lohud.com

Sponsored by:

Rangel: NY delegation is unanimous

June
5

The New York Democratic congressional delegation is unanimously endorsing Barack Obama for president, Rep. Charles Rangel stated in a press release.

The Harlem Democrat said the endorsement is being made ahead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Saturday announcement that she is withdrawing from the race and endorsing Obama “in order to accommodate those members of Congress who will be unable to return to Washington on Saturday.’’

At a press conference held at outside the offices of the Democratic National Committee, Rangel acknowledged “me and some 200 others’’ have called Clinton since Tuesday, urging no further delay in withdrawing from the race and endorsing Obama.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm by Brian Tumulty.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! | Print This | Email This Email This

Advertisement

6 Responses to “Rangel: NY delegation is unanimous”

  1. the consultant

    the democrats are not going to win with a one term
    senator who has served for only two years..has no foreign
    policy experienc whatsoever, was an illinois state
    senator four years ago….sat in a church for 20 years
    whose leader preached hate against america, whites and jews
    and who wife apparently is on tape ranting against “whitey”
    its just not going to happen…...but Hillary could have
    won…fairly easily I might add

  2. WaltTrombone

    “the democrats are not going to win with a one term
    senator who has served for only two years..has no foreign
    policy experienc whatsoever, was an illinois state
    senator four years ago”

    Hey if the GOP could get a one-term Texas Governor elected President who had never been outside the US, let alone had any foreign policy experience, who had used cocaine in the White House, been arrested for DWI, and sat out the Vietnam War in Texas & Alabama, then I wouldn’t be so quick to write off Obama, Mike.

  3. the consultant

    Here is the difference…
    W was the son of a former president
    W was the governor of Texas
    W. was a center right not a far left candidate
    W didn’t attend a church whose reverend cursed America
    W didn’t call people of faith bitter
    W had his daddy’s foreign policy team
    W. wasn’t the first African American running…

  4. Ian

    In Response to WaltTrombone

    George W. in 2000 had more experience than Obama does now. W. was not a one-term Texas Governor. He was in the middle of his second term as governor. Compared to Obama, who was mid-way through his first term as Senator when he started running. Moreover, being governor of the second largest state, is considerably more important that being the junior senator from Illinois. And despite George W. having more experience than Obama, W was still perceived by many to be too inexperienced for the job. The reason Cheney was picked as VP was to counterbalance Bush’s perceived lack of experience.

    As to Walt’s other claims, Obama and not Bush is the one who has admitted cocaine use. And to go slightly further, Obama not only admitted to trying it but to using it on a periodic basis. I don’t think that should count against Obama, but Walt you obviously do. Unless your argument is somehow that Obama using it is okay but Republicans cannot. Serving in the national guard is perfectfully respectable. However, if you want to vote for a person based on military experience, you can’t do much better than McCain and you can’t do any worse than Obama, who did not serve at all. Although, I am guessing in this election that Democrats like Walt will revert to their standard line, which they conveniently diverged from when Kerry ran, that military experience does not matter.

    That said, this is going to be a close election and Obama has at least a 50% chance of winning. Most current polling puts Obama ahead.

  5. WaltTrombone

    Some good news for Obama- Hamas has withdrawn their endorsement. I guess they didn’t like the stuff he said at AIPAC the other day.

  6. the consultant

    In todays new york times their is an op ed by a statistician
    purely objective..Using a formula which accurate predicted the results of the 2004 campaign by analyzing polling results it is clear THAT IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY
    Clinton would get 290 electoral votes thus beating McCain
    Obama would get 252 and thereby lose to McCain…Amazing
    how the democrats could nominate the person who appears
    to be losing to the republican

Leave a Reply

About this blog
Politics on the Hudson, from The Journal News/LoHud.com, is your online source for up-to-the-minute political news, insight and dish in the Lower Hudson Valley and New York state. Contributors to the blog include reporters and editors from Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, as well as Albany and Washington.

Subscribe
Politics on the Hudson Podcast

Daily Blog Email Updates


The Authors


SMS Text Alerts
ÒWant to be the first to learn about breaking local political news? Subscribe to the new text alerts from Politics on the Hudson.Ó
Enter your phone number:
 
Advertisement
Other recent entries

Links



Recent Comments


Advertisement


Recently Updated LoHud Blogs
Monthly Archives