Uh-oh. Video of Ed Rendell speaking to a packed audience where Louis Farrakhan was the keynote speaker (sitting to Rendell’s right), referring to a letter sent to Farrakhan and complimenting the Nation of Islam.
So, I ask you…How much damage would be done to the Obama campaign and his chance at the presidency had one of his surrogates, say Bob Casey, done the same thing in the past? I believe something like this would destroy him, since the guilt by association game only seems to work against Obama, but what say you?
Does Clinton weather this latest hypocrisy unbloodied? Will the MSM pick it up? Is it even a story?
To effect the PA primary at all this kind of story must appeal to those who are on the fence and be waiting for any wind at all to sway them. This would obviously be a sway that helps Obama. Will a lot of people actually go over…negligible I think. But who knows.
Negligible. People in Pennsylvania who would be suprised that Ed Rendell would make a speech like that are already not allowed to vote because they are brain dead.
Also, in the interest of having some ideals, Ed Rendell’s statements should not be taken as representative of Hillary Clinton’s views just because he is a supporter of hers, and I hope the Obama camp can be consistent in that regard.
It probably should be, but the MSM likes simple storylines that lend themselves to shouting headlines. With Obama, it is anything race-related. (OBAMA STAFF DINES WITH BAD BLACK MAN!) With Clinton, it is… err… Can anyone think of anything?
Hillary Clinton has proven time and time again that what she demands of others is entirely different from what she’s willing to do herself.
She sat in that debate and denigrated Barack Obama because his pastor’s daughter’s magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. It wasn’t enough that Barack denounced Farrakhan, she snottily called for him to not just “renounce” Louis Farrakhan, but to “reject” his support, as she did with an anti-Semitic group who offered their support to her during her NY Senate run. Nevermind that Farrakhan hadn’t offered support, just said a few nice things about Obama in one particular speech. Clinton scornfully made an issue out of his “guilt by association” and the media had a heyday with it, turning it into yet another Obama bashing frenzy.
So here’s how it works in Hillaryland:
Barack Obama’s pastor’s daughter honors Louis Farrakhan: Obama BAD!
Hillary Clinton’s biggest PA endorser honors Louis Farrakhan: Hillary non-issue.
The level of hypocrisy in her campaign is thoroughly disgusting.
God, I hope so. I hope it wrecks him, too. In my opinion, at no time in his entire tenure as Governor has he ever been cognizant that there is a part of Pennsylvania west of Philadelphia. The only reason he won a second term was because the Republicans offered up Lynn Swann, who, in spite of his pretty-boy looks and Hall of Fame career with the Steelers, had nothing at all to recommend him. And he still got 40%.
So yeah, Rendell, keep sticking your foot in it and sweating gravy all over your constituents while you stuff a Spot Dog down your gullet. Keep it close for Obama. With luck he’ll offer you an ambassadorship to East Bumfuck and you’ll take it.
Well, that speaks to my point of hypocrisy, doesn’t it? Obama has an indirect association through his paster with Farrakhan and great hay is made; Clinton tries to damage Obama by continuing to bring up Farrakhan’s name, Obama is pressed to denounce support from Farrakhan he never sought, and he suffers somewhat in the polls because of a perceived direct association that, even if it did exist, yet doesn’t, shouldn’t mean anything, yet does. However, you’re telling me that the same logic-stretching scrutiny of Obama’s goose is not appropriate for Clinton’s gander.
While that may be true, Obama won’t be able to make much of this issue - if he does, his past associations with Farrakhan come into play again, despite his renunciation of him.
Yup, just as I expected, this thread will now turn around to be another “drag Obama through the mud because of his tenuous associations” thread instead of the actual focus of the OP; Hillary’s hypocrisy. That didn’t take long.
Funny, though, that you will instantly slip into denial and avoid talking about how matters like this either hem him in or cause him actual political damage.
I’m saying that it’s inappropriate to bludgeon Hillary with this just as it is inappropriate for Hillary to so what she has been doing re: Farrakhan and Ayers. I think Obama has done a great deal to kepe this about issues and I hope that he’ll continue to do the same. For example, I thought the Ayers pardon jab in the debate was the wrong way to handle it- he should state his case, say that the question is distracting, but not stoop to trying to create an association between Clinton and Ayers (as she was doing to him). We all know, despite what we like or do not like about Hillary, that she is not a supporter of what the Weather Underground did. So allowing yourself to be pulled into the insinuation game hurts your standing.
In other words, what we tell the goose is not good, is not good for the gander. Do as I say, not as I goose. Um.
WRT the million man march, I can’t see anything at all wrong with Obama’s statements or attendance at the march. In fact his statements were much less namby-pamby than I would expect in an ostensibly damaging quote. Put Bill Cosby’s name under most of those words and conservatives would do backflips agreeing with them.
Nonsense. I have participated in numerous threads about Obama on this board. This thread isn’t about that, it’s about Hillary Clinton, and I have no intention of engaging in your hijack herein.
If attending the Million Man march is a bad thing, then this country is still as racist as ever. At some point you have to take a stand behind what you believe in, and in politics sometimes that means standing with people you sometimes disagree with.
The problem here is the double-standard, and it’s a racist one. African Americans are expected to be BETTER than White Americans, in order to be treated as equals.
Clinton is invoking Bin Laden in her lastest TV ad in PA. She will stoop to wherever she needs to in order to win. There will be no warm and fuzzies between these two when all is said and done, she has - again - invoked an icon that is hated in order to trash Obama.
I know this isn’t the pit, so I’ll remain civil. She sucks.
I think it’s gone back and forth a few times, and Obama is getting more scrutiny as the front runner than he was 6 months ago. We’re just getting to know Obama, and there’s a lot more new stuff than there is about Hillary.
I would agree that Hillary’s negative campaigning is reflected in what the MSM covers. She strikes out at Obama negatively a lot more than he does towards her, and the media covers that. Still, I’ve seen some scathing news commentary towards Hill and Bill on the MSM.