Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: Rendell: Obama Could Face Primary Challenge Over Afghanistan (HuffPo 7/27/10)


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Rendell: Obama Could Face Primary Challenge Over Afghanistan (HuffPo 7/27/10)
Permalink  
 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html

Today must be Ed Rendell Day.

If you click the link, there's a video at the website.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell predicted on Tuesday that if the president escalates America's military involvement in Afghanistan he could very well face a primary challenger in 2012.

In an overlooked "Morning Joe" segment on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Democrat offered his distinct brand of eccentric, conversation-driving political foresight. He couched his statement about the possibility of a primary challenge by stressing that if Obama sticks to his current plans for Afghanistan -- a reduced military presence beginning in July of 2011 -- there would not be political insurrection within the party.

But Rendell clearly opened up the conversation as to how much capital Obama is working with when it comes to foreign wars. And for perhaps the first time in the course of the Afghanistan debate, the specter was raised that Democrats will really take the president to task for a military commitment that is too long, too costly, or too heavy.

PAT BUCHANAN: [Anti-Vietnam sentiment] drew an anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, first into the New Hampshire primary, and after he did fairly well with 42%, it drew Robert Kennedy in against their own president, tore the Democratic Party apart, and led, of course, to a Republican era. If the president is still hanging in to Afghanistan in 2011, 2012, do you see an anti-war candidate coming out of the Democratic Party?

ED RENDELL: It's possible, Pat. It really depends on how far it deteriorates [emphasis mine]. But on the other hand, if troop withdrawal begins in 2011, if there's some signs that we're trying to get out of there, and I heard, I think you were talking about, if there are only 3,000 American troops, we still have a presence. But if we start to begin to reduce our presence, I think that's probably enough to keep an anti-war candidate out of the race."


__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 495
Date:
Permalink  
 

Jen the Michigander wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/rendell-obama-could-face_n_661172.html

Today must be Ed Rendell Day.

If you click the link, there's a video at the website.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell predicted on Tuesday that if the president escalates America's military involvement in Afghanistan he could very well face a primary challenger in 2012.

In an overlooked "Morning Joe" segment on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Democrat offered his distinct brand of eccentric, conversation-driving political foresight. He couched his statement about the possibility of a primary challenge by stressing that if Obama sticks to his current plans for Afghanistan -- a reduced military presence beginning in July of 2011 -- there would not be political insurrection within the party.

But Rendell clearly opened up the conversation as to how much capital Obama is working with when it comes to foreign wars. And for perhaps the first time in the course of the Afghanistan debate, the specter was raised that Democrats will really take the president to task for a military commitment that is too long, too costly, or too heavy.

PAT BUCHANAN: [Anti-Vietnam sentiment] drew an anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, first into the New Hampshire primary, and after he did fairly well with 42%, it drew Robert Kennedy in against their own president, tore the Democratic Party apart, and led, of course, to a Republican era. If the president is still hanging in to Afghanistan in 2011, 2012, do you see an anti-war candidate coming out of the Democratic Party?

ED RENDELL: It's possible, Pat. It really depends on how far it deteriorates [emphasis mine]. But on the other hand, if troop withdrawal begins in 2011, if there's some signs that we're trying to get out of there, and I heard, I think you were talking about, if there are only 3,000 American troops, we still have a presence. But if we start to begin to reduce our presence, I think that's probably enough to keep an anti-war candidate out of the race."



thing is Hillary would opt to stay longer and win to keep us safe as indicicated by her voting record and statements with Gates more than Obama who would cut and run

 



__________________
Amy Dugan


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

My thoughts exactly, Amy.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

Methinks it's possible that someone from the left will primary Obama. Howard Dean is the most likely candidate and the one that would get the most media attention. There may even be more than one challenger from the left, with the way things are going.

I wonder what Hillary will do if this is how it all plays out? I'm guessing she'd let the lefties beat up on That One for awhile. But after the novelty wears off, people will be looking for a serious challenger, and that's when she can step in and announce her candidacy.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

I like your scenario, Jen. if a prog challenged BO, there would be talk of hurting the party, divisiveness, etc. The heat would be off Hillary if she challenged at that point, I would think. Of course some of the Obamanuts would cry and whine that it was all a Clinton plot from the get go. But, they're going to be whining about something, regardless. lol

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard