.


    OK (none / 0) (#180)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    I wasn't seriously questioning whether that was from a poll. Just liked the idea that the detailed polling demographics were covering ALL the bases.

    I don't agree about Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:54:37 PM EST
    but I'm sure you're right on the rest of it, given that Obama's campaign has been meticulous about having the people behind him when he speaks be either overwhelmingly or entirely white.  Bugs the heck out of me, frankly.

    But on the list of speakers, it sure doesn't look to me like it's so loaded with black folks that Charlie is somehow overkill.


    OT, do me a favor :) (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    tell Vallone Jr to lay off the breed bans and humane restraint bills! And step away from PETA!  {grin}

    Charlie is a war hero (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    Fought in the Korean War.

    Nobody from WI yet. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:41:53 PM EST
    I can understand why Feingold'd make 'em nervous, Even Doyle admit's he's not much of a speaker, Kohl???, Obey's not bad. Baldwin spoke last time.

    Hm. Maybe I'm getting a call tomorrow.

    Or Tennessee :) Where is Gore? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    Gore (none / 0) (#68)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM EST
    would be better than Obama already!  Is his name going to be put in for nomination?

    gore? maybe he is under the bus w/us. (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    Now that's a speech I wouldn't miss. (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:39:38 AM EST
    He can join Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    Looks like Jesse Jackson is also going under the bus.  It appears that after his comment a few weeks ago about removing parts of Obama's anatomy may have cost him a speaking gig at the convention - this would be the first convention since 1984 where he has not spoken.

    Notice that there's no Sharpton either? (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by andrys on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:53:40 AM EST
    Sharpton supposedly gave a very rousing speech in 2004.

      But he's not speaking either.  It just reminds me of that SNL cartoon this year that showed Obama sending both of them off to various wildlands where the airplane would drop them, so long as they were out of sight for his campaign.  It also had him hiding them in another room if they were in town.
    WAY before Jackson's oddly-expressed anger at Obama's two public (video'd and seen via news video)lectures about
    fathers (he was talking to an AA group) who don't take responsibility for their children and must grow up.

      It was seen by many (including me) as a public distancing
    of himself from the stereotype of AA men, and the target seemed to be blue-collar whites who could then see he was clearly different and 'responsible'...

      Since Jackson has always spoken to the convention since his first run in 1984 (his second one was in 1988 and he won 11 states during one of those), it's ironic that he will be missing in action during this particular 'historic' convention.


    sometimes sharpton leaves me shaking (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    my head but the man is an excellent speaker and very often makes good sense. he certainly added some humor in the rather boring primaries and debates four years ago.

    Messin' with the wrong person (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:45:51 PM EST
    BTD, I think you are right - if Obama manages to win, starting next January, Rangel is going to make him PAAAAAYYYYYYY - Pelosi and her minions be dammed.

    Rangel is not small like Obama (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:50:13 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter scheduled? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:49:23 PM EST

    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    I give you extra points for making me laugh on a hot, sweaty, headachy evening.

    Character (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:49:24 PM EST
    How Obama treats his "enemies" tells me who he is.  I don't want such a man to be president.  We've seen Bush being petty with those who crossed him.  No thanks, I'll take McCain.

    Speaking about Rangel.. (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by rjarnold on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:50:28 PM EST
    last year he proposed a tax plan that I think would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Much of it is common-sense stuff like increasing taxes on the top 1%, getting rid of the AMT, and decreasing corporate tax rates while closing loopholes. Hopefully Obama will start showing him some respect so they can work together.

    This former surrogate (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST
    is about the most powerful person in the House of Reps after the Speaker of the House.  Anything Obama wants to do with federal taxes will have to start with Charlie.  This has little to nothing to do with Obama hate.  But if Obama wants to cut off his nose to spite his face, this is as good a place to start as any.  

    Rangel's views do not necessarily (5.00 / 18) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:05:14 PM EST
    follow Obama's. Rangel has plans of his own.

    This needless, intentional petty snub is absolutely idiotic. And yet you defend it.

    Rangel will fight for what he believes in of course. It MAY NOT be what Obama believes in, or do you think Rangel plans to be a rubber stamp?

    YOU may want Congress to be a rubber stamp but I do not. Rangel will push Obama to the progressive view and will negotiate a bit harder now. We are all human.

    I have to wonder at what you think is being proven by this? A measly speaking spot is being denied to the Ways and Means Chair and you think that is a smart move.

    Stop drinking the kool aid.

    To me, this would be akin to Clinton, if she had been the nominee, snubbing Pelosi.

    And unlike you, I would have blasted Clinton for such a stupidity.

    Get your head out of the cult for a moment and see if you can see my point.


    On the upside - and I am not really (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:17:41 PM EST
    kidding here - alienating Rangel will probably have the positive effect of Rangel pushing his more liberal/progressive policies despite Obama's objections.  If Obama is elected and chooses to dis members of Congress with as much experience as Rangel, it is not likely at all that these people will defer to him as they have to Bush.  

    There is no Democrat that other Democrats consider sacred - they'll do back flips to protect undeserving Republicans - but have no problem throwing other Dems under the bus.  If Obama were wise, he'd look at both Clinton's and Carter's troubles with their Democratic Congresses and take heed.  

    Charlie Rangel isn't a spiteful man as far as I can tell.  He is focused and pretty committed to his principles.  The way you forge a compromise with him is to embrace him.  Alienating him will likely only free him up to do his own thing and at the end of the day - his power and influence as Chairman of Ways and Means does in fact eclipse that of the President's in a lot of important areas.

    Maybe the next Presidential term will be about Congress and not the White House.  Maybe that's what Teddy Kennedy had in mind when he backed Obama.  It will be interesting to see how it plays out if indeed Obama does win this election.


    This makes sense to me (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:44:31 PM EST
    alienating Rangel will probably have the positive effect of Rangel pushing his more liberal/progressive policies despite Obama's objections

    Let's not forget, the Health Care Subcommittee is part of Ways & Means...


    Maybe the next term will be about Congress (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    is exactly how I have been comforting myself and focusing my time and money, such as it is.

    I have a low comfort/trust level with either of the candidates.  I think our only hope is to get better, stronger people in Congress -- more Dem strength in the Senate and more guts to toss out Pelosi in the House.

    We'll see.


    You so clearly have no idea (5.00 / 13) (#88)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:24:13 PM EST
    Maybe this would be a good time to just stop embarrassing yourself?

    In terms of real politics, Rangel may have more (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    actual power than Pelosi does, since he actually wields his to go to bat for Democratic Party programs and values (the old Party anyway), while Nancy just sends a lot of very, very stern letters.  You may well have the authority to something, but that doesn't mean, in real terms, that you have the power to do it.

    the lieutenant governor has more (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:03:29 AM EST
    power in texas than the governor. bush let the democratic lg in texas run things, then he took the credit.

    Nobody is reaching here. (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:26:25 PM EST
    If you understand how the House of Representatives works - and a lot of people actually don't - you understand that denying a request made by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is a pretty dumb political move.  Jesus himself would come under scrutiny for making this sort of gaffe.

    Ways and Means does calendaring (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:54:05 PM EST
    as I recall.

    Calendaring is all.  If you can't even get your bill out of committee, you're cooked.


    Nope. That's Rules. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:41:04 AM EST
    What RonK said (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    You simply have no idea what Rangel and Ways and Means means.

    This has nothing to do with Clinton for me.

    But the kool aid is strong with you.


    Do you know what you are talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:55:26 PM EST
    To you Charlie Rangel is just another "old guy."  How old are you?

    hmmmmmmmm, please go back (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    and do your homework. thanks

    No, it's Obama (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST
    who has a low view of Rangel's priorities and he proves it with this stupid snub.

    Barry's arrogance and ignorance know no bounds.


    On the street, disrespect can get you shot. (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    In Congress, it gets played out a little differently ... but the general idea is the same.

    And in high school (2.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    it can make you uncomfortable.

    I don't think the "on the street" analogy is the most appropriate.


    What happened to that 50 state strategy? (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    Rangel is from a state that Obama will never have to visit in order to win.

    Ah....New politics....

    Snubbing Charlie Rangel is tacky but not at all surprising. Camp Obama operates pretty much the way the Bush's organization does. Loyalty is rewarded. Disloyalty is punished. There is no bigger picture.

    New York's already got a speaker. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    2 actually.

    Which is fine (none / 0) (#139)
    by kempis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:48:11 AM EST
    ...but according to the above comment, unnecessary since NY is given. :)

    so? ny has a number of very good (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    politicans. if they happen to be the more important like rangel, then put them where they belong in a speaker's slot.

    Dumber than dumb (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:02:45 PM EST
    But more than that, a passive-aggressive (with emphasis on the aggressive) move that may cost Barry something in the real-life world of being president.

    The most powerful domestic policy committees are W&M, Budget, and Appropriations.

    Methinks Barry needs a tutorial in how things actually work in D.C...

    yup and start with holding comittee (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM EST
    meetings of your major committee.

    Modo had a good line (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:48:18 AM EST
    the other day...she opined that Obama "stopped by the Senate to ask for directions to the White House!"

    Good line...and not far from fact.


    So (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    this is how Obama unifies the party?

    Inexperience (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM EST
    Obama doesn't know that Rangel, the Chairman of te House Ways and Means Committee where all tax legislation must originate.

    Um, hello! (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    Isn't Pelosi from California?  Is that a state in danger of going red?  'Cuz if so, Obama has way more problems than Charlie Rangel.

    When I heard they nixed Rangel (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    and made room for Clyburn, I could only shake my head at the tone deafness.  But, one thing we've seen over and over: Obama doesn't give a flying fig who he insults or disrespects, and he's happy to reward those who sank to some of the lowest levels in political campaigning so that he could be standing where he is now.

    I can't tell you how thrilled I am that Jim Clyburn is being rewarded for his despicable actions.

    Yeah, the "New" Democratic party is sure lookin' good, isn't it?

    It's not just Rangel who matters (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    The W&M subcommittees are some of the most important subcommmittees in Congress.

    Obama may want to familiarize himself with them.

    But Obama is on Ways and Means (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    isn't he?  On House committees, too?  After all, he padded his resume by claiming to serve -- and even run -- Senate committees on which he never served.

    So Obama can just claim to be on Ways and Means in the House, too.  And then there is no need for Rangel.  Problem solved, New Dem-style.  Next?


    You think he's ever attended a meeting? (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    He doesn't even manage his own committee.

    it depends on the tv cameras don't (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    you think?

    Charlie Rangel (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by delacarpa on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    Obama is such a unity kind of guy. Charlie has always been his own person. Wonder if this is left over sour grapes of Obama not getting one vote out of Charlie's district. He is a powerful guy and will flip Obama on the head one day.

    I would rather have Rangel minding the store (5.00 / 13) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    than being in the tank for Obama.  I don't want Social Security messed with. I trust Rangel more than Obama on that.

    Rangel was quite vocal during impeachment (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    He's powerful and goes to bat for Democrats.  He's not someone you want to annoy.

    He is a smart, straight-forward, (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:22:41 PM EST
    and tough-minded pragmatist.  A rare bird in DC these days.

    Charlie Rangle (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:00:20 AM EST
    is a fighting Dem from way back...an Army vet and one tough customer.  He never ran from a political fight in his life and will take Obama to the woodshed if the opportunity arises.

    Bet Jesse Jr. didn't threaten Charlie with a primary if he didn't switch to Obama!

    Charlie is a down-home Clinton Dem...my kinda guy.  In a class war, my money is on Charlie and the Clintons...long-term, of course.

    Short-term...pass the crackers and caviar.


    you don't want to snub (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:29:14 PM EST
    Rangel when the delegate count between you and your nearest competitor is looking to be possibly less than 60 (if FL and MI get fully counted as Obama claims he wants).

    Rangel is V-E-R-Y respected by SDs and, with Polls like the ones that came out today and a lot of SDs probably realizing that queasy, oh-so-sick feeling in their stomachs when they think of November ain't going away like they hoped it would, Obama shouldn't really be playing with fire like that.

    It's political ineptitude of the highest order to unnecessarily make enemies like Charlie Rangel.

    Just sayin'.

    Obama's Schtik is Judgment (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    I guess we all know that good judgment begins and ends with one statement against the Iraq attack.

    It is astonishing how many really poor decisions this man makes. I sure do hope the SDs are forced to place their votes at this convention.

    Hoo Boy... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Idunn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    I knew Obama was arrogant, but this move just goes beyond the pale.

    Maybe, just Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    Obama knows he isn't up to the job, and losing will easily be blamed on everyone but himself, so he's trying to lose.

    Beyond dumb. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:03:09 AM EST

    Little disses... (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:44:25 AM EST
    Rangel is not the only symptom of Obama's inability to understand what "unity" entails...

    okay here's the tuesday night schedule...

    Notice anything strange?  Like the fact that Hillary Clinton is not among the speakers listed in the intro?

    And that of all the speakers listed, hers is the only one that isn't in "bold" type in the description that follows -- and that her inclusion in the list is practically an afterthought?  

    And where are the African American women?  Some of the strongest voices in the Democratic Party have been black women, yet unless you're related to Barack Obama, if you're black and a woman you have no role.   If the party really wants unity, black women like Sheila Jackson-Lee and/or Maxine Waters who support Hillary Clinton should be heard.

    And where are the African American women? (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:31:56 AM EST
    Yeah, I asked that yesterday.  Also, I don't see and speakers from the progressive caucus, no prominent gay speakers, etc.  

    in all actuality (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:54:14 AM EST
    it's beginning to feel more like a Republican Convention than a Democratic Convention.

    and yet curiously, EJ Dionne still calls it (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:25:46 AM EST
    Hillary Night, in yesterday's WaPo column discussing the recently revealed Clinton campaign memos:

    Obama has already given the Clinton forces a night for Hillary and part of a night for Bill.

    This column was reprinted in today's Mpls. Star Tribune with this headline:

    The poison from Clinton's campaign is not yet neutralized

    Ah yes! Poison - the woman's weapon of choice.


    Dionne's article (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:59:55 AM EST
    This quote from the article says everything to me

    "Consider Obama's shrewd announcement yesterday of Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor and current U.S. Senate candidate, as the convention keynote speaker. This not only gives a central role to a moderate Democrat from a swing state, but it also points to a future that transcends the Clinton-Obama feud."

    Maybe the reason Obama is having trouble with many Clinton supporters is because we don't view his "shrewd" announcements and actions that are designed to remove the Clintons from the future dem party as the direction we want the party to move in.

    It sounds much more like a plan of attempting to ride the "unity" pony into November and then sending the poor thing to the glue factory after it has completed its work for you.


    Clinton-Obama feud? (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    it was more like the DNC/Pelosi/Reid/Michelle/Barack/Clyburn/Jesse Jackson Jr. dog-pile on Hillary whose sole transgression was having the audacity to run for President against The One and embarrass him by winning Primary after Primary illustrating, in the process, how weak a candidate Obama really was and still is.

    She's out there campaigning for him while he's "allowing" her and her husband speaking spots, the Media is still trying to tear her down and, somehow, it's a "Clinton-Obama Feud"?



    Holy Smoke (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by sj on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    Who are these people??  What a whiny, petty bunch they are.  I've never seen a more sore, graceless winner in my life.

    Maxine Waters flipped (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:02:15 AM EST
    her support from Clinton to Obama on the night of the last primaries BEFORE the polls closed.  I didn't appreciate that from her at all.  She could have waited until AFTER the primaries and switched for party unity if that's what she intended to do.

    It will be interesting to see who she votes for on round one at the convention.

    Do you suppose there will be any published lists of which delegates voted for which candidate?


    i am happy that jackson lee supported (none / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    hillary. she sticks to what she believes.

    As far as the decision on Charlie Rangel goes, it (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by BronxFem on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    seems to me Obama and his minions are rearranging chairs on the Titanic!

    good anology! and driving ahead full (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    steam too!

    Really stupid! (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM EST
    I just wanted to add I'm a longtime member of the Rangel cult. On a personal note, many eons ago when I was an entirely undistinguished reporter on an equally undistinguished publication, I called Rangel's office for a statement on some issue. I did not get a statement, I got a personal call from Rangel himself, who spoke with me for a long time and was entertaining and forceful. Amazing! Anyhow...

    Back to the issue at hand. I find myself baffled about Team Obama's handling of this kind of thing. Is it just sheer inexperience, sheer ignorance, of how Congress operates and who the important players are? Is there noone on Obama's staff who can explain these things to him? Or is the problem his arrogance and his Bush-like placing of personal loyalty above all other concerns? I've noted frequent similarities between Bush and Obama and I wonder if this is yet another.

    it seems very (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:23:31 AM EST
    similar to the Obama method at primary campaign stops to make sure there aren't too many black people behind Obama on the stage.  And, certainly no middle eastern people on the stage at all.

    It's certainly good (for Obama) that Brad Ellsworth didn't ask to speak at the convention.


    I know this is OT (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    delete if you feel the need but I have to say...

    Did Obama learn nothing from what happened to John Kerry?! (and don't tell me these weren't staged!)


    why no pics of Grandma? (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    did the family go to Hawaii to get her out from under the bus?

    Must have thrown her back under :-) (none / 0) (#164)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    Sheer Arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    The arrogance of the Obama campaign is really starting to scare me. (And judging the way the polls are tightening, I'm not alone). He has been on a holdong and fumbling course since he became the presumptive nominee.

    I want a Dem in the WH come January and at the rate him and the party are going, I'm beginning to wonder just which January it's going to happen.

    If this is an example of the unity Obama is striving for, he should crap the idea and come up with a new one quick. It's time he came back to the Democratic Party instead of trying to build a new one.

    in some ways, on domestic issues, (4.94 / 18) (#1)
    by Turkana on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    chairman of ways and means is the most powerful person in washington. if he doesn't get a clue, obama may learn the real meaning of fired up and ready to go...

    Charlie Rangel also has something (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    few other pols have.



    Yes, Charlies does....personality in (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    abundance and generally an all around good guy.  It seems, imo, that obama is starting to lose some of his AA vote.  This will not endear him to the AA masses in my estimation.

    I Agree (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by STLDeb on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    Charlie Rangel is a very personable guy.  It seems a lot of people (republican or democrat) gets along with this guy.

    He seems to prefer (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    being endeared by the RW anyway. Or dreams that he is...

    You are so right. (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    Let's have John Barrow speak!  

    Heh, BTD (none / 0) (#112)
    by Gabriele Droz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:00:51 PM EST
    I can basically guarantee to you that who we want for VP is NOT going to be in the game.

    You know, that's what it takes to win, and he's your winner.

    damned if you do, damned if you don't n/t (none / 0) (#147)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:23:36 AM EST

    naw, it just means you take that (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    arrogance and hubris is put aside for a little humility and a big degree of smarts.

    'Messin' with Charlie Rangel (none / 0) (#165)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    May just be the dumbest thing Obama has done so far and that's saying a lot.  Charlie Rangel is a powerful, strong, intelligent and humorous man and one of the best Democrats in Wash.  To not want and to not have this man speak is an insult to all of us who belong to the outdated and "old Democratic Party".  

    in these perilous times and (none / 0) (#176)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    with a sinking economy the last thing we need are small people with hubris and arroagance as their constant companions. jfk didn't have that when communicating with the kremlin during the cuban missle crisis.

    Rangel Should have been the Keynoter (none / 0) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:41:23 PM EST
    Congressman Rangel would have been a great keynoter. He has been one of the best and most forceful critics of the Bush administration.  His riveting opinion that the draft should be re-instated  shined a spotlight on the out-of-sight, out-of-mind Iraq war strategy.  Whether he was fully committed to that idea I do not know. But, I do know that his comment seemed to put the fear of the Lord into the neo-cons and others with draft-age children.  The war suddenly looked at lot different.  The juxtaposition of, at the start,  Mr. Rangel --an important and experienced, self-effacing Democrat (he often jokes that he no longer buys green bananas) with Mr. Obama,  the young Democrat of change, accepting the nomination at the conclusion, would have made a memorable convention.