What African-American Clinton supporters? All seven percent of them? Give me a break. Charlie's a man without a country on this one. Why should Obama cut out people that risked their necks by supporting him for Rangel? I just can't believe he's pissed about this. The worst part of this whole affair is the sentiment among some Clinton supporters that they didn't actually lose the primary, they agreed to give to Obama and thus should be treated like co-winners.
Rangel surrogates approached Obama staffers this week about the possibility of securing him a slot at the podium, making the case that it would showcase reconciliation between the nominee and Clinton's African-American supporters.
« More thoughts on T.R.O.Y. | Main | Is it harder to write a great sonnet than a great hip-hop verse? » The arrogance of Rangel14 Aug 2008 03:30 pm
Courtesy of Dannity, Charlie Rangel thinks he's somehow entitled to a speaking role at the Convention:
Comments (31)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Issues of race aside, Rangel has always struck me as the classic machine politician. From that point of view, his approaching the Obama camp to try to horse-trade for a plum speaking time is hardly surprising. That's what machine politicians do.
Ta-Nehisi, I think you miss the point on this one. Rangel is not just the man who nudged Mrs. Clinton out of the race, but he is also the Chairman of one of the most powerful committees on the Hill. The staff of a President Obama would have to work closely with Ways and Means on a host of absoluetly vital issues.
And it is not like Charlie pulled a Stephanie Tubbs-Jones or a Sheila Jackson-Lee. He is the Dean of the New York delegation and had no choice but to support a native daughter. And even there - he had his wife endorse Mr. Obama before the NY primary.
There is something like 16 hours of speaking time to divvy up. If Charlie wants the podium, you give him the podium.
Do you think Bill Richardson would have been allowed to be as arrogant, had Obama lost somehow by the smallest of margins?
Not only would big name Obama supporters who stuck their necks out for Obama be denied speaking roles they would likely be denied any role in Democratic Leadership. You can see the difference in the quality of supporters and candidates in the way Obama has handled this thing.
Maybe we could give his wife a speaking role, since she backed Obama? More seriously, Rangel has real problems, given the New York Times's recent front page revelations about his lifestyle and his home.
The Democratic party is blessed with a bunch of rising African-American stars; I'd rather hear from them. Also, if we're talking about getting a speaker to represent the older generation of African-American Democratic Politicians, Rangel may be (much) more powerful in Congress, but as a leader, a historical figure, and an orator, Rangel doesn't hold a candle to John Lewis.
I've always had the impression that Charlie is pretty powerful within the party. He shouldn't be speaking because of the African American Hillary supporters (especially since most of them have gone to Obama in droves, and aren't harboring the bitterness of some other Hillary supporters), but he probably feels like he's influential enough within the DNC to merit a speaking role.
Arrogant! Entitled! Man, it's like Fred has been recruited to write the front-page posts.
You can't blame Rangel, he's just making the best case he can and it doesn't happen to be that great. Heck, Tim Kaine probably feels "entitled" to the VP slot now that he's publicly credited Obama for the Russian cease-fire. By that standard, Charlie Rangel asking for 10 minutes isn't a particularly big deal.
Besides, the guy is a reliable purveyor of one-liners. Let him warm up the crowd at an appropriate juncture with some red meat.
They are all testing and looking for Obama to be sufficiently subservient. The Clintons and their supporters have still not come to terms with being smacked down by someone they clearly expected to be their “boy” in return for the 04’ convention speech etc. The sense of entitlement is sickening.
Rangel didn’t jump on the bandwagon because she is a senator from NY, he did it because he is a smart political animal and she wasn’t supposed to lose. Now they have lost and don’t want to take their lumps. Sorry jack, you didn’t get on the train now get the F out of the way.
Saving us from the Clintons and their cronies and the large amount of crap he has to deal with daily from his own party is reason enough for him to get my vote.
“It’s crazy. … This man [Rangel] controls tax policy in the United States. He’s a lot bigger than just a regular member of Congress. He deserves more respect than this,”
Really? He controls tax policy? Did Bush appoint him tax czar while I was napping yesterday? Why hasn't the estate tax gone back up to 1999 levels? I mean, a czar's got to start somewhere...
Rangel is a smart guy, an experienced politican, and a talented speaker. I know he backed Clinton, but my feeling is that he would be an effective speaker at the podium and an effective friend for Obama on the Hill. OTOH, if all the spots are gone, they're gone.
OMG, I'M SO TIRED OF THE CLINTONITES...I HAVE HAD ENOUGH, ENOUGH ALREADY. HOW MANY RINGS DOES OBAMA HAVE TO KISS TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM WHAT HE EARNED, FAIR AND SQUARE. WHAT MORE DO THEY WANT "BLOOD"
Yeah, the arrogance of those Clinton supporters. It's not like Obama's going to need every last goddamn one of those votes to get elected. It's not like Obama beat Clinton by the thinnest of razor-thin margins. It's not like Bill Clinton's presidency was the only time successful Democratic governance has been on display since Roosevelt. It's not like McCain is coming after disaffected Clinton voters big-time.
No, none of thats the case so just keep pissing these people off, telling them to shut up and recognize their place at the back of the line (behind people who "stuck their necks out" for Obama) and simply assume they'll put aside all of that resentment and happily vote for Obama in November.
Truthfully, Obama will be taking one hell of a risk if he doesn't nominate HRC as his running mate, so pissing off her former supporters seems dumber than dumb. He should be past this kind of stuff already.
Rep. Rangel would also like any rent increases for said podium to be capped by statute.
Fact is, Rangel'd be a good speaker. But the fact that he's asking in public means the answer's gotta be no.
lincoln has it right, assuming Rangel's ethics problems don't cost him his chairmanship. The Don of Ways and Means gets a speaking slot if he wants a speaking slot, assuming a new President doesn't want to get his nuts cut off in his first year in office (Hat tip to Jesse).
Obama IS the nominee. I think he has comprimised enough for me. Let him try to insert himself. He earned that right.
Ya know, this remind me of a corporate merger I once went through. Prestigious-but-no-longer-profitable midwest tech firm gets bought by up sexy-upstart-silicon-valley outfit. Merging those engineering teams was full of little friction points like this. I think it's just human nature.
Reading this blog in in counter-clockwise I think Charlie Rangel would have a helluva MC voice.
It seems pretty obvious to me that this is really about Rangel being worried about being reelected. Between having supported Clinton in the primaries (and using all of his political power to punish anyone involved in government/politics in Harlem that supported Obama) and the recent revelations about his FOUR rent stabilized apartments, he might be feeling a bit worried that his constituents will not feel too warmly about him come 2010. If he got a speaking role at the convention, it would be a clear statement that Obama is behind him, which would theoretically help to drum up support.
Regardless of all that - I think it would be an awful idea to give Rangel a speaking slot, given the recent housing scandal. The last thing the Dems should do when people are worried about losing their homes is put up a guy who is breaking the spirit of the rent stabilization law by taking up four apartments. It is literally handing a story to the Republicans (fill in the blanks with "what happened to cleaing up politics and bringing change?" etc.).
lincoln:
HRC is a NY native? She represents NY now, but she is not a native(She was born in Chicago). What is Rangel gonna do? Block Obama's pet projects? Don't be silly!! If Rangel did that, he'd would be out of office come 2010. Obama has the power and he knows it.
It seems that a lot of the comments here are saying that the issue with this is Rangel's support for Hillary. As a few noted, the real issue is that Rangel is blatantly corrupt and it could be a public relations nightmare to let him speak. It's not quite as bad as if the Republicans were to let, say, Ted Stevens speak, but it's pretty bad. Rangel gets up there and the MSM starts talking corrupt Democrats, and it inevitably leads to the Rezko discussion, etc. It's irrelevant that Rangel supported Hillary (though his logic for being allowed to speak is pretty stupid).
"The worst part of this whole affair is the sentiment among some Clinton supporters that they didn't actually lose the primary, they agreed to give to Obama and thus should be treated like co-winners."
... and there are other Clinton supporters who say that Obama is the DNC candidate not the Democratic Party candidate so they will vote for McCain in November.
If you get a chance, check out the first 10 minutes of Thursday night's Hardball on MSNBC to see Will Bower of "Just Say No Deal" and Darragh Murphy of PUMA PAC. They will not be moved apparently.
Hillary Clinton made a big mistake in the early 90's by pissing off powerful Democratic chairmen during the healthcare debacle. Obama should not make that same mistake. Let Rangel speak.
"and there are other Clinton supporters who say that Obama is the DNC candidate not the Democratic Party candidate so they will vote for McCain in November"
Those are the real cult worshippers, not Obama supporters.
Rangel should definitely speak. He is one of the top leaders of the party who happens to represent a district in the home state of the candidate. It would be like Dick Durbin not being given a speaking role at the Hillary Clinton's convention had she won. It is spiteful and bad.
Rangel is the best, and deserves this. If it isn't spite, I think Obama wants to keep the number of black faces lower at his convention. Sad.
Above said: "OMG, I'M SO TIRED OF THE CLINTONITES...I HAVE HAD ENOUGH, ENOUGH ALREADY. HOW MANY RINGS DOES OBAMA HAVE TO KISS TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM WHAT HE EARNED, FAIR AND SQUARE."
-----------
You are missing the point. He doesn't have to kiss any more rings than the superdelegates who are going to vote for him and agreed to vote for him in order to get the nomination. But to win the whole thing, he is going to need to kiss a few more rings. But he should kiss a few more rings because it will help him win, and help him govern. A president who governs out of spite is not the kind of president I want.
It is a sad day when Charlie Rangel, who by the way represents a district about 40% black and 40% Puerto Rican (not just African-Americans), chair of Ways and Means (and someone who laid the groundwork for Obama) is ignored.
I'd missed the Rangel scandal du jour but have to agree with Charles in light of it--it puts the housing crisis in a dreadful light. How many rent-controlled apartments could the Rangels occupy? (Many years back when I moved to Boston I considered a rent-controlled apartment (which I would technically have qualified for in terms of income as a student); I had that option because I had a relative who knew someone, not because I had gone through any sort of application and vetting for the limited stock of such housing. So I'm rather cynical about rent control--here it seemed to do a lot to provide below market housing to the upper middle class.)
JT, no one is taking PUMA seriously except the occasional pundit looking for someone to embarrass themselves. They have a few hundred supporters out of the millions who voted in the primary.
I really have no idea what Hillary wants. NPR was trying to spin that she had moved on, but the Obama camp was absolutely insisting on a roll call vote to win over her followers; this seems rather unlikely. During the campaign it seemed she lacked people to give her the ugly truth, and it could be that's still playing out, as the passionate supporters who want the convention to be about her morph into a multitude. I think Obama will come out of the convention fine; I think the Clintons have the opportunity to deeply embarrass themselves if it seems they'll never willingly relinquish the spotlight.
I'm not a big Rangel fan, but re. the apartment brouhaha, I think a little perspective is important. Rangel moved into that building over 40 years ago -- and 40 years ago, that was not exactly prime real estate (else he'd have been paying a lot more for it from the jump). Two of the "four" apartments had already been combined when he moved in, a fact the NY Times likes to bury somewhere around paragraph five. Now that gentrification has moved above 125th Street, Rangel's sitting on some seriously coveted space, as are the other tenants who have lived there for decades, and the management company has been engaged in all kinds of dirty tricks to get them out. And while the Times has reported some of those tricks, their primary point seems to be that because the management people haven't attempted to kick Rangel out, he's made some kind of DEAL with them.
But seriously, if I were an asshole landlord with a few IQ points, I wouldn't need a "deal" to decide not to antagonize a member of Congress.
i agree that rangel is full of it, and that he should really take a hike.
obama won and the spoils go to the winners.
however, as lincoln notes, rangel was instrumental in nudging clinton out of the race, when everything came down, right after the last primaries.
his role should not be underestimated, as he made it clear that the jig was up and that it was time to stop BS'ing around. who knows how long the clinton drama would have continued if rangel had not stepped up to the plate and publically and pointedly told clinton to stop f--kin around.
for that he deserves something.
what? i don't know, but he did perform a valuable function and deserves some kind of recognition.
I think that most of the people who read this blog don't give a damn, and I realize that its ancient history, but Rangel helped to cover up the murder of NYPD PO Phil Cardillo in 1971, and that I do not forgive.
I wish Rangel were speaking, because he's freakin' hilarious. I've gone to briefings he's held for press folks a few times. One day, this guy -- I think from WaPo -- kept pestering him with pretty dumb questions about some tax issue. Finally he turned to this guy with this concerned look on his face and said (in that NYC accent), "Are you the child who was left behind?"
heh
I think there's something to be said for being in a delicate spot for Rangel. He really didn't have much of a choice other than to support the Senator from New York, at least until Obama became a viable candidate, to say nothing of being the front runner. In any event it's not like he was a particularly visible, passionate surrogate for Clinton, and he was one of the first, and most important, people to take her to task for not conceding at the conclusion of the primary. If there was ever any serious thought to taking the fight to Denver, you could very credibly give Rangel the credit for killing that possibility.
And if nothing else, he's chairman of Ways & Means, which I do think should entitle him to some mid afternoon speaking slot on one of the days of the convention. I'd more or less say any powerful convention chair should have at least a small amount of speaking time if they want it. Afterall, it's the Democratic National Convention, and these are pretty clearly leaders of the party. And Obama definitely doesn't need to be tweaking the chairs of important Congressional committees that are going to be critical to moving his agenda.
I join those thanking Rangel in performing a valuable public service by responding to "Now I need to talk with my supporters about what comes next--there are so many options, and no time to think over them in the last 7 months" with "You concede graciously and rally behind Obama--really. By tomorrow, or the rest of us do it on your behalf." But I'm not sure that rates prime time.
Early afternoon slots for any committee chairs interested would be fine, though.
Rangel being worried about being reelected. Between having supported Clinton in the primaries (and using all of his political power to punish anyone involved in government/politics in Harlem that supported Obama) and the recent revelations about his FOUR rent stabilized apartments, he might be feeling a bit worried that his constituents will not feel too warmly about him come 2010.
Uh, no. I live in his district, and Rangel not being reelected is unlikely along the lines of the sun rising in the west. His constitutents are very happy with him. (And the rent-controlled apartment 'scandal' is nonsense. Rent regulations constrain the behavior of landlords, not tenants -- while it's perfectly plausible that the apartments he rents could have legitimately been decontrolled by the landlord and weren't, there's no way for Rangel to violate the rent regulations because they don't apply to him, they apply to his landlord. If you want to get picky, there is an appearance of impropriety because the landlord seems to be charging Rangel below market rent without being legally required to, but it's pretty small potatoes for a scandal.)
I think Rangel's smart as anyone about actually getting things done in Congress, and given his position of power it behooves Obama to get and keep Rangel behind him (which shouldn't be particularly difficult, Rangel's a reasonable guy.)