home

Rendell Makes Out Of Line Remark

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is a Hillary Clinton supporter. He apparently said this:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."

Is this true? Undoubtedly. Should Rendell have said it. Undoubtedly not. He is the Governor of Pennsylvania and a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton. He does not get to say this. It is inflammatory.

NOTE: this comment thread is closed.

Update [2008-2-12 14:39:11 by Big Tent Democrat]: The Pittsburgh columnist, Tony Norman, who reported this seems to have some sexism/Clinton problems:
Mr. Shuster deserves criticism for the ugly verb he used to describe the Clinton camp's creepy politicization of the 27-year-old former first daughter, but he doesn't deserve to be fired for it.

Tony Norman needs to be rebuked for his creepy sexism.

< Hillary Clinton On David Shuster | The Sentencing of Sergeant Patrick Lett >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rendell Makes Out Of Line Remark | 91 comments (91 topical)
    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    Why would a governor insult the people of his own state like this?

    Ed can be relied upon (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    to shoot his mouth off. It's like clockwork.

    People still love him in PA, though.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#17)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    Rendell added this:

    Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."


    Parent
    More notable to me (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    is this from the columnist:

    I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

    I am not excusing Rendell but would like to know more of the full context of the discussion that took place.  Was he asked a specific question that prompted such an answer?  

    Parent

    That is probably true (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    And more of the same. He should not have said any of it.

    Parent
    Because the people of his state (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    do not consider it an insult.

    Parent
    I won't speak for the people of (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    Pennsylvania since that is a large group of people with differing views.

    But I will say that this comment certainly does not help Hillary Clinton. You can expect another news cycle of "The Hillary Clinton campaign continues to bring out the race card" storylines.  

    Parent

    Dear God Do Clinton's Supporters Want Her To Lose (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    That statement not only crossed the line but it was remarkably stupid.  

    What troubles me (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    is that BTD is calling for Rendell to be fired.  That strikes me as an overreaction.

    LMAO (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM EST


    Parent
    If you read BTD's comment (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:50:20 PM EST
    He clearly states that Rendell's comment is true.  That doesn't mean he should have said it.  If he wants to become a political analyst he is free to resign from his seat as Governor and take a job with CNN.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    Just read what I write. It is ALL I ask before you start insulting me.

    Parent
    Question for Rendell (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mimir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    Should any candidate want their vote?

    Candidates take all the votes they can get (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    No one says why the vote on their ballot.

    Parent
    Not the point (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mimir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    To paraphrase John Edwards from a recent debate:  "If you don't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, or you don't vote for Obama because he's black, I don't want your vote."

    Does Hillary want that vote?  Does Obama?

    Parent

    Rather be right than President? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    I'm happy to have their votes as long as we don't have to compromise with that particular aspect of their beliefs.

    I know Obama feels the same way since earlier in the primary season he was actively courting anti-gay bigots although I don't think he holds any such beliefs himself.

    This is America, and any winning political coalition is likely going to include some percentage of bigots.

    People associated with the candidates, however, shouldn't be making this kind of statement.  It's dumb, divisive, pointless (since those folks are pretty unlikely to vote Dem anyway) and hurts their candidate.

    Parent

    To put it bluntly (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    John Edwards was lying. He wants their votes. Clinton wants their votes. Heck, OBAMA wants their votes.

    To believe anything else is to be foolish.

    Will you do something despicable to get their votes, as Republicans do? Of course not.  

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#58)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    Will you do something despicable to get their votes, as Republicans do? Of course not.
    Two words: Donnie McClurkin.

    Parent
    Rendel was stating a fact (none / 0) (#82)
    by felizarte on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    But why should there be such a reaction to Rendel's comment.  Why is there no comment that the majority of blacks go for Obama?  And it is freely stated that Obama has better chances in a given state because there is a majority of blacks?  No one said anything when Michelle Obama, early on, when Hillary was polling well with the blacks and she said,, "the blacks just don't get it yet?"  So now they have and you say that racism is not a factor?

    You can say that there were no blacks in Iowa yet Obama won.  But is it also possible that there was more discrimination against a woman running for the highest office of the land in a state that hardly ever elects a woman to high office?

    I think that that the playing field should be the same for both candidates.  If Obama or his supportersappeal to the AA because he is "one of them," then it should be right for Hillary to appeal to women voters also.

    But people, right or wrong, should be able to vote their minds.

    Parent

    Terrible (none / 0) (#2)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    make the ONLY reason to vote based on gender OR race.

    He certainly could have listed a better reason for his choice. Both candidates have qualities that can be listed.

    Dems are having a difficult time with bias of both gender and race. We have to vote for either one of these come Nov.

    Both champaigns need to stand up against the gender/race comments...And that right there is WHAT is lacking.


    He did not make it the ONLY reason (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    or even A reason.

    Let's not make the statement something it was not.

    Parent

    Well then (none / 0) (#28)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:56:23 PM EST
    I don't think that it is bad to make the statment...It may be an ugly truth.

    Parent
    And before someone (none / 0) (#33)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    jumps on me about it...try this...if it was gender specific.....

    You've got conservative men here, and I think there are some men who are probably not ready to vote for a women candidate.

    Looks more like stating an ugly truth.

    Parent

    Ugly truth (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    "You've got conservative men here, and I think there are some men who are probably not ready to vote for a women candidate."

    We'e heard that meme many times and it's corrolary "she only got more votes because of old women".

    Both statements are ugly truths, but they are better left unsaid.

    Parent

    I don't expect either as an "ugly truth" (none / 0) (#47)
    by magster on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    I would say a better "ugly truth" is that anyone who harbors these feelings would vote GOP in the general no matter who was running on our side.

    Parent
    "accept" not expect (none / 0) (#49)
    by magster on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST


    Parent
    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#54)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    This primary season has reinforced that racism/sexism is alive and among people of all plitical views. How else can you explain so called progressives voting in large blocs by race and sex?

    Parent
    My artificial distinction (none / 0) (#76)
    by magster on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    I think there are people who are voting for a woman, all other things being equal, or for an A-A, all other things being equal.  I don't have a problem with people saying "I never thought we'd have a female president in my lifetime, and now it's possible..." and using that to tip the balance.  It's different to me than saying don't vote for so and so because he/she is a whatever.

    Parent
    i think that was his point (none / 0) (#94)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    swann ran as a republican.  white conservatives who generally vote republican voted for rendell because swann is african american.  

    Parent
    Here's why it's a horrible statement (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    It tells people to not vote for him because his race makes him unelectable.  It empowers the racists to dictate to us who we should consider is worthy of our vote, and makes the statement a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    It's a cynical message by a governor to get people not to vote for Obama. Disgraceful.  

    Parent

    Hey Obama himself (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    has made the statement in Dec 2007

    In a rare moment, Obama responded to a question by a member of the audience as to whether, in a country that still sees race as an issue, he is electable.

    "Sure there are some people who will not vote for me because I'm black and there are some people who will vote for me because I am black," he said. "But I think most Americans are looking for a candidate who can get them affordable health care and less dependent on foreign oil."




    Parent
    I really at awe (none / 0) (#83)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    about why a person's demographic makes this acceptable to say or not. Sen Obmam canmake the statement BUT not the Gov?

    And that we have to know he supports first... and then decide.

    Had the Gov supported Sen Obama then this would not have been an issue. I have to believe that the Gov did not mean any malice in his comment.

    Parent

    I have heard people say (none / 0) (#7)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    that there are a lot of conservative men and some women who will not vote for a woman, there are religious conservatives that would not vote for a Mormon, etc. Why is this statement out of line? Bigotry is a fact in our society. Not talking about one form of it does not make sense.

    The Governor of PA (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
    and prominent supporter of HRC does not have the luxury of speaking these truths.

    Parent
    He didn't "apparently" say it. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:47:38 PM EST
    He said it.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    He apparently said it. The only report we have on this is from a newspaper columnist, not even a reporter.

    You do not know if he said it and neither do I.

    "Apparently" is the right modifier.

    Parent

    If a columnist employes quotation (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    marks, does that punctuation mean something different than if a reporter did so?

    Also, is it unusual for a participant in an editorial board interview to write separately on the content of the interview?  If so, I would expect to see a complete transcript.

    Parent

    To me it does (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Frank Rich and MoDo wrote that Gore said he invented the internet.

    He did not. Columnists are not reliable reporters.

    Parent

    I was not in the country (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    in 2000, somehow, I'm glad I missed it.

    Parent
    Refuse To Click On TPM (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    Do you or anyone else know the original source for the article on what Rendell said?

    Parent
    Pittsburgh Post Gazette (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm wonderfing if the columnist (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    openly supports Obama.  I also wonder what the jounalistic ethics are re editorial board interviews.  Unless Gov. Rendell is the type of person who consistently fails to edit himself before speaking, could he have thought the interview was solely for the purpose of lobbying the editorial board for an HRC endorsement and off the record?  

    Parent
    Interesting. (none / 0) (#79)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:42 PM EST

    How when using the race card is okay when it can be manipulated towards your opponent's detriment.

    Parent
    I Also Would Like To See A Full Transcript n/t (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Partial transcript (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    that I just did from the video of Rendell's meeting.  Unfortunately we don't have the exact questions that were asked and the video has been edited to only include a few points.  The statement that the columnist quotes is not included in the video:

    What about the states voters? (1:27)

    We are an old state, second oldest state in the union so advantage for Senator Clinton.  We have a lot of college students here that are from out of state that can register here, advantage Senator Obama.  (video edited at this point)

    I would say because we are such an old state and because this is a state that gave huge majorities to President Clinton and because probably African Americans in Philadelphia have more of a tie with the Clinton's than Id say even African Americans in New York.  I think you'll see the African American vote still go for Obama decisively.

    Clinton vs. Obama  (2:38)

    Both candidates as good as they are, are going to have tremendous liabilities coming into the fall.  Hillary because of all the stuff that is out there, and because she has in the past been a polarizing figure.  But she's certainly got negatives going into the fall.  Obama is riding high.  No negatives.  The press won't say one bad word about him because he's the transformative candidate.  You watch these cable shows and they are literally gushing about him, gushing about him.  But the day he becomes the nominee, the Republican machine lying dormant not bothering to waste any time because he might not become the nominee. The day he becomes the nominee you hear a swift boat group. (obvious editing of the video)  Both of our candidates have flaws.  John McCain probably the toughest Republican for us to beat but he also has flaws.

    I wish the paper would put up the full video, especially when one of their columnist is using one quote without providing the full context of the discussion.  I think we are are back to a point of allowing one comment that an opinion writer with obvious bias writes about as a point that TPM and others can use to manipulate the coverage of the primaries.  TPM should have waited and taken the time to investigate further before running "Hillary Backer Rendell: Some "Not Ready" For Black Candidate" on their front page.  Or perhaps Josh no longer cares about any journalistic standards and prefers to be nothing but a blog.  


    Parent

    Because he is (none / 0) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    the Governor of Pennsylvania and not some mindless pundit.

    How can either the race or gender ever be put to the side if prominent politicians keep bringing it up?

    Parent

    Ed is playing pundit, and he shouldn't (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    He pulled this BS with Al Gore in 2000, and it was a bad idea then, too.

    Parent
    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    The question is will Tweety stand up for him or grill him for this? Two conflicting urges. He loves Rendell but hates Hillary.

    Parent
    My best guess (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    is that Tweety will play it up. This constitutes "hardball" for him.

    Parent
    My guess is (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    he will ignore it.

    Parent
    I likely won't be watching. . . (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    Hardball is political analysis as Access Hollywood is to literary criticism.

    Parent
    why would he ignore (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    it it's right in line with what both he and Pat Buchanan say all the time.

    Parent
    Cui bono (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST

    Does it serve any particular candidate to circulate the belief that BHO cannot win in a majority white general election?  This seems to more or less echo what Susan Estrich had to say recently.  Frankly, I stick by my prediction that BHO will carry 40+ states if he gets the nomination.  

    DREAM ON ABDUL (none / 0) (#24)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM EST
    I am not convinced that he hasnt lost the democratic base of the party with his latest retoric about republicans...Jury is still out on that one....

    Parent
    make that rhetoric LOL (none / 0) (#25)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST


    Parent
    what is you definition (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    of the base of the democratic party?

    apparently is excludes AA, people who describe themselves and very liberal and young people.

    Parent

    Nope, it just excludes anyone (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    who became a Dem only recently and only because of Obama, if they didn't also research what the Dem platform is, what the Dem processes are.

    To vote Dem is not to be a Dem.  And a lot of them haven't even voted yet.  So they're Dems in their minds.  We'll see if they're Dems in their actions not just now but in November -- and afterward.

    Parent

    no bigotry should be spoken (none / 0) (#15)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    and I condemn it ALL, however, I wish someone would tell that to all the sexist men and women that their statements are just as wrong...by the way Bernie I have ordered The Hunting of the President but the DVD to try to get my grandkids to watch so as to try to educate them on manipulation in this country...

    Glad to hear it (none / 0) (#30)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    I just ordered it myself. I read the book and am rereading it and still find my self shocked. Hope the video is as good. I intend to give it to several of my friends to watch.

    Parent
    I know I'd hate it (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    if Obama's high-placed supporter said something about Hillary being unelectable because she's a woman and people won't vote for a woman.

    I hope HRC disavows his statement quickly.

    (I have to admit though, that I'm just as mad at Obama for distributing that flyer equating HRC with that "failure" that was the Clinton administration. Amazing that he has to attack his own party to beat her, and that his supporters think that's fine.)

    I don't understand this logic (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    They are both attacking each other.  You can say one issue is in bounds or not. But they are vying for the same position.  

    Generally speaking the people that look back fondly on the Clinton years are probably voting Hillary.  The Democrats that don't have fond memories of that time, for whatever reason, probably are siding with Obama.

    It seems unrealistic for Obama to praise the Clinton  years.  And criticizing it isn't really doing much damage, except among the truly devout Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    Vehemently disagree (none / 0) (#43)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    He's attacking her in a way that undercuts the Democratic party. He's minimizing Democratic accomplishments and assigning blame for the problems of the 90's, both within the Democratic party and in politics in general, to the Clinton administration.

    If you lived through the 90's, you know how badly he's mischaracterizing the situation.

    The ironic thing is, if Obama gets the nomination using the tactics he's using now, he'll have only himself to blame when he hits the same partisan wall that Bill Clinton hit when he was president. And the travesty will be that Obama will have walked into the very same trap that he's criticizing Bill Clinton for walking into (with the difference being that he has the Clinton example to learn from, and he doesn't seem predisposed to do so).

    Parent

    the 90's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    were pretty inhospitable to democrats.  I don't see how you can dispute that.

    Parent
    ofcourse i would (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    add to that, that it would be silly to think that was Bill's fault, though he did play a part.  Most of that was simply that the 90's were when the south finally coalesced around republicans.

    The same can be said of the good in the 90's too though.  most of the economic boom was because of forces beyond Bill's control.  He had nothing to do with $.99 gas, and he certainly didn't create the tech boom.  And those are two factors that Hillary won't be able to recreate either.

    So that is politics, you get blamed for things beyond your control and take credit for things beyond your control.


    Parent

    The reason I (none / 0) (#89)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    dislike Obama is that he's scrounging up every negative about the Clinton years - whether caused by the Clintons or not - and using it to bootstrap himself to victory.

    If this works, he'll find himself dangerously compromised in the ge. In trying to pull out the rug from under HRC, he pulls it out under himself. His tactics might work for a primary, and when directed at "Obamacrats", but in a ge, his words will come back to haunt him (courtesy of the Republicans, who I imagine are listening to his anti-Bill Clinton, anti-90's rhetoric).

    Parent

    90s (none / 0) (#55)
    by tek on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    I don't see anyone can say it was Bill Clinton's fault. And for all the Obama people who keep saying that Bill Clinton took the election away from Gore in 2000, you might want to consider that when he left office his numbers were somewhere up in 70%. Since Democrats are no more than 50% at most, that show a lot of Republicans liked Clinton. Not a bad record to run on, but Gore chose not to, Donna Brazile and the DNC advised him not to, so who lost the election for Gore?

    Parent
    This is off topic (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    So people know, I will be deleting all off topic comments from now on.

    Parent
    Democrats Are Self-Destructing (none / 0) (#44)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    From the land of Frank Rizzo . . .

    disavow BUT NO STEPPING DOWN (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycvoter on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    she can make some sort of apology but I would not support her having him step down. Sorry, he's too popular and PA is too important!!!!  

    I wouldn't worry too much about that (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    He isn't stepping down.  

    Parent
    Okey Dokey (none / 0) (#51)
    by tek on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    But Obama gets to say the Clintons are playing Okey Dokey with AAs?

    I don't approve of what he said, but I'm afraid it's pretty hard at this point for Obama and his people to claim any high ground on anything.

    um the (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    okey doke was a reference to something said by her and JE in the LV debate, about their biggest flaws, which of course weren't flaws.  Had nothing to do with African Americans.

    Parent
    NO (none / 0) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    Obama implied that the Clintons were "Oke Dokeing" the African American community. He said the same in Kansas and whenever he speaks to an AA crowd, the implication is that the Clintons never did anything for AA just used them for getting votes.

    Parent
    AACK (none / 0) (#57)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    Should we just put that alongside McClurkin's comments and just call is a wash?

    What could possibly have been going through his head at that time? 10,000 watts?

    As if Hillary didn't already have an uphill battle. Thanks man.

    or next to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    the Obama comment: My voters will not vote for her?

    Parent
    I'm not too crazy about Rendell's statement (none / 0) (#59)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    but it's not worse that Gov Doug Wilder on CNN yesterday still claiming that Bill Clinton called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale".  He also specifically left the impression that the fairy tale comment was because Obama is African American.  Looks like both sides can't get off race etc.

    And amazingly, Wolf called him on it (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    (I think it was Wolf; I was multitasking:-).

    Wilder was just awful.  Was he always like that?

    Parent

    No convention speaking slot for you, Mr. Ed. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    This is actually a slap to rural Pennsylvanians.

    And, Lynn Swann got his butt kicked because he was a Republican.  Unless Rick Santorum is also black.

    Western, rural PA really more Midwestern (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    than Eastern in its values, re studies I read recently.  For example, you have just described much of Wisconsin to a T!

    went to news story on Rendell and found Shuster (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycvoter on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    comments.  The reporter has this to say about Shuster:
    "I can't believe the ferocity with which even liberals are piling on MSNBC correspondent David Shuster for his admittedly sexist comment about Chelsea Clinton. Mr. Shuster deserves criticism for the ugly verb he used to describe the Clinton camp's creepy politicization of the 27-year-old former first daughter, but he doesn't deserve to be fired for it. That's certainly what some folks are calling for, even though he's been suspended.

    Mr. Shuster is one of the straightest shooters on MSNBC and the only non-anchor there with the guts to confront liars and dissemblers thinking they can get a free ride on lowly cable news. I've been souring on MSNBC anyway. If they get rid of Mr. Shuster, as much as I love Keith Olbermann, I won't tune in anytime soon."

    When this first happened I said that HRC supporters were lucky that Shuster used pimp because that was offensive for everyone to see.  I think characterizing her involvement as "creepy" or "unseemly" as Shuster also said is just as bad and biased.  So I'm not loving this columnist anyway.

    Was Rendell being asked his opinion of the (none / 0) (#69)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    PA primary?

    our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

    "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly.



    it would be just as accurate to state: (none / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    we have conservative males/females here, who won't vote for a woman.

    and just as self-evident. molehill, meet mountain.

    What Rendell said (none / 0) (#73)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    From the column cited:

    Many analysts see Pennsylvania as a promising state for Mrs. Clinton. According to one report, the Obama strategists are among them. Exit polls in previous states suggest that one demographic plus for the New York senator is that Pennsylvania has one of the nation's oldest populations. Older voters have been among Mrs. Clinton's most reliable supporters.

    "We're an old state, second oldest in the union, so, advantage Clinton,'' said Mr. Rendell, who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton.

    But referring to Mr. Obama's strength among younger voters he added, "We have a lot of college students who can register here -- so advantage Sen. Obama."

    "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [the 2006 GOP gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was -- well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.

    "And that [attitude] exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."

    So I guess this wasn't just an off the cuff racist remark, but still better left unsaid.

    Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    those are all states where you see lots of black people?

    playing white women and black men off stereotypes (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    Mostly, these days, I do feel like crying.  (Oops, I'm a woman, so....)  A year or so ago, I could not wait for the march to the last days of the Bush presidency and starting along a good road again with a good democrat.  Now, its the worst kind of "gotcha" internally, a political cannibalism almost.  The sexism, the racism...to be expected (it may be what Rendell was trying to say in a very unprofessional manner; sort of like the "claws" comment by Obama.)  Gwen Ifil noted the other day that, in the charged atmosphere of the first white woman presidential candidate vs the first black man presidential candidate, words matter on all sides.  They do.  I've been so saddened to hear (and read on so-called progressive blogs) the clear stuff of sexism.  I can only imagine the genuine sadness felt by black men and women when hearing and reading commentary that sounds imbued with racism.  In the midst of this (which will certainly grow worse in the general election...either with sexism or racism), how do we analyze the impact of this reality in terms of groupings and dynamics in the general election.  We need to do that in an analytical way.  That may sound horrible; but, what is the alternative?  Wishful thinking that the broad electorate will think as we do doesn't cut it.  We have an obligation as Democrats, I believe, to further progress.  To do that, we may have a personal responsibility to also look at where the votes will come from...in the general election.  Lets not fall for the old politics of division amongst ourselves.  Lets be ready for the political opposition to pick off one of our candidates at the earlier stage to set up the other for the take down in the general.  It doesn't take much analysis to realize that playing one set of prejudices off against another is the obvious way to do that.  So, who has the strongest and largest sets of real voters for the general???

    Well... (none / 0) (#78)
    by andrewwm on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    the silver lining is that it puts it out in the open and people have to deal with it, rather than letting it lay subconscious and unspoken. It puts the lie to the Republican claim that we are all equal and that no discrimination exists.

    Of course...the fact that it does exist saddens me greatly. But, given that it's there, it's better that it's out in the open.

    Parent

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#77)
    by andrewwm on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    saying it in the passive tense as kind of an 'oh well, nothing to be done about it' type phrasing just signals that this is an okay state of affairs. Replace black with woman and it would be equally offensive.

    Take the time to read this guy's (none / 0) (#81)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    full article

    He highlights Rendell's expectation of Obama's success

    He calls Chelsea campaigning "creepy politicization "

    He's offended when a cashier uses a marker to verify if his bills are counterfeit or not.

    He still likes Cyril Wecht no matter ...

    andrewwm (none / 0) (#86)
    by rosaleen on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    There it is. Let's uncover it and eliminate it.

    Lots of things said in this campaign (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    ....that are better left unsaid.  This happens on both sides as we've all pointed out above and elsewhere.

    However, some of us live in plexiglass houses and can get away with it, while with others, it seems to stick.

    My, what an interesting phenomenon.

    What are we doing? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Pete Guither on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    Sure, there are a lot of stupid, racist, and sexist remarks being made by people who shouldn't be making them.

    But it seems to me these days that there's more ink being wasted on parsing statements than on focusing on the issues of governance.  I would much rather see arguments over what specific things Clinton/Obama will do policy-wise that will correct actual institutionalized racism/sexism (like the drug war) than how they should react to a statement made by a supporter.

    Of course, the media loves this stuff -- it allows them to report trivial personality conflict, rather than having to talk about things like home financing or Afghanistan.

    How does this discussion contribute to the selection of a good progressive President?

    Rendell Makes Out Of Line Remark | 91 comments (91 topical)