Rahm Emmanuel Calls Kennedy Comments About Clinton "Out of Line"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/emanuel-to-kennedy-thats-not-nice/">Huffington Post

Mr. Emanuel called to assail Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for remarks he made when asked about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois choosing Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as his running-mate.

“I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don’t know how the hell he comes off saying that,” said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. “The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals.”

Mr. Emanuel was responding to an interview with Mr. Kennedy on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” In the interview, Mr. Kennedy said he did not think it was possible that Mr. Obama, whom Mr. Kennedy has endorsed, would pick Mrs. Clinton for his ticket should he clinch the nomination.

Let the VP Wars BEGIN!! Isn't Rahm Emmanuel DLC? Keep watching as they all get ready to push for a "Unity" ticket with Clinton as Veep. I personally think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

his commentary on Dean's strategy... well... I wouldn't trust his judgment.

and it's time for him to move to the GOP.

And should be called OUT!

HUNT: What's your view of an Obama-Clinton ticket?
KENNEDY: I don't think it's possible.
HUNT: You don't? And what type of vice president choice do you think he should make? What type of person?
KENNEDY: Well, the first is always a demand that you're going to have someone that's going to be able to assume the responsibility. I would hope that he would also give consideration to somebody that has –- is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. And I think if we had real leadership –- as we do with Barack Obama –- in the number-two spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful.

In one sentence, he's managed to say that Hillary can't assume the leadership, that she doesn't share his nobler aspirations, and that she doesn't have real leadership.

Even if you agree with these incendiary comments (I don't happen to), you can hardly argue that they aren't snide, dismissive, and extremely disparaging of Hillary Clinton's abilities.

two different questions.
Unrelated.

The second answer is a general, "what sort of qualities" question, not a "why not Hillary" question.

Of course, if someone is a Hillary supporter looking to be offended, feel free to read what they want into it. If they want to be offended because a candidate or their surrogate may make the suggestion (real or imagined) that their candidate is not qualified, that's fine. I'll just be happy to get someone who can handle a 3am phone call.

due to her not fitting the ideal VP candidate Kennedy describes in his next answer. He may have said it's not possible for other reasons, for instance, maybe Obama and Clinton do not get along.

herself said over the months about Obama.

As a matter of fact, this seems tame to the snarky/divisive remarks she has said about Obama and the people who support him.

Inadvertent dupe.

equate to a gratuitous attack?

Good grief, you can't say shit about about shit with out it being "an attack" on one candidate or the other.

find that her reception in the senate is going to be less than warm.

verbally assaulted by the Clinton's. If that's the recipe for majority leader then you are correct.

And an insult to half the Dem party. The half that voted for Ms. Clinton.

I could say alot of ugly things about the Kennedy clan right now. But I won't. Because I don't approve of attacks on other Democrats.

1. given, done, bestowed, or obtained without charge or payment; free; voluntary.
2. being without apparent reason, cause, or justification: a gratuitous insult.
3. Law. given without receiving any return value.


Ted Kennedy is saying her method of campaigning was less than honorable.

He is telling Obama I've got your back.

He is telling the Clintons that you both have gone too far on this presidential process and there are repercussions that extend beyond that process.


I'd refer to the SNL skit. I'd also one up the comment about the veep stakes, governor of New York and the Majority Leader of the Senate.

Don't you need to be able to get more than hard working people, I mean white people, to govern a state (isn't NYC more of a melting pot than West Virginia), govern the country, or run Senators (who have dueling constituencies). I'd reference a Clinton supporter, Charlie Rangel's words, 'It was the dumbest thing she could have said.' She didn't apologize for the remark or the inference.

There are men and nonwhite people in this country whom would like to be acknowledged and represented in the upper echelons of power in Washington.

There's a reason why inadvertantly telling the truth is called a gaffe. Kennedy's comments were blunt, but accurate. However it was an impolitic accuracy that he shared with the public. The one thing a politician can not afford to do, as the job title implies, is be impolitic.

Until we can get some real campaign finance reform, all our candidates will be funded by corporate and lobbyists money.

Well, Ted Kennedy was never really known for his Chivalry.. . .

Teddy was spot on. Rahm needs to settle down.