He claims he has no problem, however on the question of President Obama he says this:
"I don't know if he's going to win," fmr. Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) said on the Thursday evening broadcast of "John King USA" on CNN. "And I have this strange habit of trying to tell the truth when you ask me a question. I'm not sure he's going to win -- he should win."
"He inherited the worse set of problems any president in my lifetime and he's done a good job of advancing the ball, not as far as anyone would like -- including himself," Rendell observed.
Maybe he should rethink that habit. The GOP certainly doesn't have any such predilection. We have GOPers like Sean Hannity running around claiming that Walker's win in Wisconsin cinches it-Romney will win in Wisconsin and he will win nationally and the margin should be large. The only real suspense according to Mr. Fix News is how large the margin will be.
Now does Hannity think this? Who knows what goes on in his head other than that it's 75 percent made of jello. But even if he's not as dumb as he looks then he realizes there's n percentage in admitting the truth-that even after Walker's win Wisconsin is a real long shot as it Romney's chances. Even now every swing state has to go his way to reach 270. But you'd never know it to hear people like Sannity and Rush Limbaguh.
I know you could say that Rendell holds himself to a higher standard than these shameless organs of propaganda. Still Rendell doesn't get it. What strikes you is how poor the Democrats' party discipline is. In the end Democrats seem so rarely to do anything for the party everyone only seems to think of their own political hide. So it is that Weiner is out of politics and attending a "sex addicts" class for writing a few lewd twitter messages while David Vitter is free to write hard money legislation.
Rendell for some odd reason has been to try to argue against a recent poll that shows Obama has a 12 point lead in Pennsylvania. You'd think this were good news yet Ed wants to insist that in the end it will be a struggle. Even the GOP doesn't seem to believe this:
"It's going to be a close election. The president is not going to do well in the west. He lost 11 of 12 southwestern Democratic counties in 2008, even though he won the state by 11 points," said Rendell, who was at the event to promote his book, "A Nation of Wusses." "I think he will improve the vote there because a number of them are construction workers, etc., ... and I think they know what is going on. I think he will do better there. But I don't think he will carry there. The election will be determined by basically the four Philadelphia suburban counties."
So we have the asymmetry of the GOP Ministers of Information assuring us that Romney will win in Wisconsin though there's no basis for that and Rendell worrying over Pennsylvania when everything seems to indicate Obama is in strong shape.
Another thing he said recently was that Hillary Clinton would have done a much better job than Obama did on passing health care. This is one of these silly counterfactual games people seem to want to play. Things would have been different had Hillary been President, or if Bill Clinton still were President. Such sterile speculation is surely wrong.
I was a Hillary man in 2008 she was my first choice not President Obama. However, when the party's will became clear it was not a hard transition for me. Now many of the same people who hated Hillary in 2008 now think she would be a panacea.
Indeed a recent poll even showed that the majority of Republicans now have a positive opinion of Hillary. Talk about surreal. This was the Lady Macbeth of the Clinton "regime" in the 90s. Now they have warm feelings even for her. It tells you how meaningless such talk is.
If she had won the GOP would have played the same game on her they played with Obama and they did to her husband in 1993. People forget the 90s now. They look back and say 'why can't Obama do a Clinton and get along with the GOP?' forgetting that the GOP never got along with Clinton to put it mildly.
Contra this illusion the GOP has been putting out lately that they "made" Clinton balance the budget he had passed the debt reduction package without a single Republican vote in 1993-Alan Greenspan did speak in its favor.
And of course the GOP House launched endless baseless investigations of Clinton-we have shades of that now with House Repug Darrell Issa going after Eric Holder claiming that the recent furor over leaks was deliberate in exchange for Obama's political gain.
Indeed Clinton was impeached-over a private affair, that's how much the GOP "worked with" Clinton. The reality is there's no working with Repugs. You simply have to beat them. But you'd never know it hearing the silly tangents that Ed Rendell, Cory Booker, and sadly President Clinton himself have been going on lately.