This Is Fucking Outrageous!

[Hope And Change]

Gov Rendell today on Meet the Press gave us great talking points going forward. He is, if you did not know, a supporter of HRC and the gov. of PA. During Meet the Press he was asked the following: Should superdelegates support as the nom the person who was won the most contests (that us as HRC cannot beat us on that score no matter what happens going forward), he said No. He was then asked what about the person who has won the most contests and has the most elected/pledged delegates (again that is us as there is no way HRC can ever regain the lead in pledged delegates), he said NO. Finally, he was asked what if the person has won the most contests, has the most pledged delegates, and has won the popular vote (we are up by nearly 700,000 on that score), he said NO. Gov. Rendell said that superdelegates should only vote for the person who has won PA, OH, Michigan, and Florida. That's right Gov. Rendell just said the other 46 states in this country are meaningless (that includes you Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, KY, Oregon, Montana, and S. Dakota; heck even Missouri, CA, NY, and TX do not matter). Wow! We should let the people living in those other 46 states (especially those in the upcoming contests) know that the HRC campaign believes their opinion on who should be the nom is irrelevant. I'd like to see the superdelegates from these irrelevant states feel after being told they do not matter.

[tabatha]

1. What a clown.

I guess the states that don't count should just stay home in November.

[Cha]

55. I'll say this about hilary's surrogates..

If they was any doubt about who they are and what they stand for..hilaryland's campaign has cemented forever how they will go down in history. Good job, hilary..you're not satified to go down sliming ..you're taking a passle of so-called dems(read dinos) with ya.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. In-freakin-credible

It just shows you how disconnected from reality they are. Any justification for her win, even if it means ignoring 90% of the country.

[QC]

3. Just curious, but is this your irst campaign? n/t

[Kittycat]

6. Does it's matter? I'm just as outraged, and I"m far from my first.

[QC]

10. No, not really, but I was just wondering

how so many people could stay in a constant state of outrage over politicians doing what politicians have always done.

It's either stunningly naive or it's phony, one or the other.

[Dhalgren]

43. I think, QC, that you are dead-on right. Jesus, politicians acting and

sounding like politicians!? My gods, I must slash my wrists!

:eyes:

I am much more concerned with the outright lying by both candidates. If they do not have the savvy to lie in such a way as to not be caught-out, then they are hopeless... (heh, heh)

[QC]

45. Yep, they all spin things in such a way as to win the advantage.

I thought we were a pretty sophisticated bunch here and well aware of such things, but apparently not, given the extreme mortification with which every ordinary, absolutely pedestrian bit of politician spin is now greeted here.

OMG!!! OMG!!! OMG!!! SOME POLITICIAN JUST SAID WE SHOULD VOTE FOR HIM INSTEAD OF THE OTHER ONE!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! I AM SO PISSED!!!

[Kittycat]

48. Then why do we bother to complain about ANYTHING the RW does then? If not for outrage?

[QC]

53. Well, we might save our outrage for, you know, genuine outrages,

rather than slashing our wrists every time a spokesman for a politician tries to spin unpleasant realities in that politician's favor.

There are too many true outrages in the world for me to get too excited about a spinner trying to say that his chosen candidate is in better shape than she is, but then I don't enjoy drama as much as some clearly do.

[thunder rising]

58. I'd have to say this is a genuine cause for outrage. It is unAmerican to subvert an election.

[QC]

60. He's clearly talking bullshit here, but I think it's a bit melodramatic

to accuse him of subverting an election. Again, I think that kind of talk is best saved for cases where people are genuinely subverting elections, as in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. When we wear out the outrage, it leaves us with nothing to say about genuine abominations.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. Let's dial up some change then.

:)

[Samantha]

75. I don't think so - the stunning part is how Republican-like Hillary

is acting.

No one is outraged any more when Bush* or Rove go over the line. We expect that from them. We do not expect that from the Dems. Shenanigans, yes. A little bit of dirty tricks, yes. Out and out outrageous lies and unbelievably, incredibly base maneuvers, no. And at a chronic rate.

Hillary's campaign has definitely crossed the line into Rove territory, and the worst part is it has no shame in doing so. They don't even try to hide it.

FYI, I have been a political junkie FOR DECADES. I did a stint at MTP and have worked in high-profile offices here in DC. It takes a lot to appall me. I am seriously appalled.

[TheDoorbellRang]

76. Because there has been a vast increase of people looking at elections through an internet microscope

Don't you think there are more people paying attention to the nitty gritty details this time than ever before? The 2000 election was the last time I felt I had the luxury of paying but cursory attention to a presidential race.

Of course politicians have done this forever and gotten away with it. Unfortunately for them two things have occurred: Dubya and the internet. So now everyone's paying attention and pointing fingers. And this is bad, why?

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Anyone have a transcript?

[Rosemary2205]

7. Ya, me too.

I have never heard him say anything that patently stupid before. Not doubting the OP, just wanting to verify for myself.

[K Gardner]

14. Its absolutely true. I heard it this morning. Link to transcript below

http://thepeoplesplatform.blogspot.com/2008/03/meet-press-transcript-obama-clinton.html

[Hope And Change]

19. There you go...

MR. RUSSERT: And, and, Governor, at the end of all those votes, if Barack Obama still had more elected delegates, would you then agree that he deserves the nomination?

GOV. RENDELL: Not if Hillary Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida back to back to back to back to back.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23546011/page/2/

[txaslftist]

78. Well, she didn't win Texas, so I guess his opinion is irrelevant.

[Rosemary2205]

29. See below - this ISN'T what he said

it's more than just a little obvious he's talking about who he thinks would be strategically more able to get through the GENERAL against McCain -- he in no way shape or form is saying Democrats in 46 states do not deserve a say on who gets the D nod.

[Sulawesi]

50. That's not true, read the transcript...

Russert asks if BO can be denied the nom having the most delegates and Rendell says "sure"

[Bake]

68. Of course he can be denied the nomination

Neither candidate can make it to the nom without the superdelegates. Under party RULES (as the O-bots love to quote), the superdelegates are not bound to any candidate but rather can vote their conscience.

Bake

[Joe the Revelator]

59. wow, he's a complete fool.

[Yael]

70. Looks like I am sending Fast Eddie another nasty-gram

His response to me slamming him on the "PA won't vote for a black dude" thing was HILARIOUS.

We shall see how he responds to this one.

"back to back"?

What an idiot. 30 states voted between Florida and Tex/Ohio.

[Kittycat]

5. If I was Rendell, I'd be careful that he doesn't end up with a revolt

on his hands come election time.

[MH1]

12. Rendell's over. He can't run for gov again, and doesn't have a decent shot at anything else.

So he can shoot his mouth off all he wants and it won't hurt his own electoral prospects - he doesn't have any.

[Kittycat]

49. Ah - so he's running for a seat in the HillCab?

[MH1]

52. Seems like it.

[Yael]

74. He has been since 1999. Fast Eddie was knee deep in the Peter Paul

financing scandal that cost the Clinton camp a $35,000 fine for violating campaign financing laws.

[BklynChick]

8. he's a horrible idiot

[stop the bleeding]

9. Grape Drink!

For when the Kool Aid just won't do it anymore.

[tabatha]

11. Another thought.

The Bush cabal disenfranchised Blacks to gain the WH.
Now the democrats are going to be doing the same.

This is highway robbery - disenfranchment - and NOT democracy.

It cannot happen.

[oasis]

17. Democrats will "disenfranchise " blacks? How so?

[Marnieworld]

13. He actually included Texas inhis list and emphasized "back to Back" victories

As if that matters. Daschle was great to point out ASAP that the delegate count is showin Obama in the lead in TX and may be the actual winner. He also pointed out how unprecedented it was for the number 2 candidate to offer the number 1 candidate the chance to be their number 2. He was great. Being from PA and a previous Rendell supported the cognitive dissonance was an embarassment. :eyes:

[DJ13]

15. Clinton is determined to steal the nomination no matter what

Thats pretty obvious.

Why the Party puts up with her crap I'll never understand.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. I really hate Ed Rendell

He is such a punk. He also said caucuses were undemocratic. Why don't we just hold primaries in the few states that count?

[BklynChick]

18. transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23546011/

[BklynChick]

26. see below

MR. RUSSERT: And, and, Governor, at the end of all those votes, if Barack Obama still had more elected delegates, would you then agree that he deserves the nomination?

GOV. RENDELL: Not if Hillary Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida back to back to back to back to back.

[Gore1FL]

51. Wellso much for that then...

She didn't win them back to back to back to back there were contests between them....

[Kaylee]

20. Let's have only those states go democratic and see who wins...

[suston96]

21. I think you should provide a transcript of what he said...I question your recall....

And neither Obama nor Clinton will carry most of the red states no matter how many of them either one has won in the primaries.

[Kaylee]

25. See post 18.

[JimGinPA]

22. In Rendell's Defense...

What possible logical answer could he have given? Her position is indefensible.


:shrug:

[Rosemary2205]

23. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD --- TRANSCRIPT!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23546011/

He's clearly talking about who would be best positioned to win in the general - not who deserves the D nom...........


*************

GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure, Tim, because, number one, Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate. Tim, you and I have been doing this for a long time, as Tom has, and we know the big four in any presidential election recently are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. And in all four of those states--Pennsylvania hasn't voted yet, but I assume we're going to do real well--Hillary Clinton will have taken those states, if it--she takes Pennsylvania, and will have taken them by significant majorities. She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well.

[Hope And Change]

28. Ummmm...

MR. RUSSERT: And, and, Governor, at the end of all those votes, if Barack Obama still had more elected delegates, would you then agree that he deserves the nomination?

GOV. RENDELL: Not if Hillary Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida back to back to back to back to back.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23546011/page/2/

[Rosemary2205]

34. context

it's a wonderful concept.

Rendell is shamelessly shilling for Hillary, nothing wrong with that - but in no way is he claiming no other states deserve a choice.

[Hope And Change]

42. Then you are truly blind...

[Rosemary2205]

54. I voted for Obama so

you might be right???

:crazy:

[thunder rising]

61. I agree, blind. We should poll the states and only primary in Dem states. Others don't count

Of course that negates the possibility that there is a sea change. And, it is exactly the way B Clinton lost the government. Additionally, the President is powerless without a Congress. The 50%+1 bleeds the party dry. This is proven. We've got decades of examples, but the "OLD Democrats" still cling to it; because it ensures a few a career.

[K Gardner]

32. Bullshit. He clearly is not. I watched it.. twice. He is talking about who gets the nomination via

superdelegate votes. Watch it.

[Kaylee]

33. No. He was answering a question about the Nomination......

MR. RUSSERT: Should the candidate who has the most elected delegates be the nominee?

FMR. SEN. DASCHLE: Absolutely. I don't see how we could possibly do anything other than respect the will of the people who have voted in caucus and primary states all over the country. And what it would say to the world, to the country that we'd overturn the verdict of those, of those elections would be travesty for, for the party and for the country.

<...>MR. RUSSERT: Governor Rendell, if, in fact, Barack Obama goes to the convention in Colorado in August with the most elected delegates, having won more contests and a higher popular vote, the cumulative vote, could he be denied the nomination?

GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure, Tim, because, number one, Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate. Tim, you and I have been doing this for a long time, as Tom has, and we know the big four in any presidential election recently are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. And in all four of those states--Pennsylvania hasn't voted yet, but I assume we're going to do real well--Hillary Clinton will have taken those states, if it--she takes Pennsylvania, and will have taken them by significant majorities. She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, you're counting Florida when, in fact, the candidates did not campaign in Florida. So you--are you suggesting Hillary Clinton won?

GOV. RENDELL: Oh, there's no question. In an even playing field, nobody campaigned, 1.7 million Floridians voted, and she won by 17 percent. But I have a suggestion, if you don't like that, Tim, or if Tom doesn't like that, let's revote in Michigan and Florida. Let's end all the suspense. If our campaign is wrong and we are not going to be the strongest in those states, let the voters choose it. And Tom always talks about--the Obama folks talk about undemocratic. How can the Democratic Party go to Denver and deny the people of Michigan and Florida, two crucial states, a voice in this, in this nominating process? Makes no sense at all. Let's revote, and let's see how we do.

MR. RUSSERT: But in Michigan, you'll acknowledge that you have said repeatedly that the Clinton campaign cannot make the statement that they won Michigan.

GOV. RENDELL: Right. Which is why I'm calling for a revote.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. This twisted logic from Fast Eddie

ASSUMES that if Obama were the nominee, that the very BLUE states that Clinton won would suddenly go RED and vote for Mclame. This is pure propaganda and why people fall for this crap lock stock and barrel boggles the mind.

Why do DLCers hate the Democratic Party? Ed Rendell = DLC.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. No Chance?

Really?

Are you really arguing that McCain is more popular than Obama in Utah and Wyoming and 'places like that'?

See...... I think Obama rightfully believes he can be President of all of the United States.

[Rosemary2205]

56. I never said I AGREE with Rendell

I merely said that IMHO the transcript doesn't seem to quite match the interpretation given in the OP.

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. what? Do you want to change the rules mid campaign? That would be

hypocritical as you have all said that the rules should not be changed mid campaign.

What a double standard.

[CyberPieHole]

44. K&R... I love how the CULT of Obama like to pick and choose what rules can be changed...

But you have to give them credit for attempting to be sneaky.:evilgrin:

[Lucinda]

27. Transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23546011/

[Benhurst]

30. None of this will matter if one of our candidates manages to win the

primaries. In order to do so, according to the rules which were agreed upon by our candidates, he or she will have to win 2025 elected delegates. Any candidate who fails to do so loses. If no candidate manages to win, then super delegates will have to join this candidate or that until at last one of them reaches the magic number of 2025.

A loss is a loss. Gaining a plurality means nothing. This state or that is no more valuable "morally" than any other. Even though we will lose Utah in the general election, the votes of its delegates are just as valuable as those from Vermont, which we will carry no matter whom we nominate.

If the convention starts with no candidate having won 2025 elected delegates, according to the rules, the nomination is up for grabs. Which states were won, number of votes, pluralities, etc. all become relevant only in so far as such factors influence individual super delegates. Since all the candidates shall have lost, it is up to the super delegates and the delegates of of the defeated candidates to determine who might best unite the party and defeat the opposition, whether he or she be a declared candidate or not.

[Catherina]

31. ROFL!

[suston96]

35. Thanks for the transcript...Not at all what the OP "recalled" and posted..... nt

[K Gardner]

37. Again, bullshit. Can you read? Have you seen it? I'm guessing Hillary demographics again.

[VolcanoJen]

40. It's a Magical Mystery World....

"HillaryLand"

[Vinca]

36. So my question for Gov. Rendell is, why bother having a campaign?

We might as well stuff the superdelegates in a room, order up pizza and take a vote and forget all the inbetween speeches, debates, etc. These people are starting to scare me. Their concept of democracy is dangerously close to King George's.

[thunder rising]

64. Borrowing from Grisham, "We'll give them a Primary,a damned fine primary;then WE'll pick the nominee

[NoBushSpokenHere]

39. I would like to see an HONEST poll taken to see how many

people would really like to see a nominee by appointment rather than by the will of the people!

[saltpoint]

41. Ol' Ed's angling for a spot on the ticket.

Which is his right.

But it isn't going to be an unimpeded path.

[TwilightGardener]

47. I know. According to him, the primaries should only be counted

in four states--one state she has won, two she didn't because they didn't count, and one that he will personally engineer with the 'ol machine to ensure she wins. States that seem favorable to Hillary ONLY must decide this primary. What an absolute sham of democracy, if anyone gives this assclown's arguments any serious thought.

[txaslftist]

79. Which state did she win?

[0007]

57. According to the good governor. I am and you ARE un-democratic.

This Is Fucking Outrageous! How dare this wank come into my house and call us names. We need someone to write a sophisticated letter to this schmuck and have everyone here sign it. Let it be called a re-call for the sake of the good people living in Pennsylvania. This just might get legs to get up and ran this son-of-a-bitch out of office.

He is now on my 'shit list' I suggest everyone write this bastard a note and send it to his website. http://www.governor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?

Gov. Rendell cannot and will not get away with this type of attitude toward us!
Lets show him we are not un-democratic any shape way or form.

[seabeyond]

63. but hillary and supporters are for COUNT ALL VOTES, even if not legit so they disagree surely...

[polichick]

65. Gov Rendell is obviously desperate for a new job...

...and doesn't mind selling his soul to get it. As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm sorry I helped him get the job he already has.

[damndude]

66. i don't think its just me.....

but i have not seen it much stated that the most offensive rhetoric is being distributed by the clinton campaign. the conduct of she and her campaign has really made me a solid supporter of barack obama to the point i hope he does not choose her a vp if/when he secures the nomination. this is sitting aside the petty junior scandals of someone calling her a 'monster' or calling the reagan era a trans formative time in politics which in fact it was and we as democrat have been battling hard against that coalition he built ever since. i am talking about the filth that challenges all ideas of basic democracy that has been flowing out her campaign ever since the crown got put back in the box after she started loosing.
the ideas that all this dram comes down to who can win ohio, tx, penn, ca, and fla is laughable. i watched it live and couldn't believe what i heard.
the idea that suggest mccain is better suited to win if she is not the nominee is horrific on lieberman proportions.
the fact that she is willing to berate obama as unqualified, dishonest, dangerous, potentially muslim and then offer him a job as vice president calls into question who is pulling her strings from moment to moment.
her conduct is appalling. the implications of her rhetoric is unnerving and frightening and it all suggests what her governing style might be.
the one thing that leaves me hopeful is that when her surrogates are challenged on their b.s. (see rendell and mcaulliffe on bill maher friday night) there is silence and that silence should bee where common sense and intelligence on the part of the voter fills the void.
fingers crossed.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. The Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida strategy sucked last time, lets not use it again

We need to compete in Colorado, Missouri, Virginia, etc. if we want to win this thing.

[stillcool]

69. oooh baby...

they are setting us up.

[AtomicKitten]

71. OMG - It was absolutely breathtaking.

Clinton has lost and she will not accept it. Wow. My theory all along has been that it will require a blow dart, animal tranquilizer, and a net to drag her away.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. I'm going to skip all the other comments

And go straight to November.

So Clinton wins. Maybe she brings Rendell along as her Veep. Snort Snort Chuckle Chuckle.

Now how is McCain's campaign going to spin THAT one? One or the other better go for the kill and go quick because all we are doing is giving the Script Writers for McCain's ads fodder to spew their spin.

[Yael]

73. My latest email to Fast Eddie

Ed, Ed, Ed.

What ARE we going to do with you??

When I was 6, I was taught to count. Did you perhaps miss that day?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23546011/page/2/

MR. RUSSERT: And, and, Governor, at the end of all those votes, if Barack Obama still had more elected delegates, would you then agree that he deserves the nomination?

GOV. RENDELL: Not if Hillary Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida back to back to back to back to back.

First of all, there were some 30-odd contests between Florida's vote and Texas/Ohio.

Secondly, you just stated that 45 states in this country DON'T COUNT.

I thought you couldn't sound more ignorant with the "PA won't vote for a black dude" comment, and now this. You are fast becoming worse than a mindless Clinton sycophant. You are becoming a national embarrassment.

As a Pennsylvania resident who is already dreading the next 7 weeks of scorched earth -- I am begging you -- please THINK before you speak.

<name>

What a tool.

[krkaufman]

77. I guess Kos got it wrong ... It's the "Insult 46 States Strategy"

He was only off by 6 states.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/113237/023/979/456665