Key Clinton Backer Says Some Whites "Not Ready" for a Black President

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 7:25 AM on February 13, 2008.

Looking back over the last couple of months, it seems every controversial remark from the Clinton campaign has come by way of one of her surrogates, not the candidate. Hillary Clinton, to her enormous credit, is extraordinarily disciplined, very bright, and loath to commit dangerous gaffes on the campaign trail.

But those speaking for her, keep causing needless distractions -- Bob Kerrey, Bob Johnson, Billy Shaheen, and even on occasion Bill Clinton have all made comments the campaign probably wishes they could take back.

I'm curious, though, whether Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), a key Clinton backer and former DNC chairman, fits into the same category.

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?

At first, I thought Rendell was making some kind of clumsy general-election electability argument, suggesting Clinton would fare better against McCain because of latent electoral racism. But if this report is accurate, Rendell seemed to argue that Clinton would win the primary because of latent racism among Pennsylvania Democrats.

Now, it's worth noting that Rendell's comments were not entirely over the line, at least as far as I can tell (I didn't hear the broader context). It's likely that Rendell was just trying to make some kind of sociological observation -- there are some white racists out there, and their bigotry may very well lead them to oppose Obama. Rendell didn't say that this was a good thing, only that the problem exists.

Indeed, Obama himself has made similar comments.

"Sure there are some people who will not vote for me because I'm black and there are some people who will vote for me because I am black," he said. "But I think most Americans are looking for a candidate who can get them affordable health care and less dependent on foreign oil."

Fair enough. But is it not fair to say that Rendell went way off-message on this one, especially given his role as a high-profile Clinton backer in one of the nation's largest states? Put it this way: reporters in Pennsylvania are about to call Clinton HQ and ask, "Ed Rendell says Clinton will benefit in the Democratic primary because there are racists out there. What does the senator think about this?" It's not exactly the question the team wants to hear.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention, for those of you who aren't as familiar with Rendell's background, that he has a history of popping off and making embarrassing comments. From an October 2000 profile:

At first glance, Ed Rendell looks serene. He is sprawled on a patio outside his office, feet propped up, neck arching back to take in the sun. But the silence is fleeting. In an instant, Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is upright, ready to answer questions. Or bark at his aides. Or field calls from party operatives. Or do all three simultaneously. For the next 90 minutes, Rendell talks incessantly. Legend has it that when he was mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell would schedule four meetings concurrently, in adjoining rooms, so he could conduct them all at the same time.

Rendell's words come fast and unfiltered. He leaps from Bill Clinton ("a fascinating character study!") to his role in the Gore campaign ("I've never been an attack dog") to his demeanor ("Sure, I have a temper"). And then, as is his wont, Rendell says something he should not: "I basically take orders from twenty-seven-year-old guys in Nashville who have virtually no real-life experience. All they've done is been political consultants living in an artificial world, and basically their opinion counts more than mine."

With comments like that, it's not hard to see why. Indeed, Rendell's tenure as DNC chairman has been one long, off-the-cuff rant. The media love it (Chris Matthews of "Hardball" calls Rendell "a real mensch"). But Democrats aren't so smitten and are working hard to marginalize their party's titular head. "The trick," says one Democratic consultant, "is to keep him in a position where he can't do any harm."

My hunch is, someone from the Clinton campaign will be giving him a call this afternoon. Whether it makes any difference remains to be seen.

Tagged as: race, racism, clinton, obama, rendell, pennsylvania

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.