Posted on 02/12/2008 5:27:28 PM PST by familyop
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.
"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," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.
To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent.
"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so," he said. "And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."
Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on Jan. 23.
Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.
Several figures in Clinton's campaign, including her husband, the former president, have been criticized in recent weeks for raising Obama's race. In response, Bill Clinton has said he will stick to promoting his wife, rather than defending her.
Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.
"He was simply making an observation about the unfortunate nature of some parts of American society," said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "He wasn't being critical, he wasn't making accusations, but just being realistic."
Remember the New York Mayoral election where Giuliani beat that piece-of-crap racist incumbent David Dinkins?
We were told then by the usual race-pimps (Sharpton, Jackson, etc.) that Dinkins only lost because of racism, because white racists were not willing to vote for someone of a different skin color from their own.
It turned out that the pimps were correct - sort of. The numbers revealed that whites were split about 60-40 for Rudy. But blacks voted over 90% against the candidate whose skin color was different from their own.
So remind me again, Rev-rund Al & Chezzie Chackson, who are the true racists? You know, the ones who fit your own description of "racism" so well?
I can't heeeear you.....
No. The sleazebag Rendell will crank out his Democrap machine no matter who is the nominee. They need his machine and will reward him accordingly.
He will not be elected because he has accomplished NOTHING in his life!
And with a black candidate, vs. any white candidate, which way would they be voting?
Oh...and some white, retired women. They seem to favor Hillary quite a bit.
Why does anyone not believe this?
Of course you are right. That's the main reason the 'rats haven't elevated their black toadies to positions of power. I expect this will be a factor also in Ohio, where the 'rat party is thick with a) rural poorly educated hillbillies and b) blue collar union thugs who resent affirmative action-type programs while they watch their fat union jobs and bennies melt away.
I don't know much about PA but I expect the "firewall" to work for Clinton in Ohio.
If you don’t vote for Obama, you’re a racist. How original.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
I agree with you 100%.
I had a southern roomate in the army who was a hardcore democrat—I never understood why—he was the most conservative redneck I ever met, but some family affiliation thing made him a hardcore dem.
All I can say though is he would never ever ever ever vote for a black man, and certainly a muslim black man for president. bottom line.
Read: Core Democrats, like the types who fought along side of Al Gore's father and Democrat Senator and KKK Grand Dragon Robert Byrd against the civil rights act. The same people who would have my wife and children drinking from a separate water fountain and sitting in the back of the bus. Yes... Democrats...
“And with a black candidate, vs. any white candidate, which way would they be voting?”
The answer to that question are in the results of the Dem primaries. The white vote is split between Obama and Hillary and the black vote is solidly Obama, over 90% in some areas.
The real truth is, in a “black vs. white” race, far higher percentages of whites will vote for the black candidate than vice versa.
The fact that most blacks (I feel comfortable calling 80-90% of those who voted “most”) will vote strictly on racial lines when given the opportunity is applauded. The expectation of the relatively few whites to do the same is considered racist.
> blacks voted over 90% against the candidate whose skin color was different from their own.
They voted 97% for Dinkins and Dinkins got 98% of the black vote when he beat Giuliani four years earlier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.