MyDD :: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reject Governor Rendell?

[VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reject Governor Rendell?

by DaveDial, Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST

Will Hillary Clinton renounce Governor Rendell and reject his support? Governor Rendell has spoken very highly of Louis Farrakhan and honored him at a ceremony, standing onstage and lavishing praise after praise for Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Crossposted at DailyKos

More....

So the question is, will Senator Clinton abide by the same standards she set for Senator Obama? Will she renounce and reject the support of Governor Ed Rendell?

"There's a difference between denouncing and rejecting," Clinton said. "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."

Clinton criticizing Obama for not outright rejecting Farrakhan's support.

What is the differnce between Farrakhan giving praise to Senator Obama, with no offer of some kind of official support, and big time Pennsylvania Clinton supporter giving praise to Farrakhan?

She must renounce and reject the support of Governor Ed Rendell, to play by her own rules.

Poll

Votes: 11
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Governor Ed Rendell, Loius Farrakhan, 2008 Democratic Primary, Pennsylvania (all tags)

Permalink :: 40 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tips for political honesty (2.00 / 2)

Tips for political honesty.

This just shows the ridiculous standards that the Clinton campaign(and her surrogates/supporters) place on Senator Obama.

by DaveDial on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (2.00 / 1)

Listen, if those of us in the Obama camp are going to scream foul when guilt by association is used against Obama. We should just let this one go. Take the high road, the view is better.

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 05:51:52 PM EST

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (2.00 / 1)

That's the point of this diary.

Look at my first post, 'political honesty'.

I want the same standards applied to both candidates, all three candidates.

There should be NO 'guilt by association', and if the media wants to dig up and take from opposing campaigns every little association that Obama has had over the last 20 years, then the same has to be done to the other candidates.

Otherwise, this BS should stop.

And that's my real point and goal, for this BS to stop.

by DaveDial on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (2.00 / 1)

The point is precisely that Clinton should abandon and apologize for such tactics, because clearly she is just as easily tarred with the brush she uses on Obama.

And if she is going to make such attacks, she has to be prepared for responses.

She doesn't get to launch atomic strikes on her opponent unanswered.

by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [ (none / 0)

If we are going to talk about hypocrites.

BO on Imus - Imus must be fired there is not place in america for that kind of talk.

BO on Ferraro - Ferraro must be fired there is not place in america for that kind of talk.

BO on Rev Wright - We must put his words into Context because you know he has done a lot of good and you know his is my bud. So there is a place in america for racist hateful talk as long as you are my bud.

So lets be clear. What i as bring up is the hypocrisy of BO and his campaign. So when BO and his supporters stop doing this double standard then we can talk about the gov of PA.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:59:30 PM EST

Re: [ (none / 0)

Lol, I'd love to see quotes on that.

On a side note, Reverend Wright WAS let go. He no longer has any relationship with the campaign.

So (1) Imus was fired, (2) Ferraro resigned, (3) Wright resigned.

The only hypocrisy I see is when Clinton said her and McCain had experience when Obama only had a speech and then denounced (and rejected) Obama for saying that McCain would be better than Bush.

In Clinton's little world...

Clinton>Bush>McCain>Obama.

The REAL world:
Obama>Clinton>McCain>Bush

A world which I would accept:
Clinton>Obama>McCain>Bush.

by ckd5555 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [ (none / 0)

Again not true. BO has said many times that Wright words must be put into context. And he has said that we must consider his 20 years of service. And his supporters make this argument all the time.

And he has never apoligized for Wright's comments but he demanded that HRC apoligise for Ferraro's comments. Even thro HRC has next to no involvement with Ferraro but BO has a 20 year relationship with Wright.

So again it is the hypocrisy and your argument is just no correct.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [ (2.00 / 1)

Wright was not speaking as Obama's surrogate in 2001 when he said America's chickens were coming home to roost. Ferraro WAS speaking as Clinton's surrogate when she said the only reason Obama is where is he is because he's black, and that she was being attacked because she was white. Yet, when the comments came out, Wright was forced to resign nonetheless. But Obama would not denounce the man - he would however, reject the comments. Hillary, on the other hand, rejected neither Ferraro or her comments. Nor did she reject the "latte-drinking, Prius driving," comments, nor her own, "the skies will open," comments, nor any number of things.

by TheSilverMonkey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [ (none / 0)

Wright's sermon was not on Obama's behalf, or spoken for the sake of Obama's campaign against Clinton. Ferraro's was. Thus Obama cannot really "apologize" for Wright's words--he has no responsibility for them.

Obama did denounce them, though.

"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy...they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country...Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together."

by rhetoricus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait, WHAT? (none / 0)

When did BO say Ferraro should be "fired"? (And fired from what employ?)

When did BO ever demand that Ferraro even be denounced?

Ferraro didn't say "nappy headed ho's." (which, you know, is also sexist).

by rhetoricus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, WHAT? (none / 0)

This is the oldest bs defensive. His campaign and supporters demanded that Ferraro be fired. BO never takes any responsibility for nayone i his campaign.

And lets be clear. Whose comments were worse. Imus, Ferraro's, or Wrights.

IMHO by far Wright's comments, period.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, WHAT? (2.00 / 0)

Ferraro wasn't hired by anyone, as far as I knew. Was she officially in the Clintons' employ?

And where did Obama's "campaign" make demands about Ferraro?

Do we now get to noose the candidates with anything a "supporter" says? Can I use Limbaugh, Coulter and Scaife, now that they're endorsing Hillary?

The Clintons invited Wright to the White House as political cover for the Lewinsky scandal. They don't seem too bothered by him.

And since he's a Marine and helps poor people, I'm not bothered by him either.

But why don't you spend a little more time on that Wright outrage, there. Maybe post nine or ten diaries about it.

by rhetoricus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, WHAT? (none / 0)

Ridiculous!

Wright spoke the truth, Imus used racial smears to make jokes. No comparison.

by Cycloptichorn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (none / 0)

If this is the same video posted on the other thread, there is not a single word of praise for Farrakhan on it.

If you want to claim that he lavished praise on Farrakhan, let's see the quotation.

Jim Martin for Senate!

by markjay on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:00:14 PM EST

Are you freaking kidding me?? (2.00 / 3)

" there is not a single word of praise for Farrakhan on it."

I suggest you get flashplayer or something, because not only did he praise LF, he was downright flattering to him and the NOI.

Oh, and if you can't view the video, then it's best not to comment and make yourself look silly.

by DaveDial on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spiraling down the rabbit hole.... (2.00 / 0)

Sigh...

This is silly, beyond silly.

First, this has nothing to do with the Obama campaign, THE LAST THING they want to see is the word Farakhan in print, on radio, on video...

But, after all, for Hillary to second her BFF Sean Hannity in bringing up Bill Ayers, when Bill pardoned TWO CONVICTED Weather Undergound members is that same crap-ola?

God, PLEASE Put an end to this?

Indiana, stop this comedy of errors....

On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!

by WashStateBlue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:04:20 PM EST

It will end... (2.00 / 1)

... when Clinton stops flinging mud, forcing Obama to brush it off his shoulders.

by Hudson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges (none / 0)

Wait a minute - the only logical conclusion of your post then, is that NONE of the people who have endorsed Obama have spoken well of Farrakahn. Right? Because that's the only way this isn't hypocritical on your part.

Now, I disagree with Clinton on this. I like Farrakhan, but I do not see how you can make your claim unless none of Obama's endorsers have spoken highly of him (and I doubt that is the case). Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.

by Little Otter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:04:56 PM EST

Distance from Farrakhan (2.00 / 1)

is Hillary's criteria for credibility, not Obama's. The poster is not criticizing the support of Farrakhan per se, but Hillary's inconsistency in applying it as criteria for credibility.

by rhetoricus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly! (2.00 / 1)

Thanks, you said it better. heh-heh

by DaveDial on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, no...the difference is (2.00 / 1)

Uh, no...the difference is that Senator Obama has not made this silly 'guilt by association' charge against Senator Clinton.

On the other hand, Hillary has done that to Obama.

So how can she not condemn Ed Rendell now?

That's my point.

I don't really want her to do it, I really like Rendell. I just want the hypocrisy of it out there.

It's not the same as if someone that endorses Obama praised LF, because Obama has not made the Guilt By Association a part of his attacks against Clinton.

Clinton has. McCain did a little.

by DaveDial on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, no...the difference is (1.00 / 0)

She didn't slam Obama for accepting the endorsement of someone who had spoken highly of Farrakhan. She slammed him for accepting Farrahkan's endorsement. Those aren't the same things - you do realize that, right?

There's no hypocrisy here until she accepts Farrahkan's endorsement. Until then, this is apples and oranges.

by Little Otter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you out of your freaking mind??? (2.00 / 0)

Are you out of your freaking mind???

First of all, there was no endorsement.

Secondly, Obama NEVER, EVER, accepted any endorsement from Farrakhan.

You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies like neocons do.

Sheesh!

by DaveDial on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a stretch.... (2.00 / 1)

Well, Dave, this is a stretch, but you have a slight point?

The Bill Ayers GBA trip that Senator Clinton gleefully joined in on the other night, when Bill pardoned TWO CONVICTED Weather Underground members was the one that made me want to hurl my cookies?

On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!

by WashStateBlue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (none / 0)

This is not something that Senator Clinton should have to answer for.

by Grant Caesar Peters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:33:14 PM EST

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (2.00 / 0)

And neither should Senator Obama have to answer for the fact his church's monthly letter praised Farakhan?

See the point of Guilt by Association?

It can be turned on anyone....

On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!

by WashStateBlue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (2.00 / 0)

Then they should perhaps stop demanding that Obama "answer" for every controversial person he's ever associated with.

by rhetoricus on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

If I were Clinton I would perhaps denounce him tomorrow, after the primary.

by mjc888 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:38:09 PM EST

New politics look so old.. (2.00 / 1)

I can see how the two situations are analogous.

Rendell's effort to extend an olive branch, compared with Rev. Wright's screaming that Blacks must not vote for Hillary because she "ain't never been called a nigger!"

Rendell's speech about mutual respect, compared with Rev. Wright's insistence that rich white people control the world, infect us with AIDS and deserved to be killed on 09-11, because it says so in the Bible.

Yes they look the same to me.

Hope. Change. Unity. Etc.

by bobbank on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:51:07 PM EST

Both men said noble things that were... (2.00 / 0)

... twisted out of context. That is the point of this diary and I agree with it. Obama will not attack Rendell because he understands this.

by dystopianfuturetoday on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New politics look so old.. (2.00 / 0)

Or, Barrack Obama's membership on a charity board with Bill Ayers, a never convicted member of the Weather Underground...

Vs Bill Clinton's last day pardon of TWO CONVICTED FELONS of the Weather Underground?

Jesus, Bob, get a grip.

Rev Wright was a twice decorate WW2 Vet, who spend the last 30 years in outreach programs, aids education, helping the poor....I know you want to Sean Hannity him, cause it helps your candidate, but that's a crock.

I know you have probably never been in a black church, but they get a little excited in there?

And, of course, you know that is not what Rev Wright said? He didn't say black folks must not vote for Clinton cause she has never been called a nigger?

Here's what he said, and, unlike Sean Hannity, I will give you the full quote:

At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is considerably easier than Obama's because of his skin color.

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was,"

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.

Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a 'nigger!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person."

Wow, funny..I think all those statements are actually quite true?

But, the ONE THING he didn't say was Black Folks should vote for Obama, cause Hillary's never been called a nigger?

On Nov 4th, we elected "the smart guy" and the world celebrated!

by WashStateBlue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New politics look so old.. (2.00 / 2)

It's really not that hard to connect the dots.

Before this his says that Barack ain't rich and he ain't white. The goes into the bit about Barack knows what it's like to live in a country controlled by rich white people. Then goes into Hillary ain't never been called a nigger.

What is his point in talking about two candidates for President, one of whom he serves as a National Adviser to the campaign, except to suggest who people should vote for? And specifically his objective was to denegrate the work that the Clintons did on behalf of the African American community - to try to reduce their history with folks of color into sexual gratification, at one point.

But there is one thing he says that is even more unfortunate and more egregious than all of this.

At another point in this tirade, he says that Hillary does't know what it's like to have to work twice as hard just to get ahead, or to watch someone you know is not as smart or capable receive advancement instead of you.

You wanna bet? Ask women in America, who earn 77 cents on the male dollar, whether or not they know what it's like to have to work twice as hard.

That was the really tragic part of Wright's mindset, to me - rather than drawing a common theme between two disadvantaged groups, he simply tries to incite the anger of one against the other. And he's doing it for political gain.

It's awful, and no exercise in moral equivalency will ever convince me otherwise. Sometimes, something is just wrong. This was one of those times. If you have convinced yourself that somehow Barack's 20-year decision to follow this man doesn't reflect in any way on his own thought process, fine. I'll accuse you of wearing blinders, but it is after all your choice.

But please don't make excuses for behavior that you know is wrong-headed and destructive.

by bobbank on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:02:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [VIDEO] Will Hillary Clinton renounce and reje (1.00 / 0)

LOOK WHO TALKING; I THINK THE VIDEO IS FAKE, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER WEBSITES THAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS MADE.

AND EVEN SO, GOV RENDELL IS NOT OBAMA, AND NOT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

YOU, OBAMATOTS STILL NEEDS A LOT OF GROWTH HORMONES.

by SHIBAM8P on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:32:14 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.