Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton booster, went where few have dared to tread — he went after Rudy Giuliani’s scandalous personal life.
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.'”
The Giuliani campaign was not amused, telling ABC News, “Comments like that are not worthy of a response.” Clinton herself wasn’t anxious to weigh in on the subject, either. Asked over the weekend if she had any comment on Rangel’s remarks, Clinton said, “I don’t.” Later, a Clinton campaign spokesperson said, “These kinds of comments have no place in the campaign.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. But Rangel’s comments come almost one month to the day after former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), another co-chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign, broached the subject, telling a New York cable channel that Giuliani’s private life may soon become a political weight for the former mayor. Pressed for details, Vilsack said, “I can’t even get into the number of marriages and the fact that his children — the relationship he has with his children — and what kind of circumstance New York was in before September the 11th and whether or not he could have even been re-elected as mayor prior to September the 11th.”
It’s hard to say if this was coordinated — I kind of doubt it — but it is a reminder that Giuliani has skated by with very little scrutiny of his “character” issues thus far.
It seems to me that the media, at least thus far, has been extraordinarily polite to Giuliani, especially under the circumstances. Reporters will occasionally note Giuliani’s multiple marriages, and/or his “messy” private life, and/or his estranged kids, but very few news outlets have acknowledged the mayor’s adulterous past.
For that matter, it’s an easy story. No one needs to go dumpster diving to learn the details; they’re all out in the open. Every reporter in the country knows about Giuliani’s scandalous personal life, but they’ve apparently all decided that there’s no reason to cover a presidential race by noting a candidate’s shameful private conduct.
To be sure, one can make a reasonable case that this is a positive development. Reporters should leave candidates’ private lives out of the campaign. Personal scandals don’t matter and don’t belong in the media’s coverage.
I just wish I knew how the media managed to come to this conclusion now, while holding the Clintons to an entirely different standard. In 1992, every major news outlet in the country insisted that Bill Clinton had “character” issues after a tabloid ran a story about an affair. This breathless interest in his personal life continued on through his presidency — and beyond.
My point isn’t that two wrongs make a right. I don’t look at this as some kind of revenge — Bill Clinton’s sex life was front-page news for a decade, so it’s time for Giuliani to face the same treatment.
I am curious, though, what’s driving the change. Infidelity involving a Dem was a legitimate area of inquiry, but infidelity involving a Republican (one who has expressed interest in a constitutional amendment to protect the “sanctity” of marriage) is beyond the pale. Republicans who went after Clinton were playing “hardball”; but two Dems who mentioned Giuliani’s troubles are engaged in the “politics of personal destruction.”
Maybe America got burned out on political sex talk. Perhaps reporters have lost interest. Maybe our whole political system has matured to the point in which a thrice-married serial adulterer can seek the families-values party’s nomination, and no one cares.
But I can’t help but find it interesting that this sudden evolution occurred in just such a way that holds Dems to a higher standard.