The ultimate nuance: Clinton supporter takes strong, principled stand against … cheating husbands
posted at 10:30 am on October 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Hey, chuckles, who’d you vote for in ‘92 and ‘96?
In a cover story on Giuliani in this week’s New York Observer, Rangel went after Giuliani in unusually personal ways, expressing confidence that Giuliani’s frontrunning status will fade either because of the former mayor’s liberal positions on social issues or the operatic drama of his personal life.
“Referring to Andrew Giuliani’s reportedly distant relationship with his father since the ugly bust-up of Mr. Giuliani’s marriage with Donna Hanover,” the article says, “Mr. Rangel said it was because ’sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands.’ … Rangel said he regretted that all the personal problems surfaced so soon in the electoral process. ‘I’m sorry this damned thing turned out so early because, really, just like [embattled former Giuliani aide Bernard] Kerik, it would have bombed his ass out.’”…
Asked Saturday afternoon outside Oak Park Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa, if she had any comment on Rangel’s remarks, Clinton tersely said, “I don’t.”
Yeah, I’ll bet she doesn’t. Does the left dare try to demagogue Giuliani on his personal life with the Clenis’s wife currently leading the polls? They do tend to have epiphanies like this come election time: in 2004 we found out that only a man who’d served in the military was properly qualified to lead a nation during wartime. In 2008, though? Not so much. Maybe they’re having a similar “awakening” about privacy and infidelity now. Although I suspect that awakening will be much more profound if a Clinton isn’t topping the ticket come next fall.
It’s tempting to assume Hillary wants no part of attacks like these, but if that’s true, why was her Iowa errand boy also recently spotted talking this point up? Exit question: Is the Clinton camp actually preparing to play Hillary’s status as a wronged woman against the GOP? Feel the pain of a woman betrayed by the man she loves, America — and blame Rudy Giuliani for it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
What? Rangel engaged in sophistry? Nah, I don’t buy it. Next you’ll tell me he’ll introduce a Bill to reintrocuce the draft in a cynical attempt to sway an election and then vote against his own Bill. Like that would ever happen.
trubble on October 22, 2007 at 10:35 AM
…so little time.
eanax on October 22, 2007 at 10:38 AM
That would require some big balls, and I don’t think they got em. Of course, they could just quitely ask MoveOn or Media Matters to do it for them.
BadgerHawk on October 22, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Bingo!
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 22, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Rangel is a bitter old man; probably still pissed Rudy made Dinkins look so hopelessly inept when he actually cleaned up NYC.
JammieWearingFool on October 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM
*reads Rangel’s remarks*
lol wut?
Yeah……..if you’re a Clinton supporter, marital infidelity isn’t really the sort of topic that you should be using to mud-sling against Rudy. That old cliche about glass houses & all.
Vyce on October 22, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I remember when he had “secret information” that he could not reveal until a day before the last New York mayoral election. He had nothing of course. Rangel is from central casting as the sleeze city politican. Don’t blame him, blame the idiots who keep sending him back to congress for that last 37 years.
RobCon on October 22, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Are you freakin’ joking? Gee, if she’s “wronged”, all she needs to do is visit a battered women’s shelter and listen to a story or two – that’s all it’d take to adjust her definition.
This woman cannot possibly believe we’d buy her as a ‘victim’. As a female, this woman makes me physically ill.
flyawaybird on October 22, 2007 at 10:47 AM
So much Spin…
Weeewhheeee!!!! I’m getting dizzy.
Lawrence on October 22, 2007 at 10:48 AM
He may be bitter about that whole dinkins thing, and he has some views and says some things that absolutely shock me. It is difficult to disrespect the man himself however. I often wonder why he is a democrat.
His life is an absolute story of success and perserverence. That usually guides people to view the world in a light that everyone and anyone can succeed. But Charlie seems to think he was/is one in a million. I would like to see him talk more like Cosby…Rangel didn’t make excuses in his life, he just got it done.
Spread the word of what you did and how you did it Chuck. Inspire people instead of trying to do everything for them.
sunny on October 22, 2007 at 10:49 AM
I feel soooo sorry for Donna “Vagina Monologues” Hanover.
Wade on October 22, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Peggy Noonan had an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal: “she doesn’t have to prove she is a man, she has to prove she is a woman.”
I thought the MSM in the ’90s made it clear that lying and infidelity were actually good things that showed just how much couples love and care for each other.
saint kansas on October 22, 2007 at 10:53 AM
You angling for a PR job with him?
I could care less what his life story is. He’s an angry, bitter, nasty old hack.
JammieWearingFool on October 22, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You don’t know Hiliary or S(l)ick Willie very well, do you?
steveegg on October 22, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Just when I thought they couldn’t manage to be any more hypocritical….
drjohn on October 22, 2007 at 11:09 AM
What, no cackling laughter?
fogw on October 22, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Yes, yes I am. And perhaps just an out loud questioning of why he is the way he is. Angry and bitter, it doesn’t seem to match his life. You would think after all he has done, the result would not be what we see today. O’ well.
sunny on October 22, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Of course! All it requires is shamelessness, and the Left has that in spades.
Kensington on October 22, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Clinton still has a few months to have an awakening and get a divorce.
- The Cat
MirCat on October 22, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I doubt Clinton’s cheating even entered Rangel’s mind when he said that. The left seem to ACTUALLY forget that part of the scandal. It is dismissed.
Perhaps the only thing that matters in cheating to them is that you stay with your spouse. Then it’s ok.
Rightwingsparkle on October 22, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Why would anyone vote for a big-V Victim for President?
I mean, from an academic standpoint, someone could have been victimized and still be a good President, but that would be in spite of it, not because of it. Why would you frame your candidacy for President around people feeling sorry for you?
James on October 22, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Kind of like
Bradky on October 22, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Vitter&Craig
Bradky on October 22, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I don’t think she gets much traction with this against Rudy. Most voters are smarter than we give them credit for.
Bradky on October 22, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Hey give Charlie a break. He is so consumed with increasing your taxes how can he be expected to make rational comments on other subjects. The man is focused on his priorities.
chief on October 22, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Along with building his “Monument to Me.”
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 22, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Comment pages: