PA Governor Rendell "Probably Deserves a Pass" -- NOT!!
I emphatically believe that he does NOT deserve a pass.
As Rendell tries to back away from what he said to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in the video linked above, he keeps re-iterating that it’s a “small percentage” or a “very small percentage” of white voters that wouldn’t vote for Obama due to his race.
1) That’s NOT what he said yesterday – he said “some”. And he was making the point that that "some" was enough to throw the Pennsylvania primary to Clinton.
2) If it’s such a small percentage, why even mention it? There’s probably also a small percentage of Pennsylvanians who think the earth is flat, and probably 20-30% who think the earth is only 7000 years old and women came from Adam’s rib. He didn’t tie in those folks to the Clinton/Obama match-up.
No pass whatsoever from my perspective.
I am really disappointed with Erik for trying to let him off so easy. Why does Erik feel obliged to give him a pass, or not give him a pass even? Rendell hasn’t been bloodied and savaged over the remark, and he hardly deserves any sympathy in that regard, but what he said has been an issue fairly worth examining.
Whitey shouldn’t be so
quick to let whitey off the hook for exploiting race to his candidate’s
benefit.
That's what Rendell was doing. Because he is backing off now that it got more attention than he expected is no reason to slap him on the back and tell him what he did was okay.
Sheesh
Apologies to Erik Kleefeld. It was David Kurtz who posted that Rendell deserves a pass. [I can't go back and edit my blog like I could on old site.]
February 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Rendell is correct, but he speaks the obvious. I am not entirely sure WHY he chose to speak the obvious, though. I was born and raised in Harrisburg which is in that center so wittily described in the phrase: Pittsburgh to the west, Philly to the east, and Alabama in between. We all know this is true of a not insignificant number of Pennsylvanians. But it seems to me that the people Rendell most offends are white Pennsylvanians! Why on earth do that?
That said, I don't think he had any secret motives in making that statement, because I just can't see how this would motivate whites to vote for Clinton, or change how whites already see Obama, save to perhaps see him more sympathetically.
February 13, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "I just can't see how this would motivate whites to vote for Clinton"
When a seasoned politician plays the race card like this what he is doing is planting the seeds of doubt, doubt that Pennsylvania could ever go for a "black guy" so who who wants to vote for a loser? He's mixing his metaphors, so to speak, when he compares the democratic primary with his gubernatorial race versus a republican. What he's really trying to do is make an electability issue with Obama's race.
The object is only to pick off a few folks who may not be racist themselves, per se, but may be afraid of others' racism dooming the Obama campaign, especially in the general election. Ideally, for him, that doubt would snowball into a big Clinton win.
It's not overt. It's really sly. But it's there, clear as day. Why else would he mention it? There's a thousand "true" things he could have spoke of related to the primary and he chose to speak of Obama's race. Like the age-old detective truism, look at who he is supporting and who stands to gain from what he says. He is no dummy.
February 13, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he's right. According to a 2007 Gallop poll, 5% of those polled admitted that they wouldn't vote for a black person. However, 11% of those polled said they wouldn't vote for a woman. Why didn't he mention that?
The sad thing is, more than half of those polled—53%—said they wouldn't vote for an atheist. So much for religious tolerance… :(
February 13, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That came out somewhat wrong. Obviously, all of those statistics are sad!
February 13, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard you. What he said may have been accurate, but he was also confusing a general election with a democratic primary, and those stats may not be the same in a dem primary.
People do say stupid things. Fine. But it does matter who says it. Is it a random person on the street? Is it a news commentator? Or is it a "prominent supporter" of the candidate?
When it's Hillary surrogates who keep on bringing up Obama's race as a detriment, or denigrating supporters of his in racial terms (people wanting a cool black friend), I am highly offended. And yet is just keeps happening.
You don't hear Obama surrogates continually playing Hillary's gender as a barrier to electability.
February 13, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone have the text of the original interview when he made the comment? In this latest interview, he portrayed the discussion as a frank analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates and made a point of saying that Hillary is handicapped by her gender just as Obama is handicapped by his race. But if he didn't mention Hillary's gender handicap in the original interview, it suggests that he wasn't offering a frank analysis but rather taking a jab at Obama's electability.
Either way, it was a stupid remark.
February 13, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not helping Obama one bit by pushing your "race card" angle. Let it go.
February 13, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
See what I mean? It's now become "conventional wisdom" that Ed Rendell has played the "race card." Democrats are their own worst enemy.
February 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not necessarily trying to help Obama, although I do support his candidacy.
I am challenging David Kurtz's assertion that all is well and good with what Rendell said. I wouldn't even be writing about this now if Kurtz had not asserted what he did. Kurtz even specifically asked what others thought.
I do believe it was wrong of Rendell, as a "prominent Hillary supporter," to say what he said and I see absolutely no reason to give him "a pass" on this. Just blinding giving Rendell the benefit of the doubt and attributing his remark to a "bumptious personality" is like saying, "Oh, boys will be boys," to take away his responsibility for what he said.
February 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the person playing the race card. Rendell was questioned by the Gazette's editorial board. He was asked a specific question for which he gave a specific answer. Rendell wasn't casting aspersions upon Obama for being black, nor was he trying to scare voters from voting for a black candidate, and quite frankly, everytime I read this crap, I wonder who the racists really are.
This is getting ridiculous. Ed Rendell is a great democrat and a good man, and you're making him appear to be a racist, just as you are trying to make the Clintons appear to be racists. This parsing of every comment, looking for something to be pissed about is stupid. It is also stupid to think that the Clintons would drive a wedge between themselves and black voters - that would be counter-intuitive. Since you and others are so sure that every single phrase and comment coming from a Clinton supporter is poll tested, group focused, strategized, cunningly planned and executed and evil geniused to death, it might make you wonder why someone who needs every vote she can get would alienate voters.
February 13, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have already driven away the African-American vote. They had a strong percentage of it before they started bringing up Obama's race pre-South Carolina.
Read Tony Norman's take if you think I'm out there imagining things about Rendell.
Just to be clear, as I have said elsewhere, I am not calling Clintons, or even Rendell, racist. He may very well be a "good democrat" but what he said is wrong given his role in the Hillary campaign.
They are cynically playing on racial "electability" issues. It has backfired on them but they still keep doing it. If Hillary wanted it stopped, she'd issue a stern memo to all supporters and it would stop.
As for the "specific question," I don't see any evidence the paper asked him how he thought race would play into the primary. He volunteered that.
The poll-testing thing is a straw man as I've asserted no such thing. I simply do not think as David Kurtz does that we should just give Rendell "a pass" on this.
February 13, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record here's the piece that spawned this whole thing, from the first person perspective of Tony Norman who was there to hear Rendell's racial assessment of the PA primary for himself:
February 13, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now here we have a reporter who was bored and has a "habit of zoning out in these meetings" according to his own admission, who thinks that the governor of PA., was so concerned about HIM, and thinking about HIM, that he could only hold eye contact for a moment with HIM and Rendell has the problem? The world revolves around Tony Norman...
You'd think the governor stopped in and just started popping off to anyone who would listen, instead of being invited, asked SPECIFIC questions and then proffering answers to those questions, the way it works in the real world.
February 13, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool that you know more about what happened in that room than the reporter.
Perhaps on the eye contact thing, he actually witnessed Rendell making longer eye contact with others in the room and only briefly with him. There couldn't have been that many people in the room. It was probably a conference room with less than 10 folks total.
Again with the specific questions point of yours... do you have any info on the paper asking Rendell *specifically* about race and the primary? Or did he volunteer that? And, as a prominent Hillary supporter, is it an appropriate comment for him to make??
February 13, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may come as a shock to you, but the race isn't over yet. We still have to elect a democrat to the WH, and your constant belittling, smearing and gossiping about something you know nothing about is dumb.
February 14, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that we can also safely read into this, regarding the eye contact thing, that Tony Norman was the only African American in the room, and hence Rendell's fleeting glimpse when he brought up the race issue.
February 13, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink