Barack Obama In Philadelphia - THE Message

Because it deserves to be heard again...It is NOT business as usual. A moving speech, and worth the listen.

Was Bill Stumping for Obama Ahead of Time?

Clinton's Allentowngate? Obama Offices Laptops missing

Posted April 19, 2008 9:00 PM by Josh Drobnyk BaltimoreSun.com

Barack Obama's Allentown office was burglarized this week, and multiple laptops and cell phones were stolen, an Obama campaign aide said today. A police spokesman confirmed the incident, but couldn't provide details today because reports are kept in the department's records depository, which is closed weekends.

An Obama aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "a couple" field laptops were taken out of the office at 1233 Linden St. The computers have demographic information that the campaign uses to target voters. "A couple" cell phones were also taken, the aide said.

Police spokesman Capt. James Stephens confirmed the break-in, but could not confirm details of what was taken because the records office is closed on weekends. When and how the break-in occurred also remained unclear. Stephens would only say that it happened "a couple days ago." The Obama campaign declined to comment officially on the incident.

Both campaigns have had their share of incidents at field offices during the race. Obama field offices in California and Iowa have also been broken into. And late last year, a man took campaign workers hostage at a Hillary Clinton field office in Rochester, N.H.

Hillary Clinton's Opposing Statements on the Iraq War

So she was for it before she was against it? You can't have it both ways, and you helped get us in there, Senator Clinton.

Hillary Clinton: To Bosnia and Back Again

(A note from Greetings: I was checking my "cookies" as I always do on my regular computer. However, I don't do it as much on my laptop.. a Mac. What I found was... from all of my visits to the candidates' sites... only one put tracking cookies on my computer. HillaryClinton.com . If we get that from her campaign, what will her Presidency bring? Do watch the Jed Report below... both funny and scary.)

From The Jed Report
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/bosnia-and-back.html#disqus_thread


Presenting the newest production from The Jed Report -- Bosnia and Back Again, the story of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. AMERICAblog declares it is "the most spectacular display of sniper fire since Tuzla." Senator Clinton plays herself in a performance The Field calls "a paid political ad for John McCain." Watch the trailer now:



The story behind Bosnia and Back Again:

A few days ago, MasterSitsu, a member of the Daily Kos community, sent me an e-mail. His subject line: "OMG I hit the video goldmine." He wasn't kidding -- he had found unbroadcast footage of Hillary Clinton from a 1992 interview on 60 Minutes. MasterSitsu suggested a video highlighting the stark contrast between her rhetoric then and her actions now, and I took his idea and ran with it.

I'd been wanting to put together a video that would serve as a bookend to Hillary in Tuzla: The Story of Bosnian Sniper Fire, but until MasterSitsu sent me the 60 Minutes footage, I hadn't felt like I had enough material to make a strong video.

Another person who helped find a key piece of video for Bosnia and Back Again is Carthage -- who found Clinton's cookies and teas comment.

One interesting side note: the 60 Minutes interview from which the outtakes were pulled was aired after the Superbowl in January 1992 shortly before the New Hampshire primary. At the time, a variety of scandals including charges of marital infidelity threatened to destroy the Clinton campaign, but in this interview the Clintons managed to get his campaign back on track, ultimately sending him to the White House. (None of the outtake footage directly deals with any of the scandals. We're not the business of doing Ken Starr's work here at The Jed Report.)

Obama Pulling Ahead in Pennsylvania?

In a new poll in PA (PPP) today Obama is ahead 45-42% in a sample of 1,095 covering April 14-15.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Endorses Barack Obama

Barack Obama: Democrats deserve a nominee for change

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873625-192.stm

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.

For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.
•
Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.

For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."

Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.

On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.

In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.

On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion.

On Iraq, for those inclined to remember, Sen. Clinton carries more baggage, for she voted to approve the war in the first place. For those inclined to forgive, she would seek to repair relations with allies strained by the Iraq misadventure, as Sen. Obama also would.

There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.

Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.

So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.

Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.
•
To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

First published on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

Another Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Columnist Endorsement

Looking toward the future

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Barack Obama -- and against Hillary Clinton

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate editor (dsimpson@post-gazette.com).)

Six days from today, Pennsylvanians will take up their unexpectedly important obligation to express their opinions on the relative merits of the two Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. I will be voting for Mr. Obama, for the following reasons:

• He represents the future of America; Mrs. Clinton, the past. Even though some might view the Clintons' previous occupancy of the White House with misty eyes, savoring the absence of the Iraq war and recalling an economy that wasn't tilted toward the oil industry, financial nongeniuses with enormous incomes and the rich in general, that was the 1990s and now is now, eight years later.

• It may seem stuffy to talk about the dignity of the White House, but it is hard to imagine that Americans really would like to see the Clintons' personal lives once again on national display. Whatever reservations one might have about the Bushes, they set a high standard of personal behavior. Michelle and Barack Obama look fine in this area, although they might want to choose their Washington church with care.

• It is fair to look at a candidate's supporters and opponents as a measure of likely behavior in office. In Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton has been endorsed by some of the state's harder-core professional politicians.



These include Gov. Ed Rendell, Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll, Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and former Pittsburgh Mayor Sophie Masloff. Each of these political figures may have hopes to win some spoils in another Clinton presidency, or debts to pay from a previous one. Mr. Rendell hopes for high national office; Mr. Onorato will want support for his candidacy for governor, and so forth. But they may have made a mistake in jumping so early for Mrs. Clinton, or, driven by ambition, jumping for Mrs. Clinton at all. Instead of betting on the past, they might have thought of staying neutral in the primary, letting the people vote without their advice.


• It is unfortunate, but joining some of Pennsylvania's career politicians in opposing Mr. Obama are those who simply cannot abide the idea of an African American as president of the United States. That is not to say that to support Mrs. Clinton is to be racist. But, for me, if the racists line up on one side of the line, as a matter of principle I will almost certainly find myself on the other side of it. (I did not vote for Lynn Swann for governor, however.) It is Mr. Obama's ability as a leader, not his race, that is the bottom line for me.


• Another reason to vote for Mr. Obama and against Mrs. Clinton is her sometimes shaky relationship with the truth. Maybe I am exceptionally sensitive to that quality after having been lied to systematically by the Bush administration about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and fictional links to al-Qaida, but it seems to me that Mrs. Clinton sometimes does have a problem in this area. I go way back to watching her on television in 1994 dishing up half-truths and untruths about how she had miraculously made $100,000 in profits on commodity transactions in Arkansas.


The latest round was her mis-recalled account of landing in Tuzla, Bosnia-Herzegovina, under sniper fire, well after the war there had ended. That perhaps unintended whopper stung me particularly because I lived in Tuzla in 2001 and knew some of the people involved there.


• I also want the American people to know who donated and how much to Mr. Clinton's presidential library before the Pennsylvania vote. The Clintons released their tax returns, but not the information about the library. Of course the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, has still not released even his tax returns.



What delightful shock still awaits us?


• An especially murky area that has prompted me to side with Mr. Obama against Mrs. Clinton is the relationship between her husband's financial arrangements and her candidacy. Labor unions, whose support Mrs. Clinton needs badly, must look closely at how she explains her husband's advocacy on behalf of Colombia as it lobbied for a free-trade agreement with the United States. She has opposed the accord as a senator and as a candidate, based on Colombia's weak record of respect for unionized workers and the risk of losing American jobs. She can't say she didn't know. Mr. Clinton was paid $800,000 for his support of the agreement and the two file a joint tax return. The other obvious question would be how such disagreements between them would be resolved if they were back in the White House together? I don't like to picture it.


The Obamas in the White House would not be troubled by these sorts of money-laden conflicts of interest.

• Finally, there is the intra-Democratic argument about which candidate would run stronger against Mr. McCain in November. There is the reported non-secret, secret strategy attributed to some Republicans of an intention to support Mrs. Clinton as the Democratic candidate because she would be easier for the senior-moment-plagued Mr. McCain to defeat in November than Mr. Obama. Even if I thought it likely that I would support Mr. McCain in November, I would find it difficult to persuade myself that it was a good idea to try to put the lesser of the two Democratic candidates on the ballot against him. Even the most partisan Republicans should favor putting the better of the two Democratic candidates into the general election.

Most important on Tuesday will be to vote. To think it through. To think of America's best interests.

Looking to the future, not betting on the past, I believe, is a course that takes one to the choice of Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton.

First published on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

And One More Post-Gazette Columnist/Editor Weighs In On Obama

Momma for Obama knows best

Wednesday, April 16, 2008
By Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873671-154.stm

As a matter of full disclosure, I should tell you that my wife, a long-time Republican, has changed her party registration in advance of the Pennsylvania Primary and has appeared in public wearing "Another Momma for Obama" button.

Nothing in my life had prepared me for this. A squadron of pigs could have flown by and I would not have been as surprised. This was the woman who, when I became a citizen more than 20 years ago, strongly suggested that I might be smart to register as a Republican if I knew what was good for me. Well, I said indignantly, am I a man or a mouse? So I squeaked like any wise fellow and got with the program.

With the Momma newly converted, she pressured me to become a Democrat too, but this time I resisted. I like being one of the few remaining liberals in the Republican Party and I feel that if I hold out I'll be granted endangered species protection and I'll get my own national park and pretty female bird watchers will observe me through binoculars.

So as a person who thinks party affiliations pretty much nonsense, I can say the following to make the Momma happy, because it just happens to be the truth: This alleged controversy over Barack Obama's comments about guns and religion -- the so-called "bitter comment" -- is the biggest load of bull fertilizer ever to fall off the back of the political truck.

First of all, let us examine what Sen. Obama actually said at a San Francisco fund-raiser on April 6. It was so shocking that apparently it took five days before anyone could denounce it.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them ..." he said. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What is important to remember is that Mr. Obama was speaking sympathetically about these people. And, yes, not that it seems to matter to the nattering classes, there is truth in what he said. When people feel defeated, they do feel bitter and they do cling to the cultural pillars of their lives, religion being one of them, our help in ages past and our help for years to come.

As for guns in rural Pennsylvania and the Midwest, praising the Lord and passing the ammunition is what goes on. That's a fact, not a judgment.

But if there is one industry still booming in this country, it is the controversy fabrication industry. Various political and media elitists fell over themselves to feed the production line with claims that Barack Obama was an elitist, the same fellow of humble origins who was a community organizer in Chicago, which I doubt he did to feel superior to the poor people he was helping.

Among all the elitists in the anti-Barack brigade, none outperformed Washington Post columnist George F. Will, who wrote:

"Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are 'bitter,' he said they 'cling' to guns, religion and 'antipathy to people who aren't like them' because of 'frustrations.' His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice."

Really? What a mind reader. Still, I defer to superior breeding because here's a guy so snooty that he could go to the Elitist Persons Ball and guests would say, "Who's that elitist over there?" Here's a guy that when he goes to the ballpark, he may eat a hotdog but he probably has his pinkie extended. You can just imagine him denouncing Sen. Obama as an elitist over a good glass of sherry, looking down his superior nose, perhaps through a monocle. The whole thing is beyond satire.

But that is life in these United States, where a politico-media babbleocracy constantly assumes that working people are a bunch of dopes to be cynically manipulated with the scares and packaged controversies of the day -- gay marriage, illegal immigrants, unguarded comments, whatever serves to advance the interests of some sharp politician.

Talking about Hillary Clinton, I ask her supporters: Aren't you so proud that her campaign rushed to take advantage of the controversy with a TV ad that offers the reality of cynicism as an antidote to the audacity of hope? Who is their Momma anyway that they insult the people's intelligence like this?

Reg Henry
Reg Henry is the deputy editorial page editor of the Post-Gazette. He joined the Post-Gazette in 1978 as a copy editor and later was an associate editor who wrote editorials, and then city editor. He was also one of the earliest writers of the Saturday Diary, and for a time wrote a weekly humor column called "Oh Henry."
He left in 1988 to become the editor of The Monterey County (Calif.) Herald, which was then owned by the Post-Gazette's parent company. A year after The Herald was sold to Scripps Howard, he returned to Pittsburgh, in 1994, as the PG's special projects editor and later rejoined the editorial page.
Born in 1948 in Singapore, where his father managed the Reuters news agency, Reg moved to Australia as a small boy and grew up in Brisbane. He began his newspaper career at the Brisbane Courier-Mail, a period which was interrupted by service in Vietnam with the Australian Army. He moved to Britain in 1973, where he had also lived briefly as a child, and worked for a small weekly before joining The Times of London on the sports desk.

John Stewart On Clinton and Guns, Obama Taken Out of Context

You need to listen ALL the way through to get Clinton's hypocrisy on using this wedge issue.

Hillary Lands in Bosnia:Tall Tales of the Former First Lady

A Letter From Dan Rooney Of the Pittsburgh Steelers, on Obama

Dear Fellow Pennsylvanian,

Based on the experiences that I have had in my seventy-five years and my assessment of what I think our nation needs to make real the change that is so needed, I am proud and now feel compelled to endorse Senator Barack Obama.

This is not something that I do regularly but as I listen to the candidates in this race, I am struck that we continue to hear about the problems and the same challenges that we have been talking about for decades.

Protecting jobs here in Pennsylvania, breaking our dangerous and costly addiction to foreign oil, making health care accessible and affordable " these are neither new issues nor new ideas. And yet we have failed to make real progress. As a grandfather and a citizen of this community I think Barack Obama's, thoughtful, strategic approach is important for America.

When I hear how excited young people seem to be when they talk about this man, I believe he will do what is best for them which is to inspire them to be great Americans.

This time, we can't afford to wait. Our country needs a new direction and a new kind of leadership " the kind of leadership, judgment and experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated in more than 20 years of public service, and in a particularly impressive way in this campaign. Senator Obama has rejected the say-and-do anything tactics that puts winning elections ahead of governing the country.

And he has rejected the back-room politics in favor of opening government up to the people. Barack Obama is the one candidate in this race who can finally put an end to business as usual in Washington and bring about real change for Pittsburgh and the country as a whole. He has inspired me and so many other people around our country with new ideas and fresh perspectives.

True sports fans know that you support your team even when they are the underdogs. Barack Obama is the underdog here but it is with great pride that I join his team. When I think of Barack Obama's America I have great hope. I support his candidacy and look forward to his Presidency

Sincerely, Daniel M. Rooney,

Owner and Chairman, Pittsburgh Steelers

Are Pennsylvanians Bitter? You bet! A letter from the mayor of Braddock, PA

My name is John Fetterman, and I'm the Mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania.

A few days ago, Barack Obama spoke about our economy and about the frustration that folks across our state are feeling.

Now -- instead of actually addressing the challenges facing our communities -- Barack's opponents are taking these comments out of context to score political points.

This is exactly the kind of Washington politics that you and I want to stop.

Across Pennsylvania, in towns and small cities like mine, people are signing on to a letter to show their support for Barack and to say they're frustrated with politicians putting Wall Street before Main Street.

Check out the video of Barack's response about the economy and what people are feeling -- and sign on to the letter now:



In my town, Braddock, we have been hurt by job loss and economic downturn for decades. Barack is right on, and he understands how we feel. We need a leader who will fight for us, not the special interests.

As Mayor, I enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama because he understands the needs of communities like mine -- and has the strength and vision to offer real solutions.

Please forward this message to your family, friends, and neighbors and tell them you know that Barack is the one candidate who will fight for our working families and bring about the change this country needs.

Thank you,

Mayor John Fetterman
Braddock, Pennsylvania

Two Questions for Senator Clinton (and one for the Post-Gazette... or MSNBC)

I don't usually state my preferred candidates, but I will say mine dropped out of the running a while back. So at this point, I am concerned with democracy, truthfulness, and fair and honest campaigning.

I'm against superdelegates deciding the winner of the Democratic nomination, IF it goes against the popular vote.

However, since Senator Clinton has put me on her mailing list to ask for donations (daily), I would like SOME reporter, perhaps from MSNBC, to ask her two questions on which I have written to her(every time I get a donation request), but on which I have gotten no response. Ever.

1) When the Senate voted on whether or not to grant "retroactive immunity" to the telecoms, Obama and many other Democrats were there to oppose it. Unfortunately, some Democrats went along with the President, while still calling him a "bully". Poor babies. Not a lot of strength there, I'm sorry to say.

But where, also, is the strength in Hillary Clinton NOT showing up to vote against it? (Or for it if she feels that way.) I'd finally like to hear HER opinion on this issue. She's one of the Senators running for President. McCain and Obama are on the record. She's avoided answering it at every point.

2) While I'm at it, I'd like to hear her disavow Governor Rendell's comments on whether or not whites would vote for a black candidate in Pennsylvania. He's her campaign leader here and a pre-declared Hillary superdelegate - before the popular vote. It wasn't a comment that was asked for by the Post-Gazette reporters, they've said.

MSNBC had Governor Rendell on, but not any of the reporters present in the room... especially Tony Norman who wrote the follow up column 3 days later, calling attention to it (and also the only African-American in the room at the time.)

It was volunteered by Gov. Rendell, according to them, before he gave his state budget speech, which was his given reason for meeting with the P-G staff. He would have had to have known it would be reported. Or perhaps someone should ask the P-G staff if it was a question posed to him before his State budget speech, in which case, it's an opinion.

I would like to know whether it was a pre-determined "time bomb" to be dropped, or a question he was replying to.

In either case, I'd like to see Sen. Clinton disavow it as quickly as she called MSNBC to disavow similarly questionable comments by one of its reporters.

Gov. Rendell questions whether a white voter in PA will vote for a black candidate, MSNBC says it COULD have been taken out of context

I had read Gov. Rendell's comments in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last Friday and was wondering when the outrage would come... or as they say... when "things" would hit the fan. A number of people I came across in town had said the same thing. However, on Monday, Tony Norman's was the first column to address the lunacy of the statement. Just by his saying it, it became a racial issue.

Governor Rendell never said "I don't think the middle of the state will vote for a woman," unless I wasn't privy to some unreported comments. No, it was "I don't think some of the whites in this state will vote for a black candidate" - to paraphrase. (The actual quote is in a separate section of this blog.) He could have said (and in retrospect maybe should have said) nothing, rather than that. However, he is also one of Hillary Clinton's superdelegates - declared before the popular election has even taken place.

I noticed it came up last night on MSNBC election coverage... at first by Chris Matthews in terms of what a shocking comment it seemed to be. However... after about an hour Chris was trying to tone down Rendell's remarks as off the cuff and not so bad. It felt like the time various well-known sports figures were trying to stick up for "Jimmy the Greek" . Sorry, Chris, I often agree with you, but not here.

Congratulations to Tony Norman (who happened to be the only African-American reporter present at the meeting) of the P-G on bringing it to the forefront and NOT letting those remarks pass as we get nearer our state's election. They were said to reporters and meant to be reported. And I wonder if Chris, who now SEEMS to be defending Governor Rendell's remarks as "probably out of context", would be bold enough to have Tony Norman... or any of the other staff who were present at the meeting and Governor Rendell on together to clear the air. Or perhaps another show might want to do so. It would give both an opportunity to re-state their claims.

It sounded from Mr. Norman's article as though Gov. Rendell made the comment to make it, not as the result of a question. Tony stated it was "dropped" before the start of the actual purpose of the meeting... the state budget.

I would appreciate it if some of the national pundits giving Governor Rendell a pass on the remarks, would have the Governor and Tony or others from the P-G, who were present for those remarks, appear on their shows to define what was said and how. Otherwise, the national pundits are gossiping without the real details. Congratulations to Tony again on bringing it forward.

And perhaps Senator Clinton may want to distance herself from the remarks made by one of her supporters in a run up to that state's election, just as she's asked MSNBC to do with their reporter's "inadvertent" remarks about her daughter.

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

A reprint of Tony Norman's column (an always-on-target columnist for the P-G) from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I had previously read these comments from Gov. Rendell and found them to tread along the line of racism that Tony describes. I wondered when they might be addressed and by whom. (Tony - today) Pennsylvania is not a racist state by any stretch of the imagination, and comments like these have no place in this or any election. I hope the Clinton campaign makes a comment distancing themselves as quickly as they've asked MSNBC to fire David Shuster for comments that are probably not even this bad. Although those were off center, too. I say "Let's let them both keep their jobs, with reprimands from their supporters." (Greetings)

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Tuesday, February 12, 2008

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, 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.

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."

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!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?