When I think of Democrats who do the most to embarrass their own party, the first name which comes to mind is Joe Biden. He’s famous for his gaffes and awkward sense of humor which seems to bubble to the surface at precisely the wrong time. But if we’d never heard of Biden, that niche in the Democratic food chain would surely have been filled by Ed Rendell. He has that same sort of shotgun mouth and lack of internal filters which make the party leadership cringe, while positioning him as a great guest on political talk show panels. That trait was on display once again the week when he decided to weigh in on the Democratic veepstakes this year. Rendell may not be sure who the best choice for the number two slot is, but he definitely knows who it isn’t… Elizabeth Warren. (Buzzfeed)

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said on Wednesday that Hillary Clinton should not pick Sen. Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, citing Warren’s lack of foreign policy experience.

I know Secretary Clinton pretty well,” Rendell said on 1210 WPHT Philadelphia radio. “I’m not an insider in the campaign but I know her pretty well. 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, the chairman of the Philadelphia Host Committee for the Democratic National Convention, later called the station back to clarify that he didn’t mean to single Warren out.

Rendell’s effort to walk that one back was rather odd as well. When he called back to say he wasn’t trying to “single out” Warren, he chose to declare himself also unfit for higher office, saying that, “if anything happened in week one and I became president, I would be lost.” The reason, once again, was that his background as a Governor and state legislator didn’t provide him with any foreign policy or military experience. But if those are the criteria Rendell is establishing, hasn’t he just eliminated pretty much everyone on Hillary’s short list? For that matter, how many people have a combination of military and foreign policy or diplomatic experience before seeking national office? That’s a pretty exclusive club.

What we should probably be asking is precisely how much of this push against Warren has to do with her actual qualifications rather than her gender. We already saw Jon Tester openly asking if America was “ready” to have two women on the ticket. As much as I disapprove of virtually every position Elizabeth Warren has taken, she’s clearly coming from the same pool of resumes as most of the people who would like a shot at the Oval Office. This “war on women” from the Democrats could use a bit more examination if you ask me.

Or could it be something else entirely? Rendell is hip deep in the party leadership and can’t be immune to the food fights going on in his own culture club. Warren withheld her endorsement of Clinton until the primary was completely lost. She’s been associated far more with Bernie’s supporters than Clinton’s and is seen as a leader in the “real” progressive wing of the party. Clinton and her supporters are saying nice things about Bernie and his “brave” campaign right now in an effort to get their base unified, but you know for a fact that they are privately enraged that he’s keeping up the fight and insisting he wants a contested convention rather than getting out of the way of the historic first female candidate. In Rendell’s world, Warren may be paying the price for being too friendly to Bernie Sanders.