On balance, I like Clinton spokesperson Governor Ed Rendell.
Call me a sucker for liberal, East Coast big-city political brawlers with hoagies named after them, but, yeah, it's true, I like Ed Rendell, and who wouldn't? I mean, given the alternative...well...Tom Daschle inspires me like a Lutheran church choir on a pleasant midwestern May afternoon. Which is to say that Dashcle lifts me up about as far as a rousing chorus of "Nearer My God, to Thee"...which, for those not in the know, is not that much.
That being said, Ed Rendell has an additional factor in his favor. Like Howard "Ken Starr" Wolfson and Mark "Some States are more equal than others" Penn, Governor Rendell is about as good a surrogate for my candidate, Barack Obama, as one could wish for from the other side.
Let me explain...
the audacity of Bill
It takes something a bit beyond mere chutzpah to suggest, as President Bill Clinton did yesterday in Mississippi, that it would be a fair deal for Barack Obama, the leader in the popular vote, pledged delegates, state victories and the candidate with the most donors, volunteers and dollars raised to trade all that for the VP slot on a Hillary Clinton ticket!
As Johnny Carson might have said, "Democratic primary voters didn't just fall off the turnip truck, Mr. President."
That offer doesn't reflect the audacity of hope, it's just audacity.
(Does any voter in America think Bill would have accepted that kind of a deal from, say, Paul Tsongas or Ross Perot?)
And this is what I love about Governor Rendell, he knows this stuff is all baloney, but he says it anyways. Take a look at his recent performance on Meet the Press:
Video Clip One
Video Clip Two
Video Clip Three (Daschle's first response)
Transcript here
::
'The Big Four'
We learned today about an entirely new concept in choosing the Democratic nominee, the Big Four.
Let me set the stage. Tim Russert asked Clinton Spokesperson, Governor Rendell this essential question.
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.
Whoa. Let's stop right there. Did we just hear that?
Senator Obama wins elected delegates, states, and the popular vote (presuming we can agree on how to measure it after the fact) and Rendell is for denying Obama the nomination. What could be his rationale?
Ah, 'the Big Four'.
GOV. RENDELL: 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.
Now, I sincerely respect Governor Rendell for helping John Kerry take Pennsylvania in 2004 and helping elect any number of new Democrats to the House, Senate and State Legislature from the great state of Pennsylvania in 2006. He's a good guy. We need him in 2008.
I guess 'the Big Four' is supposed to echo 'the Big Ten' somehow...minus a whole bunch of states. Now, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania are all great States, but suggesting that they alone should determine our Democratic nominee reeks more of desperation than persuasiveness, to me. That's not moving the goalposts, that's moving the stadium.
It's one thing for Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson to suggest that caucus states and small states don't matter. It's another thing for Governor Rendell to suggest that Super Delegates should throw the results from all the other 46 States into the garbage when considering the nominee.
But that's exactly what he's doing.
Maybe the Clinton campaign has boned up on a new edition of "How to win friends and Influence People" that I'm not familiar with, but, respectfully, I'd suggest that the number of Super Delegates from the Big Four states isn't going to outnumber the Super Delegates from...everywhere else.
Thank you, Governor Rendell, for showing what you think of the rest of America. Telling folks who've voted, and have yet to vote, all over this nation exactly how little you think of them is a great way to win over voters and critical Super Delegates!
::
"Back to Back to Back to Back to Back"
Governor Rendell has a way with the words. You've got to respect it.
Here's what he has to say about the uncontested vote in the great state of Florida:
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.
And here's what he has to say about the awesome state of Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot:
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.
MR. RUSSERT: OK.
GOV. RENDELL: I'm calling for a revote. But, Tim, you run against uncommitted, that's the toughest election to win. I think Tom would agree. I'd rather run against an opponent anytime than against uncommitted, and Hillary Clinton got 55 percent of the vote against uncommitted. But I agree, I think we should revote. What's wrong with revoting? Why is the Obama camp so silent on that issue?
In the annals of persuasiveness, that exchange will not rank highly.
But my favorite Rendell moment was when he started to wax poetic about the strength of Senator Clinton's campaign. I think Governor Rendell got carried away and added one more state to the Big Four, creating the Big Five:
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.
Now that's poetry. The Big Five and five "backs." Count 'em..."back to back to back to back to back."
You gotta love it.
Of course that has nothing to do with reality or the fact that Senator Obama did win 12 in a row.
In point of fact Clinton won the popular vote but didn't win the most delegates in Texas. She won Ohio, that's for sure, but there's no way anyone can yet say that she's won Michigan, Florida or Pennsylvania! And even if she eventually does so (which is likely in Florida and Pennsylvania), to privilege those states without including all the other states and territories that have competed, and have yet to compete, in this nomination process is not all that wise. That's going to leave a pretty sparse convention hall in Denver.
Right?
Markos called it the insult 40 States strategy. Ed Rendell just upped the ante; let's insult 45 States!
I guess the rest of us don't have to show at the DNC, eh? It's going to be a pretty big echo chamber in Denver, that's for sure. (As they would say in my home state of Minnesota, "You betcha'!")
To his credit, I still like that line: back to back to back to back to back: it's...unstoppable.
::
President Barack Obama
Now, Governor Ed Rendell is no idiot. Even by the "Clinton Rules" he knows that, as Governor of Pennsylvania, he can't just abandon the truth and the voters entirely. He has to govern, after all.
Let's take this moment:
MR. RUSSERT: So, Governor Rendell, if Barack Obama's qualified to be vice president, he has crossed the commander in chief threshold. Correct?
GOV. RENDELL: Well, I, I think he's ready. He's not nearly as ready as Hillary Clinton is, there's no question about that. But, look, make no mistake about it, he's a talented, dynamic politician and, and a, and a good senator, and I think he would make a fine president.
Ah. That's more like it. Governor Rendell may be full of baloney, but he's hasn't lost his political senses. He still has to govern in Pennsylvania.
Or take this moment:
MR. RUSSERT: So, if you believe he's acceptable as vice president, one heartbeat away from the presidency, you believe that Barack Obama is qualified to be commander in chief.
GOV. RENDELL: I think he's qualified. I don't think he's as good a potential commander in chief right now as Hillary Clinton is. But I certainly think he's qualified. And I will work my heart out for him if he's our nominee.
Exactly right. The Clinton campaign might want to take the Democratic Party over a cliff but Governor Rendell understands the point that Speaker Pelosi made to the Clinton camp this weekend. (Speaker Pelosi short version: "Cut the 3AM crap, now.")
In fact, Governor Rendell, when put under pressure can be quite the Teddy Bear in that regard:
MR. RUSSERT: But if, in fact, there's a possibility Obama may be the Democratic nominee, would it be better, in the interest of the Democratic Party, that the Clintons not suggest that he hasn't passed the threshold to be commander in chief?
GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure. Look, there, there's rhetoric in a campaign on all, on all sides...
Now, that's more like it. I'm sure Speaker Pelosi's message got through.
::
the 50 State Strategy & what Barack and Rendell have in common
Senator Daschle, for all his midwestern homilitics, did have pretty persuasive moment today. He was clear. All 50 States should count:
MR. RUSSERT: And if the Clinton campaign says, "Hold on a second, Senator. We won California and New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas. We're going to win Pennsylvania. We can win those big states, the states that you need to win in a November election. We would be, Clinton, the stronger nominee."
FMR. SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I, you know, when--a poll was just taken, Tim, that showed Barack winning far more states than Hillary. There is no question--you ask any elected official, virtually any elected official west of the Mississippi and they say, without equivocation, "We want Barack Obama at the top of the ticket." They'll say that privately. So there is no question that, that Barack can win nationwide. We're going to have a 50-state strategy, we're going to be effective in states and bring people into the process, unlike we've seen in--at any time in history. And so we're very excited, very confident, very comfortable with the, with the knowledge that we're going to win big states, small states. It doesn't matter who's at the top of the ticket, I think the Democrat's going to be in a very commanding position in New York and California, and I think we can even put Texas in play this year.
Now, Tom Daschle advocating Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy brings tears to my midwestern eyes. (In a discrete, 'Lutheran', 'keeping up the appearance of propriety way', of course.)
But what would really make my heart sing would be the notion that we might get a chance to take Governor Rendell up on his word this fall and work with him, shoulder to shoulder, to win the great state of Pennsylvania for Barack Obama against John McCain.
You see, I know that Governor Rendell is speaking truth when he says he'd work hard for Senator Obama; just like Senator Daschle would work for Senator Clinton. It's not just that Rendell's that kind of guy. (And he is. He knows what's baloney and what's not.)
But it's also something that he and Senator Obama have in common.
When Ed Rendell was running to win the Democratic Gubernatorial Contest in Pennsylvania a new kind of voter emerged in Pennsylvania, in particular, in the Philadelphia suburbs. This new kind of voter was a crossover voter, and these Republicans helped propel Ed Rendell to a hard-fought victory relying on working every angle he could get.
They even came up with a nickname for these voters, a nickname that rings a bell in 2008.
They called them Rendellicans.
Sound familiar?