After Obama aced Timmeh's Farrakhan test at the debate last night, I figured the "denounce" and "reject"argument would take on a life of it's own. It's now quite obvious that this sucker has tentacles sprouting everywhere...reaching all the way to Pennsylvania.
Assuming we wake up next Wednesday with a few more insignifant states, I imagine Pennsylvania then becomes an inevitable, delegate rich firewall for Clinton. Her biggest surrogate in the Keystone state, Governor Ed Rendell, will most certainly have some "splainin to do in the meantime.
An interesting nugget on Mr. Rendell from JTA, the Global News Service of the Jewish People:
During Tuesday’s debate in Ohio Hillary Clinton argued that Barack Obama had not gone far enough in speaking out against Louis Farrakhan. After the debate her pollster, Mark Penn, was in the spin room arguing that Obama may have rejected and denounced Farrakhan, but he failed to criticize his pastor’s praise of the Nation of Islam leader. Well, if this race makes it to Pennsylvania, it will be interesting to find out what Clinton has to say on the issue of Farrakhan to her most important backer in the state, Governor Ed Rendell.
Then the mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell not only made a controversial decision to share the stage with Farrakhan in an effort to diffuse racial tensions in the city, but then praised the NOI for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency (this, after ripping what he described as "so-called Jewish leaders" for criticizing the decision to give Farrakhan a platform).
What inquiring minds want to know, is how far removed must the denouncee be (yes, I just used denouncee in a sentence, most likely a dailykos first)? Is it fair to say that Obama demand Clinton "denounce" and "reject" a surrogate who has NOT "denounced" or "rejected" Mr. Farrakhan?
I guess it truly is "silly season".