The campaign that lives by the sword...

... dies by the sword.

As we all know, Senator Clinton and her surrogates have tried repeatedly to tie Senator Obama to Louis Farrakhan and his noxious anti-Semitism.

But guess what? Clinton's most prominent supporter in Pennsylvania, who has been at her side and stumping for her all over the media and the state in advance of tomorrow's primary?

Well, Rendell praised Farrakhan.

And not eons ago. Last year. On video. With Farrakhan present.

Citations after the jump.

The JedReport has the story:

Video of Rendell praising Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has gone on YouTube, Hillary Clinton's complete embrace of the right-wing's political correctness orthodoxy will rule him out of consideration for the vice presidency.

Here is Rendell praising Farrakhan at Tindley Temple United Methodist Church on April 14, 1997 ...

Oops! So much for the Clinton brand of gotcha politics and phony, ginned-up outrage.



Display:


IOKIYACS n/t (none / 0)


by parahammer on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:57:53 PM EST

Just the opposite... (2.00 / 1)

Clinton raised this (non-) issue and tried to get traction for it in the media...


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pot calling kettle black.. (2.00 / 0)

again..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pot calling kettle black.. (1.00 / 0)

Black? Interesting choice of words...

But you apparently don't understand the expression.

Clinton started this with her endless accusations against Obama. She said he waffled on NAFTA -- when it was her people who reached out first to the Canadians. She accused him about being all about words, while she was making up phony stories to pull at our heartstrings about health care. She accused Obama of not having her foreign policy experience, while she was repeatedly "misspeaking" about sniper fire.

And on and on it goes.

But when you call the Clinton's on it? Then the messenger is the one being unfair.

Here's another expression for you: Candidates like Clinton who live in glass houses...


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pot calling kettle black.. (2.00 / 0)

You can't be serious.

Reality is what you make it I guess.


by Dave B on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's your counter-argument? (none / 0)

I'm dead serious.

Unlike Clinton when she made all those bogus claims about sniper fire, or called her opponent an elitist the week she disclosed she's worth $100+ million.

See, she was just kidding around then.


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'elitist' is an attitude (1.00 / 0)

not an amount of money. Please go call JRE an eliteist, get back to me a in a few weeks when the laughter dies down.


by zerosumgame on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'elitist' is an attitude (2.00 / 0)

Plenty of people DID call JRE an elitist because of his (gasp!) haircut and investment in a hedge fund. The difference is that the attacks came from republicans, and we fought back against a progressive Democrat being swiftboated like that, regardless of who we were supporting in the primary.

Now that we're down to only two candidates, the passion for our candidate and anger toward the other has definitely lowered the bar on what we're willing to tolerate.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'elitist' is an attitude (1.00 / 0)

sorry, there is a difference? I think we can safely consider anyone who makes this argument is a crypto republican on at least some level.


by zerosumgame on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'elitist' is an attitude (none / 0)

I'm not disagreeing, but unless I'm reading your comment wrong, that would also include the "elitist" criticisms of Obama, right?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read Thomas Frank today in the WSJ (none / 0)

The founder of the very progressive Baffler makes mincemeat of this "elitist is an attitude" idea.

How on earth he convinced the Journal to give him a regular column, I'll never know. More power to him.


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'elitist' is an attitude (none / 0)

Nah. Elitist is above all a republican talking point. Trollrated for spreading same.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's your counter-argument? (none / 0)

Money does not equal elitist..Ideas of superiority do.  


by grego101 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (2.00 / 0)

Has Hillary or HER CAMPAIGN cast these aspersions? or hasn't most of this been the work of avid, but perhaps misguided supporters.

I think that it's very important to track the message and the messenger on these.


by pan230oh on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:03:15 PM EST

Exactly. When did she bring up Farrakan? (2.00 / 0)

I'm not saying she didn't. But I just don't remember her doing it.

Anybody?


by catfish1 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, she pushed Obama/Farrakhan. At least twice. (2.00 / 0)

From JedReport ( http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/will-hi llary-cl.html ) ...

Recall that in last week's debate, Clinton attacked Obama for having a pastor who knows Farrakhan. And in February, when Tim Russert asked Obama about his pastor's positive words about Farrakhan, Clinton went on the attack as well, saying: "I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching."


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:22:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stttrrreeetch to make the connection (2.00 / 0)

you can do it.

Tim Russert asked about Wright and Wright knows Farrakhan. Cute!


by catfish1 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stttrrreeetch to make the connection (2.00 / 1)

How is this a stretch?

Clinton raised Farrakhan during the ABC debate:

It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan ... You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people's minds.

Her argument is that Obama has a problem because he associates with Wright who has praised Farrakhan.

Obama > Wright > Farrakhan

By that same ridiculous logic, Clinton has a problem because she associates with Rendell who has praised Farrakhan.

Clinton > Rendell > Farrakhan

This "Six Degrees of Farrakhan" nonsense is a stupid game to play.


by jdusek on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (2.00 / 1)

As to Farrakhan, Russert raised the issue in the February Ohio debate, and Clinton added her thoughts:

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

No, not terrible--she didn't accuse him of being Farrakhan's BFF. But she basically acted like Obama tacitly supported Farrakhan by failing to "reject" his words.

What's far lovelier was Clinton explicitly linking Obama to Hamas and Farrakhan by way of United Trinity Church in last week's debate:

It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kind of like... (2.00 / 0)

... when Clinton was asked if Obama was a Muslim and she replied, "not as far as I know" and that she "takes him at his word" that he's a Christian.


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kind of like... (none / 0)

Kind of. But to be honest, I'm not sure if the hesitance was intentional or if she didn't mean anything by it and we're overreacting. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but there's been so much other stuff said and done that it becomes a little difficult to do that.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:03:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're definitely overreacting (none / 0)

I can't hold that one against Clinton at all.  That reporter was a dogged little jerk and kept asking her.  What was she supposed to say?

How many times can you say something different ways before someone pegs you on it?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's what she could have said (none / 0)

Clearly he is a Christian. Any other suggestion is ridiculous. ... And let me remind you, we don't have religious tests for public office in this country. If he were a Jew or a Sufi or a Zoroastrian -- which he's not, he's a Christian -- that would be just fine, too. Let's put this nonsense to bed right here."

But no -- she answered in a carefully-parsed way transparently intended to maintain some doubts in the public mind.


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's what she could have said (none / 0)

Well, she IS a Clinton. Parsing is like breathing to them.

To be clear, that's one of their strong qualities.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (none / 0)

Wasn't the whole reject and denounce nonsense about him?


by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (2.00 / 1)

New politics are fun!


by bobbank on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:04:54 PM EST

Oy. (2.00 / 3)

And the Mutually Assured Destruction continues.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM EST

The link to Farrakhan (none / 0)

Rev. Wright
Gov. Rendell

Clinton denounce Farrakhan, Obama denounce Farrakhan, I say that's pretty even.

That being said, Farrakhan is not Obama's problem. Obama's real problem is his mentor Rev. Wright. Controversy "straight from the horses mouth." Obama refuses to denounce his mentor. In fairness to Obama, it wouldn't make any difference if he did...after 20 years.


by soyousay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST

Those are the least of Obamas problems.. (1.50 / 2)

I think Obama's lying about his Rezko financing and Obama's lying about his healthcare program, etc. are good examples of where we can expect his administration to take us if he's elected President.

Except the things he would have the potential of lying to us about THEN are far more important and damaging.

Prolonging our national denial in a number of areas is worth TRILLIONS of dollars to a number of special interests.

I am guessing thats why he's getting so much money. (and spare us the lines about average donation, number of donors, etc..)

The longer we put solving our many problems off the less of a chance we have of solving them.

Obama has shown he is petulant, impatient, immature, dishonest, and many other things we don't want in a President.

Hillary may not be perfect but she is very smart and honest- for a politician- WHERE IT COUNTS.

I think there is a VERY good chance that she will be a GREAT President.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When HRC's caught in a hypocritical moment... (2.00 / 1)

... change the subject to Rezko.


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those are the least of Obamas problems.. (2.00 / 1)

Hillary may not be perfect but she is very smart and honest- for a politician- WHERE IT COUNTS.

pretty much sums it up huh, thats the standards she is held to huh.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those are the least of Obamas problems.. (none / 0)

Yes Obama has many problems but Rev. Wright shows a real character flaw in Obama. Obama claims Rev. Wright is his mentor, and yet he's willing to denounce some things Wright says but he won't denounce Rev. Wright. Obama gives mixed signals claiming that Wright has been his mentor for almost 20 years and then Claiming that he wasn't aware of controversial statement from Rev. Wright. Obama wants to have it both ways; he can't.

Mentor: A wise trusted counselor or teacher

A "mentor" like Rev. Wright doesn't go over well with many Americans.


by soyousay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah (1.66 / 3)

I hear Clinton has been married to a liar and a cheat for 30 years.

Doesn't that call her judgement into question?

If Obama can't learn from Wright and yet have positions distinct from his, then Clinton can't claim her husband as a basis for her candidacy with any legitimacy.

Wright gave some sermons from the pulpit that were controversial.  Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury.  I don't know about you, but personally I don't hold that against either one of them now, some time later, and I certainly don't believe that it reflects poorly on either Hillary or Barack.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those are the least of Obamas problems.. (none / 0)

You think Obama is lying about Rezko, but you don't know...
You think Obama is lying about healthcare, but you don't know..

And I will spare you the millions of donor lines. However never underestimate the power of PACS ($1.2 million to Clinton, $250.00 to Obama) in having your issue listened to once you are elected. Be that issue a good thing or bad for the average American. Personally I'd like to start with none, then it's one less thing to worry about.

Campaign financing info: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index. asp

I am not going to say your support of Senator Clinton is wrong, she obviously speaks to you. However to think someone is lying and not bothering to find out the facts makes for an uniformed voter. Further to dismiss out of hand the way the campaigns finance and manage their campaign doesn't say a little something about the skill sets the candidate will bring to the office, I think may be a bit naive.

Finally please stay away from the collective "we." Your statements are your opinions, to which you have every right. However, by using "we" you presume to speak for all.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:31:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those are the least of Obamas problems.. (none / 0)

Architek knows he or she has an opinion at odds with the facts and all reasonable assumptions.  We've corrected him/her dozens of times.  At this point it's a matter of faith.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The link to Farrakhan (2.00 / 1)

And then will clinton come clean about her association with "The Family". A "religious" group of mosty Repug Senators who praise the power that Hitler was able accumulate??????

http://www.mojones.com/news/feature/2007 /09/hillarys-prayer.html


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One "mother Jones" article... (none / 0)

of some kind of vague association with a group of people isn't the same as a mentor. Plus, this issue isn't a problem for Hillary Clinton. Rev. Wright is a problem for Obama. Youtube basically did Obama in when it comes to Rev. Wright. Visuals make a lasting impressions.


by soyousay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One "mother Jones" article... (none / 0)

Hillary's connections to "the family" is not
"vague"  READ THE ARTICLE.
Here's antoher you might be intetested in:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0 079525
"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One "mother Jones" article... (none / 0)

And here's another link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/gr een-hillary


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One "mother Jones" article... (none / 0)

Ever heard of the Bohemian grove? There's a big Owl statue there; very secretive. This club that U.S. presidents have belong to in the past (present?) is never talked about by the media. Google it. Some places....mainstream media just won't go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPb-PN9F2 Pc


by soyousay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One "mother Jones" article... (none / 0)

Didn't read the article did ya?

The article in the Atlantic would hardly be considered outside of the mainstream nor would
cbs news.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/2 0/opinion/main3955108.shtml

You can bury your head in the sand, but this is making it's way into the light of day.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One "mother Jones" article... (none / 0)

I read it....and I'm saying there's no visuals...The end.


by soyousay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One "mother Jones" article... (1.00 / 1)

Sorry to hear that you're only capable of "reading" picture books. I guess it's to be expected from camp clintons low information  voter base.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHA! (2.00 / 0)

you need to slide off this smear by association in a BIG hurry. you see, obama did exactly what hillary did- attend some interdenominational prayer breakfasts. he was even the featured speaker. heh!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008 /04/like-clinton-ob.html


Like Clinton, Obama Attended "Shadowy" Group's Prayer Meetings

Justin Rood Reports:

Stories on the "stealth" ministry of Douglas Coe have been cropping up recently on blogs and online publications, linking him unfavorably to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Comparing Coe to Obama's inflammatory pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote at HuffingtonPost.com, "When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama."

But the story may not be so simple.  Indeed, as Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign confirmed yesterday, he has also attended Coe's prayer meetings.

Coe's group, "the Fellowship," reportedly shuns publicity while focusing on ministering to those in power in the United States and around the world.  In Washington, D.C., Coe sponsors a weekly Senate prayer breakfast and an annual National Prayer Breakfast regularly attended by U.S. presidents.

Coe's group has been called "shadowy," and Coe has made some unusual comments which have raised more than a few eyebrows. In recorded presentations, he has seemed to praise Hitler and other totalitarian leaders for brutally enforcing their followers' allegiance to doctrine over allegiance to family, and suggesting that was a model for teaching children about Jesus.

"[T]here is something deeply strange about the group," wrote the Atlantic magazine's Joshua Green, who has reported extensively on Coe's Fellowship and Hillary Clinton.

Ehrenreich and others have noted that Hillary has been a regular attendee at his weekly prayer meetings, and spoke warmly of Coe in her autobiography, "Living History."

But if Clinton has a Coe problem, then it seems Obama would also: a quick call to the Obama campaign elicited a confirmation that the junior senator from Illinois had also attended "a couple" of Coe's meetings.  And, like Clinton reportedly has, Obama spoke at one of the meetings about his faith, spokesman Bill Burton confirmed.


by campskunk on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BWAHAHAHA! (2.00 / 1)

But he's NOT a member.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:17:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BWAHAHAHA! (none / 0)

oh, is that the new place you're putting the goalposts? it was "association" before. i'd say being the featured speaker is an association, but what do i know.

so, where's the "membership" list? do you have a link to it, or are you grasping at straws?


by campskunk on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BWAHAHAHA! (2.00 / 1)

Obama should IMMEDIATELY notify the media :D


by soyousay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most shameless HRC attack of the primary? (2.00 / 2)

I think the Hamas/Farrakan thing was the most shameless attack of the entire campaign by an actual candidate.


by Democratic Unity on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST

Re: Most shameless HRC attack of the primary? (2.00 / 0)

How about "only McCain and I are ready to be commander-in-chief."

(And then Clinton gins up fake outrage when Obama dares to suggest, extremely mildly, that it would be hard for anyone to be worse than George Bush.)


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most shameless HRC attack of the primary? (2.00 / 1)

Or how about McCain would be a better president than Bush?


by Dave B on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most shameless HRC attack of the primary? (2.00 / 0)

That last one stuck out like a sore thumb.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most shameless HRC attack of the primary? (none / 0)

My cat would be better than Bush.


by mefck on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's wrong with that? (2.00 / 0)

At least McCain isn't secretive and anti-environment.  Besides, a day-old tunafish sandwich would be a better president than Bush.

At least Obama didn't say McCain would be better than Clinton.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most shameless HRC attack of the primary? (none / 0)

I uprated not because it's a good comment, but because the mere mention of Obama's quote shouldn't merit a TR.

If it were the other way around, I'm sure I'd make the same point if someone mentioned the "threshold" remark. Of course, my point would be ridiculous, but it still shouldn't be TR'd.

Maybe I'm being too preachy and nsaive with these upratings. I keep thinking that if Clinton supporters see Obama supporters uprating them, maybe they'll do the same and we can de-escalate the TR wars around here. But alas, I don't recall ever seeing one of our unfairly TR'd comments uprated by the other side.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (2.00 / 2)

wait...oh wait don't forget that Weatherman guy..
Al Roker
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM EST

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (none / 0)

These "you, too" arguments are danagerous, for they accept the premise that anyone ever praising Farrakhan is bad, and then probably hurts Obama more with Wright.  


by TomP on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (2.00 / 0)

no because they already believe the premise by making the attack. what this does is question?

do you REALLY believe that premise because if so how do you account for this?


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I "believe' (2.00 / 0)

regarding Farakhan is irrelvant.

My critique of of the "you too" tactic.  Both sides do it.  I think it is stupid.


by TomP on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love Ed Rendell. (2.00 / 1)

There's a guy who truly loves politics. He's fun to watch.

He is one of the best Democratic surrogates we have and I expect him to be a powerhouse for the Dems in Pennsylvania in November.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:27:43 PM EST

Re: I love Ed Rendell. (2.00 / 1)

Ed Rendell is funny to watch.  Did you catch him on The Colbert Report?  He had Colbert laughing.  And he admitted he has a wish list if Hillary becomes President, which is refreshing in a way since I doubt many politicians will admit to this.


by JustJennifer on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The guy loves politics. (2.00 / 0)

That much is clear. He is one guy who really does seem to be doing what he loves to do. I know he's not perfect, but he sure is fun to watch.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny idea of fun. (none / 0)

You mean fun, like when he told a group of students who support Obama today that they are "Kool-Aid drinkers?"

The guy is a Jimmy the Greek moment just waiting to happen.


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (2.00 / 0)

I find Ed Rendell incredibly entertaining, and I'm glad he is where he is no matter who wins the nomination.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST

I don't really like Rendell, but... (none / 0)

He got to where he is legitimately.  I think that being in Clinton's camp forces him to use a certain sort of rhetoric that turns me off; like changing a "big win" for Clinton from 5%-10% to 4%-8% in the space of a half hour on Meet the Press.

As for Farrakhan, he's ill and is starting to reach out for reconciliation.  He's pushing to have a meeting with Lieberman, which should be interesting.

I, for one, believe that people can find redemption.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:00:44 PM EST

Can She Do Anything Right? (2.00 / 1)

If she threw herself to the floor she'd miss


by bernardpliers on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:27 PM EST

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (none / 0)

I really think Farrakhan is a victim of media framing...he has made several hurtful statements.  But, I don't take that to be the measure of the man... The people who know Farrakhan, including Protestant and Catholic Clergy, really stand by him.  I'd rather listen to the people who know a man, than the media that provides 30 seconds of the man.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST

Father Pfleger, for example (2.00 / 1)

I was so impressed by Father Pfleger standing up for Farrakhan to that Fox News flunky that he singlehandedly gave me a better view of the man.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (none / 0)

This vide is not from last year, it is from 1997. This is not recent...jesus.


by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (none / 0)

Oh, wait... So, things which happened in 1997 or earlier are no longer relevant?

Like, for instance, William Ayers' activities in the 1960s?


by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The campaign that lives by the sword... (none / 0)

OK, I took the bait and listened to the entire 6 minutes and 25 seconds.  And there wasn't a single word in it of praise for Farrakhan. (And, as others have pointed out, it was 11 years ago, not 1 year ago).

It seems that as any possibility of winning PA is slipping away, Obama candidates are saying basically anything to try to divert attention.  One claimed that Hillary "just lost his vote" when he's got a record of multiple diaries voicing his support for Obama.  Another now claims that Rendell is on record last year as praising Farrakhan, and then proceeds to include a video from 11 years ago without a single word of praise for Farrakhan.


by markjay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.