Former Pennsylvania Governor and close Clinton confidant Ed Rendell said Sen.Elizabeth Warren would not make a good VP choice for Hillary Clinton because she is "not ready to be Commander-in-Chief." "I think she will not pick somebody that she feels in her heart isn't ready to be president or commander-in-chief.And I think Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful, bright, passionate person, but with no experience in foreign affairs and not in any way, shape, or form ready to be commander-in-chief," Rendell said in an interview with Philly radio host Rich Zeoli on 1210 WPHT-AM. "I didn’t want it to leave it hanging out there about Elizabeth Warren," he said.
Let’s assume someone said consider Governor Rendell for vice president.
"What I said was incredibly stupid and insensitive," Rendell said.
"When I read it in the article, I said, 'Did I say that?
' It was just dumb, and stupid, and insensitive, and if I offended anyone, I apologize." There are many, many ways and perhaps even more reasons to challenge the notion that all the world's women can be sorted into two distinct and essential categories: beautiful (and therefore interesting) vs.
ugly (and therefore repulsive, disposable and insignificant).
But, alas, on Wednesday, Ed Rendell, the former Pennsylvania governor, ex-Democratic National Committee chairman and current Hillary Clinton-for-president booster, decided to wade into those waters.As The Post's David Weigel reported, Rendell said the following about Donald Trump's appeal to working-class Democrats."Will he [Donald Trump] have some appeal to working-class Dems in Levittown or Bristol? “For every one, he’ll lose one and a half, two Republican women.Trump’s comments like, 'You can’t be a 10 if you’re flat-chested, that’ll come back to haunt him.'" And then, he offered this, perhaps jokingly: “There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women. We could begin this analysis of your comments in a very, very low place.We could wonder at length why it is that men who are in possession of neither great looks nor apparently great charm, manners or good sense feel so unencumbered — no, justified — in sorting the world and all events on it into something somehow related to the presence of good-looking and not good-looking women.We could write at length about the raw oafishness and modern cultural illiteracy displayed when one suggests in public that a woman's own appearance dictates just how she feels about Trump's frequent critiques of other women's looks or his fitness for the Oval Office.