Well, Mr. Ickes has done a great job rounding up the Supers, hasn't he?

Actually, he is probably doing a good job of stopping the floodgates.

So he's essentially saying, "Don't vote for Obama because he might be tied to scary black guys who might scare away white voters."

The Heroine of Tuzla strikes again.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/asked_whether_advisers_are_pus.php

Asked Whether Advisers Are Pushing Wright Story, Hillary Demurs

By Greg Sargent - March 20, 2008, 6:26PM

I missed this earlier, but it must be flagged. Asked about today's big story that her advisers are telling the super-dels that the Wright controversy should make them nervous about Obama's hopes in the general, Hillary demured:

When asked, Clinton ignored the Wright portion of the question and said "well my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable that I have said that for a year or more that I am the person best able to make the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief."

When Clinton was then asked specifically if her campaign was pushing the Wright story -- she shrugged and took the next question, ignoring the reporter.

Subsequently, however, Hillary spokesperson Doug Hattaway offered some clarification to ABC News: "She was and is unaware of anyone on the campaign pushing [the Wright] issue with superdelegates. She wants anyone who is talking to superdelegates to focus on our message, which is that she's best prepared to be president and beat John McCain."

It's worth noting that when ABC asked the spokesperson whether Hillary was calling on advisers to refrain from using Wright as part of their argument, he said: "Since she is unaware of anyone doing that, I assume it hasn't come up."

On a personal note, when President-Elect Obama is cleaning up the party's trash next November, I hope it goes into the dumpster in this order: Joe Lieberman, Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, and James Carville. But, alas, I imagine that Ickes and Carville will still be stuck, remora like, to the Party's underbelly for years to come.

Think Jeremiah Wright is a problem? Wait until you hear what Republicans have to say about Bill Clinton. Harold Ickes starts to move up the delusion scale.

Know what makes Clinton unelectable? The fact that she won't have the nomination.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks,"

Fear and attrition is all thy grow in their garden.

He must be naive to believe that Hillary will have no problem with a Republican hate machine that cut its teeth on her and her husband.

Hmm....if so many superdelegates were worried about Wright and all this other crap, you'd think we'd at least be seeing a few hop over to Hillary, yet they are all going to Obama, just as steadily as ever, if not faster.

Did anyone ask him if the superdelegates ever bring up concerns about Hillary's lies about her experience being ample fodder for the Republicans? Or her failure to release her taxes? Or Bill's sketchy financial dealings? Or her flip-flop on the war?

No no, when faced with reality do what the Clintons do best, fearmonger, lie, distort, cue hypocrisy, repeat.

Ickes: Did I mention that Obama is black? Not that it matters. We don't think race should be an issue. But he is, you know. Black.

This election is becoming a faceslap on the question of race in this country. In spite of all the other problems, some White Liberals, exemplified by Clinton and Ickes, do not believe that their fellow Americans can possibly elect a Black man- for whatever reason.

The Clintonites are the people who are basically scared of a majority of their fellow citizens. That is why they are fighting the way they do.

Spoken like a true errand boy for grocery clerks.

by any means necessary. to hell with democracy, or even a sense of fair play

McCain has his own pastor problems. He is going to have to deal with Democratic 527's making it an issue for him as Barck will with Wright. Does anyone really think that this is the Kerry team running Obama's campaign?
I'm telling you, the economy, housing and Iraq are going to be THE issues this fall. By the time November rolls around another 300-400 hundred soldeiers will have paid with thier lives,tens of thousands of more houses will have been forclosed on and god knows when the economy is going to turn around. The pastor Wright issue is going to be the fly buzzing around making making a annoyance of itself, but nobody except the Fox news diehards are going to care.

oh right, please. Hey supers!! What do you think the Republicans will do with Hillary's Sniper fire tall tale? She will pale in comparison to a true war hero McCain, who was a POA for 4 years.

Obama doesn't need to compete witht that as his argument that experience does not and has not meant good judgment will beat McCain as it has beaten Clinton.

Yes, the Wright tapes will be used against him as will Hillary's credibility problems will be used against her.

Obama has run a smart campaign. He should have handled the wright problem well before he even started running, but i think that once we get to the general more important issues will come to the fore. The point is, Hillary has so many high unfavorables, and her tall tales add to that, that she is in no position to argue that she is a stronger general election candidate.

Look, I deplore what the 527s did to Kerry, but the truth is, he did not handle that matter well.

Obama handled his crisis (Wright) much better than Clinton handled Bosnia.

Word x 2

Ah hell, it gets harder and harder to talk about this. Are they nuts? Are they really that evil?

Another day of this, and I'm not going to be able to vote for her if she's the nominee - I don't think. I don't mean to threaten, but she's sure pushing the envelope with a lot of voters here. This is straight up Rove crap and it stinks.

Electability is a myth - Kerry was supposed to be more electable than Dean. See what happened? The Repugs will slime anyone - Kerry is living goddamn proof of that. Like they aren't going to drag every single thing she's ever done out in public? They've had special prosecutors on her ass, government paid, since 1992. They're still doing their jobs. The Dallas paper dredged this up over a year ago. We pay these assholes cause once the Repugs got the majority, well, they just never bothered to tell those SPs to stop. Jesus - electability! I may just shoot myself.

Okay, so somehow the fact that Obama's ex pastor has a few loose screws is more important than the fact that Hillary is a compulsive liar?

The Clintons did NOT beat the right wing smear machine, they survived it. Big difference. If the blew dress (misspelling intentional) had happened before Clinton ran for his second term does anybody really think he would have won?

What a bunch of pussies these superdelegates most be. If Democrats across the nation will not stand up and fight when he becomes the nominee they deserve to lose.

If Hillary gets the nimination based upon this alone she will lose. I will make it my mission for every African American to not vote in the election or vote for McCain.

For years I been listening to crazy white pastors talk about gays, abortions and all other crazy stuff. I been reading about how Catholics touch little boys. No people want to get all offended over Jermiah Wright. In one of the clips they like to show he was quoting a white diplomat.

So yes God Damn the Hillary, God Damn the Democrats, and God Damn America if this is what they want to crucify Obama with.

"In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

"Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts."

But they never said it when it counted. And they/she will not say it publicly.

There is a big difference between coldly calculating what strategies the opposition will employ, its another to cynically exploit that for your own selfish advantage. If you think it is wrong then stand up to it.

I'm curious. Just how many of those formerly undecided Superdelegates have endorsed Clinton since her campaign started pushing the Wright story? And how many have endorsed Obama in the same timeframe?

Case closed.

Just sleazy.

The disconnect is just breathtaking. Were Ickes representing some other candidate, he might have a point. Wright probably makes Obama less electable than Sen. Perfect Democrat. But lordy, it doesn't matter how "tough" Hillary is, because the barrage the GOP will let loose on her would be unprecedented. Anyone who thinks all the 90s crap won't be dug up and hurled at her, with great effectiveness, is delusional. Then there are all the new scandals waiting to erupt, ones that will make Wright look like Wayne Brady. Hillary's baggage has baggage.

Why didn't you ask him about her tax returns that she said she would come up with this week?

Even though I am an Obama fan and contributor I also am worried about the Wright controversy. And Ickes makes sense to me. The whole question is what the Republicans can make out of it. I hope that people will look beyond it, but who knows.
Being a hand wringer I also wonder what bimbo eruptions might be in store for us from Bill's post presidential years if Hillary gets the nomination. What ever they (the Republicans) have on Bill, you know they won't be dumping it into the media until late October.
Finally, Does anyone following this blog have an idea on how Rush Limbaugh's Chaos operation is affecting things! A friend of mine told me yesterday that Rush has had two of the Dittoheads call the show and say that they had been chosen as Clinton delegates in Texas and asking Limbaugh in effect "What do I do now?"

When the debates started last October, I thought that HRC had really come up several notches in terms of presentation and persona. But when she started being actually challenged by Obama, it began to feel, and continues to feel, as if she reverted to the mid-90s, with the triangulation, reflexive cries of victimization, attempts at damage control, evasive maneuvers, and giving the general impression of just not being the kind of person who can strategize her way around life's inevitable challenges. I don't know why this is so, but she seems only knows how to fight hard, not smart. It's been a long time since she was out there making a positive case for herself. This is clearly more of the same. I'm not going to call her racist, but let's just say that she is not above allowing her self-interest to undermine her more noble aspirations.

Just heard this from Randi Rhodes on the radio, and it made me chuckle...

Hillary is comparing herself to Rocky Balboa in PA. I got the racial aspect as soon as I got wind of Hillary peddling that comparison, but Randi reminded me that Rocky actually lost his fight in the original film. Too rich.

Does anyone really think that this is the Kerry team running Obama's campaign?

No I don't and thank god. I would have supported him on the campaign team alone. I can't stand the people around Hillary Clinton. There isn't a new idea there among all their brains put together and those same people have lost us election after election.

Oy oy oy!

(I just got the results of my mitochondrial DNA analysis yesterday and boy I had a big surprise. I'm so Jewish it's not a joke: Ashkenazi and Sephardi - I'm just Jewish and I had no idea. I'm also part African - Ghana, West Africa, the Congo, Ethiopia.)

This is what is called: Putting lipstick on a pig and going out and selling it....

Harold is a high priced salesman selling something and that is all he has...

The supers are turning away and I can tell you that in the first person out here in the west....once Obama catches Clinton in a few polls in PA the floodgates will start opening... and then what.

Also let us talk about her rapidly increasing debts and non paid bills and lack of fund raising....

"People are wringing their hands, `oh, we're gonna tear party apart.' The party's a lot sturdier than these hand wringers in wash would have you believe."

This is the first time I've found myself agreeing with Ickes. Unfortunately, he's only identified half of the problem. The other half is people like him who wring their hands and say "oh, 'those ferocious Republican attacks' will tear this party apart".

Behind his reasoning is the idea that if the party picks the right nominee then, maybe, just maybe, the mean old Republicans will take the year off and they'll let the Democrats run things for a bit and maybe pass a bill or two.

What people like him don't get is that the strength of the candidate is only part of the equation. There needs to be some effort on the part of the party to withstand Republican smears. Gore didn't get any and that's why he lost. Kerry didn't get any and that's why he lost.

The best strategic move that the Democrats made so far in the campaign was to marginalize Fox News by refusing to debate there. All of their candidates soared in the polls and McCain's recent rise is partly due to the fact that the empty primary schedule has brought pundits, including Fox's, back to the spotlight.

Seriously, the Democrats need to be more forceful with news organizations and force them to identify their political affiliation. Half of the mainstream news commentators are Republican fifth columnists who attack the Democrats while claiming to be part of the "liberal news media". If the Democrats don't nip that in the bud, it's never going to matter who they nominate.

Did Ickes mean to use the word "genteel" here?

Shorter Hillary to the SD: You will not pick the scary Uppity Upstart over this dyed-in-the-wool Machine Candidate!

Yes, very "genteel"

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks,"

Instead of overthrowing the front runner with an insiders coup, perhaps Ickes and the Dems should focus on establishing our own bile spewing 527s.

Note to Ickes: Doood, it's not the quality of our candidates, it's the quantity of bile and sewage we can produce with our own 527s. Just look at the current occupant of the WH. Obviously quality is not a criteria for winning. Generating humongous quantity of sewage is.

This is strange. Ickes, while using some pretty nasty tactics in this campaign, is not an idiot. He has to know that this will cause a backlash among some voters, a lot of the political media, especially bloggers, and most importantly the superdelegates. The reason that Sen's Casey and Klobuchar, and Gov. Richardson (and probably some other minor superdels who are not famous enough for me to remember right now) have endorsed Obama in the past week or two is not that they suddenly realized they liked him better than Clinton, it was a direct response to what they sensed was an increasingly divisive campaign from Clinton's campaign. Pushing Rev. Wright behind the scenes is one thing, but for Ickes to admit to doing so in an on-the-record interview is just baffling. And all this talk about a minority report, credentials committee blah blah - there is not a single Democratic superdelegate that thinks that will be a good thing 10 weeks before the general election. What is his game? I'm confused!!!

This reminds me of the bad guy in movies that runs out of bullets. He keeps pulling the trigger on empty chambers but nothing goes bang.

Wright will not be a serious issue in the general election. For one thing, Obama is aware of the problem and the line of attack, having already come under serious fire from the Clintons. He'll be fully armed and ready if the Republicans come at him on this. He's not a stupid guy. If they attack him on this, he'll turn it against them.

Plus, once the Republicans try to push the notion that Obama can't be trusted because he went to Wright's church, a Democratic Party, finally united behind their candidate, will push back hard.

McCain's got his own preacher problems anyway. This is not going to be a good issue for the Republicans.

thank you. no snark intended.

I have to say that as a foreigner, that I was mystified by the outrage generated by this Wright fellow. for what it's worth, I think he had some pretty good points, and I think that there have been some far more despicable things said by those idiots Hagee and Parsley.

when this story broke, I wondered how much of this was real anger and how much was manufactured outrage that was being used to get some political mileage.

can someone tell me if they were genuinely offended by the fact that some dude was yelling god damn America? I can't think that I'd be that worried about someone saying that about my home country, (it's a very nice place, I'll have you know.) Anyway, it seems that a super power should be worrying about far bigger things than an associate of a very bright man, who happens to be a bit of a dingbat.

This is an absolute disgrace!!! They are tarnishing whatever was salvagable from his legacy...b/c she certainly doesn't have one of her own...

Ickes: Obama is unelectable because America is too racist to elect a black man.

CW: Clinton is unelectable because half of the country is too anti-Clinton to elect Clinton.

There are arguments to be made that both candidates are 'unelectable'. But going with Ickes' position requires believing in an America that is mired in its racial problems. Going with CW merely requires believing that dynasty politics is not such a good idea and there's something to be said for integrity.

Given it's a risk either way, I'd rather go with the high-minded risk and hope that America really is progressing past the old ugly racial divides. It puts the Democrat party on the side of hope and on the side of its better principles. Much preferable to the low-minded risk, which requires that we believe not only that America is racist, but also that it is resigned to having leaders who routinely say things they can't possibly mean.

Ickes' Argument: Forget delegates, votes, will of the people. He's black and goes to a black church.

Moral of the story:

Smear all you like, just so long as you couch it:

"It's not that I think Obama's black, it's just that that's what the Republicans are gonna say, which is that, you know, Obama is a scary black man and you better not leave your daughter alone at 3am with him in charge. Again, that's not my belief, I only bring it up because Fox will. And by it, I mean, the fact that Obama is black. And Muslim. So says the Republicans anyway, when asked about Obama's dark threatening blackness. Which I think is reprehensible, and shame on them. As a white person, that's my belief. That Karl Rove will point out that Obama hates America. And Jews. Don't shoot the messenger. Vote Democrat."

I am posting something long time family friend has written in defense of Pastor Wright. It's as good a response as Mr Ickes or anyone else needs.

Topic: Obama and His Pastor -- Is God Damning America, or Not? That is the Question.

Colleagues,
The Word of God broke out of our American churches since last we met and spilled out into the streets. It became national news. It focused, of all things, on a black preacher's sermon from long ago. You couldn't have invented this. Truth IS stranger than fiction. God must have had a hand in it. It was Barack Obama's pastor proclaiming that God is damning America. The news-creators of our nataion, not daring to ask "Is it true?" presented it to us as a matter of "damage control." Damage to Obama, since it was HIS pastor. Mega-question, of course, is "damage control" for America if it should prove true that Wright is not wrong.

Now I should tell you: my brother Ted, though white, has thick slices of a black preacher in him by virtue of his three decades as pastor in a black congregation on St. Louis' northside, Immanuel Lutheran. Ted's more radical than I am. Yes, he is. Throughout the years of his pastoring he often was doing his theology out on the street. I've never marched in protest parades for just causes in St. Louis. But Ted has. And one of his "humble" claims to fame is that as a result of one such public action he wound up in the same jail cell with Dick Gregory right here in our home town of St. Louis.

In defense of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago
(by Rev. Ted Schroeder of Kansas City, Missouri)

Sound bites from sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago have caused a stir in the U.S. media. In one sample Pastor Wright, an African American minister in the United Church of Christ, proclaimed: "I do not say to you 'God bless America,' but God damn America." And America has reacted in anger and perhaps astonishment. His words sound vulgar, profane, and un-American in the extreme. Yet when he first spoke these words, there was no national outcry, not even a local one.

Out of probably 2,000 sermons preached by Dr. Wright to his Chicago congregation in the past thirty-seven years, these few sentences have been resurrected and broadcast across the nation and probably around the world. On CNN on March 14 one white commentator, speaking for the church, criticized Pastor Wright and said that the Church is supposed to bless America, pray for America, not damn America. (All our politicians have the savvy to say repeatedly, "God bless America!")

Rev. Wright did not preach hate for America. To preach God's divine judgment is not the same as hate. He did not dissociate himself from his responsibilities as a citizen of America. As a prophet called by God, he proclaimed God's damnation for America's excesses of wealth, abuse of power, violence, and war, for the harm done by us to persons who are suffering, starving, and dying throughout the world. There is a huge difference between hating and pronouncing God's judgment.

If only Wright had used more polite language, who in national politics or the media would have been aroused? He might have even sounded biblical by saying, "Woe to you, United States of America, for your..." and ticked off his complaints of injustice. Who would have complained? Then again, who would have even noticed? If Jeremiah Wright had not been Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, who would have cared at all about the ranting of one black preacher in south side Chicago? I write not to defend Senator Obama but to attest to biblically sound prophetic preaching in the 21st century.

Pastor Wright did not choose his words carelessly or lightly. To hear a man of the cloth use such words as "damn you" is stressful. One might think God could not possibly approve. Yet in the eighth chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, God's spokesperson St. Peter responded to a man who basically had offered him a bribe, "Your money perish with you!" (in polite English). However, the original Greek text reads: "To hell with you and your money." Peter, how dare you? But there it is.

In the Hebrew and Greek texts of The Holy Bible, the word "woe" comes often from the lips of prophets such as Jeremiah, Amos, and Habakkuk and also Jesus. Many biblical scholars agree that the Hebrew words "oee" and "hohee" and the Greek "ouai" should often be translated "damn you" if the translator is hoping to convey in plain English the original intent of the speaker/writer. Our modern day Jeremiah of Chicago should not be so readily condemned.

When John the Baptizer harangued the scribes and Pharisees, asking "Who warned you to flee from the wrath ('mellousees orgees') to come?" it is clear that he or one of his disciples had been pronouncing damnation.

But most significant of all in the biblical witness is Luke 6:20-26 where we find Jesus speaking the Beatitudes. "Happy are the poor... blessed are the weak." Blessed and happy. How nice. God loves the poor and the weak. God smiles upon them, giving them a kindly touch.

But the word found in the original Greek text is "makarios," a much more robust word than a tender smile or touch. A twentieth century Spanish translation of this word uses the adjective "bienaventurado," which literally means "good adventure." "Good adventure to you poor and weak. You are on the good adventure in which you will meet God who has ventured into this world." Other scholars suggest that "makarios" be translated "you are where you ought to be, where you would want to be if you are thinking straight.....you are with God. You will discover the joy of heaven now."

But then abruptly Jesus speaks of WOE. "Woe to you who are rich and sated and laughing and publicly acclaimed." Woe! The Greek word "ouai" is the exact opposite of "makarios." You are not on God's great adventure. You are in league with evil. You are not where you ought to be according to God's original plan. You are in the place of damnation, but too amused, sated, and flattered to realize it.

There is gross injustice in the world. How would we expect a passionate God to respond? What feelings must the God of boundless love have toward the tens of thousands of persons who die each and every day from preventable disease, illness, hunger or injury? Must not God's passion for "the least of these our brethren" put God in opposition to those who are part of the oppression?

Gandhi spoke of the collision between need and greed. How does a prophet for the Lord speak to this in our day? The prophet must condemn! But can one con-demn without naming damnation?

I would like to hear or read the rest of Pastor Wright's excerpted sermons. If his only message was damnation, then congregants and clergy colleagues and defenders of the USA may challenge him over the content of his homilies. But I am sure that he said much more than that God had every right to damn us for the above named sins. I've seldom heard a black preacher preach for less than thirty minutes, let alone thirty seconds.

Surely Pastor Wright also proclaimed that the kingdom of God is more powerful than our American empire and that God is able to work justice for the oppressed of the world, including justice for those oppressed by the policies and power of the USA.

I trust that he also announced God's grace and redemption...even for oppressors such as we are. He just might, however, have saved that for later in the sermon, or even for a subsequent sermon (giving the Holy Spirit more time to work true repentance in the hearts of oppressors).

Furthermore, no Christian sermon would be complete without preaching resurrection, proclaiming that God has complete power over death -- the death which comes at us from every side, the death which we deal upon one another, and even the death which our Creator has every right to bring down on us for our sin. (Though God slay us, God's promise of grace and resurrection is our only hope.)

If Pastor Wright does not preach resurrection and grace and the coming reign of God, then have at him, fire away. Judgment and hope are inseparable in biblical prophetic tradition. But do not malign him for making THE JUDGMENT OF GOD the first order of business in his sermon.

Rev. Ted Schroeder, Kansas City, MO

This line also presupposes that Dems won't be able to lay a hand on McCain. The Wright flap will only be truly damaging if either Obama's campaign isn't compelling enough to overcome it or the Dems are unable to damage McCain at all. Does anyone truly think St. John will breeze through to November with nary a blemish? If Wright defeats Obama, he doesn't deserve to be president.

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

Dukakis meet Tank
Hillary meet Bosnia

It is an open question whether this country would vote in a black man or a woman as president ( I think a woman would have a tougher time ) so we are left with why should an independent or undecided voter vote for you. Both of these demographics have one thing in common, they are going to vote their gut not with their minds ( undecideds more so of course ). Hillary wins if the only thing people can think about is wanting a 3rd Clinton term. Beyond that high negatives, a shrill voice, Hillary Care part 2 ( might be a positive though )and general misogyny. Obama gives you charisma, a good and maybe great politician, similar ideas as Hillary so that is a wash.\, you wanna vote for the guy. Negatives racism, Wright ...er racism and experience.

The craziness of the primary won't affect the general as much as many think except for lots of footage of Hillary elevating Mccain above Obama.

If the press doesn't do their due diligence on McCain then he comes off as a real straight talker and that is something Hillary will never be able to pull off while Obama has a better chance.

It will be quite the show if either Hillary or Obama wins though.

Hey Supers - You want some apples? How about these apples:

-Clinton has been unable to manage her campaign budgetClinton has adopted a campaign strategy of deficit spending
-Clinton has failed to pay the healthcare bills (her signature issue) of her staff
-Clinton has aligned herself with the VRWC, thereby eliminating any possibility of dismissing their attacks against her
-Clinton has told technicolor lies about foreign policy (Bosnia, Northern Ireland peace accords) and domestic policy (NAFTA and children's healthcare)
-Clinton has shown no interest in transparency at all and continues to delay the release of her tax returns and, apparently, has no plans to release her earmarks
-Clinton is in bed with lobbyists
-Clinton has never definitively admitted her vote authorizing the Iraq war was a mistake
-Clinton has dismissed as irrelevant all voters in caucus states
-Clinton has trashed and burned any hope for support among African-Americans (she won't win without them)

You want to see some trouble in the general election? Nominate Hillary Clinton.

can someone tell me if they were genuinely offended by the fact that some dude was yelling god damn America?

Hell no. I've said it myself a lot of times and this country has a goddamn written constitution that gives Rev Wright the right to say it how he sees it. The "o my, pass the smelling salts" reaction to Wright has been a complete mystery to me. I've known about Black Liberation Theology (not as Black Liberation Theology) and I've know about Sundays in black churches all my life. I was a child in a segregated southern society but I still new because down here the culture is so blended it's ridiculous to try to separate it. I don't get it either - it has to be somewhat manufactured. Unless white Americans really are generally that clueless, and maybe they are - I don't know anymore.

I'm used to white preachers down here preaching the craziest shit you ever heard - I just don't get this - except as a really ugly perception that I hope is wrong.

Does Hillary realize that everyday she becomes more unpopular than the day before. Every sleazy antic looses her another vote and chips away at any career she will have in the future. Look at the trend of her negatives.

Of course the right-wing is going to hammer the Wright story but unless they can show that Obama has said similar things, it won't be a winning strategy.

Look at Joe McCarthy and the Army Hearings, Americans just don't like smears and "Guilt by Association" and that's why this has only resonated with people who would never have voted for him in the first place..

I can already foresee the scenario in the Fall. Some GOP 527 will go overboard and Obama will be able to issue a thundering denunciation on the America that we all believe in not supporting rascist innuendo and smears, that people have to be judged by their own words and actions. The press will rally to him and McCain will pay the price. So unless there is evidence against Obama himself, this will go nowhere beyond the right-wing fringe.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks,"

Hillary’s postures as the Peace Maker of Ireland and sniper fire ducking Tigress of Tuzla and other assorted skeletons makes her the "strongest" candidate against war hero John S. McCain't, how?

If the HRC campaign is so "concerned" about Wright as a potential liability, why don't they... I don't know... start defending Obama instead of relentlessly smearing him?

Gosh, I keep making the mistake of assuming good faith or decency in these people. Perhaps I really am a naive dreamer...

Of course they'll do it, and more we haven't thought of. They'll raise the Devil himself if that's what it takes.

But see, that's the point of Obama's campaign - not this time. He is, and we are, betting that this vile stuff will not work this time, or hopefully ever again. That's what the hope thing is all about.

We think he's right. We have, perhaps, an 80% confidence factor that he's right. Is he a sure thing? Of course not - Hillary and the Repubs may be right, it may be a black man cannot be elected now, maybe not for a long time. If that's true, then Hillary may be a better candidate. If that's true, then the country is not ready for change.

But an 80% bet on change strikes some of us as a better thing than a 100% bet on more Clintonism, or a 20% bet on another Republican.

On topic:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/03/31/tomo/

For all his years in politics, Ickes may still not have learned about backlash...the boomerang effect you create when your politics pushes people beyond their level of tolerance. In other words, Ickes is betting that the superdelegates will tolerate this kind or tactic without reaching the threshold of backlash against the Clintons.

So why are the pursuing such a dangerous policy? The answer is clear --- it is all they have.

If the repubs don't have anything new on either of the Clintons (which I find doubtful) they'll start in where they left off beginning with Lewinsky and and the pardons.

Surely when Ickes tried to sell this load of bullshit to people like Donna Brazile, she looked over her shoulder at whoever else was in the room and just raised one eyebrow.

Please, Ickes, get serious. Do you really know where Bill has been these last years, every minute? Do you really want to start this before her tax returns are out? Who the hell are you kidding, Ickes.

One more thing - let's get real about the White religious in the US. Let's just get real about the Mormons. Before I believe it was the 70s, the Book of Mormon called African Americans "mud people" and they were not considered human.

They only revised under extreme pressure.

We can't bring up all the hateful nasty rhetoric from the religious right to counter this smear? Are you joking?

Let's

I completely agree. Clinton et al. just can't believe that a black man, let alone a black man with lesser 'qualifications' then her, is about to be the democratic nominee for president. I believe that she views the millions of people who have voted for Obama as delusional. She really is part of the politics of the past -- she doesn't understand that Obama is about moving beyond the 's/he can't do this or that because s/he is a woman/black/asian/etc.'

I'm not so blind as to say that race doesn't impact America. But millions have looked at Obama and said 'I believe you' -- I'm willing to put my country in the hands of a black man. Hopefully these same voters will look at their personal life and say 'I believe you' -- and hire lawyers, doctors, accountants and other professionals that don't look like them based on competence rather than skin color.

In any event, democrats have already disproven Clinton's hypothesis and, in the fall, we'll hopefully have a leader for the true America -- which is alot more diverse, left-leaning, younger and hopeful than the America that Clinton sees.

Tena,

I doubt they brought this up to Donna Brazile. That would be dumb considering her public opinions on the subject. But, once she hears that is what they are doing...

I confess that I almost explode with anger when I read the Post. But then I memember something that Josh wrote the other day: "When an issue is brought up in desperation by the oppo campaign, it is a signal that the issue is dying down" The fact that Wright is THE Clinton campaign argument just shows desperation. Sure, the republicans will try to use Wright. By the way, tax returns...

There's a distinction to be made: I acknowledge the possiblity of the Republicans exploiting the Wright comments and Obama's race in order to win. However, I find it completely unacceptable that Obama's Democratic Party rival would exploit these same things to try to win the nomination.

Well said.

So does this mean that because Barack is black that he should hide his tail and run? I am not sure if the superdelegates are watching the change in America, but it seems to me that many Amercians have realized that Mr. Wright is not Mr. Obama and regardless to who is the nominee, there will be issues, scandal, and more that each candidate will have to face.

If our resolve as Americans is to elect Obama as president, then we should expect more of Mr. Wright to come out and realize that whatever comes out will be of the same nature. But, if we want to put Obama in the WH, then we need to be ready and steadfast in our beliefs regardless of what the right wing brings out.

Hillary has scandals that will come out of the closet before the November election in her family's court case, unlike Obama that is not named in the Rezo case, the Clintons are! They have done so much during their WH tenture that the supers should be very scared about what is going to come out on them, once they are no longer under the protection of running primaries.

I will vote for Obama regardless of what comes out about Wright or Farrahn, they do not possess the thoughts of every black american, I am one and I know that.

I doubt they brought this up to Donna Brazile. That would be dumb considering her public opinions on the subject. But, once she hears that is what they are doin

I forgot - good point.

I just chose her thinking she certainly would be skeptical of any claims that Hillary could come out better once the Repugs start up the slime machine. But there's no reason all of them wouldn't get that - I certainly do and I'm just an observer, not a player.

OMG, Hillary, stop!

Ickes greatly exagerates the potential fallout from Republican attack ads on the Wright "controversy".

The Democratic response ad would surely include these quotes:

"I am sure, knowing Senator Obama, that he does not share the views that I saw on television". - John McCain
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/03/28/mccain-defends-obama-over-wright-flap/

"I do know Senator Obama. He does not share those views". - John McCain
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NThjMzQ0NGUxZTZiM2EyOWU5MzM0NDVkZDEyNzc5MWE=

So let me get this straight. Ickes is predicting that Republicans will take Barack Obama down with the same issue he himself is trying to take Barack Obama down with, albeit unsuccesfully?

Actually some people wonder what Obama really thinks. I wonder why he is staying at a church that selected a know racist, Louis Farrakhan to be their Man of the Year because of what they called his greatness. I wonder why Obama had such a hard time rejecting Farrakhan in the debate. I wonder why Obama said he did not know what terrible things Wright says, yet he uninvited him to his I'm running for president announcement. Personally, if I met someone and became friends with them and they told me they belonged to the KKK I would run not walk away from them.

It's really sad and pathetic that Ickes/Clinton are so desperate to hijack this election, that they are willing to racebait with superdelegates on a clear case of "guilt by association." There are plenty of horror stories straight from Clinton's own mouth to make most superdelegates pause, I'm sure. The fact that the Clintons are trying to ride Reverend Wright, whose bigotry Obama has denounced, rejected and condemned, go to show that race is the Clinton machine's only hope for stealing the nomination. I have faith in the superdelegates, as I have faith in the American people, this will not work. Clinton and Clinton, along with their surrogates, have so stooped to the lowest depths of the gutter, while Mr. Obama continues to take the high road and shows America his leadership abilities.

Personally, if I met someone and became friends with them and they told me they belonged to the KKK I would run not walk away from them.

So let me get this straight - you are equating Rev. Wright, an 80 year old minister of the United Church of Christ, a man who has enormous respect from all kinds of people, with a gang of terrorist crackers?

OOooookay.

I think I get it now.

And the Clinton's dirty tricks attack machine strikes again. If the democratic party doesn't somehow put a stop to this, then we're going to have the hundred year war and the American people who need help to survive this economic mess are going to be left to swing in the wind---welcome to the third Bush term with McCain.

Pennsylvania, you're in the best position to put a stop to this before it's too late. If you sweep for Obama, that will take the legs out from under her. I know that you've known her longer, but her plans are very, very similar to Obama's and if she's allowed to go on tearing the party apart, we all lose. 50% of Americans and 70% of republicans strongly dislike her. Please, don't let McCain and his war (he says there will be more wars, not less) weaken our country even further economically and in the eyes of the world. Read McCain's lips, a trillion dollars for war, but not one red cent for Americans in financial crisis.

PA, SAVE US. DON'T LET THE CLINTONS TEAR THE PARTY DOWN FURTHER.

Nonesense!!!!

It's clear- Ickes and the scum bags of the Madame don't have nearly as much influence as they claim with the voters or the Supers. The last time I checked- the traffic on the Supers highway is moving one way- the Obama way.

They're desperate to bring Wright back into focus-because the issue had not nearly as much influence as they would like.

Using Wright to induce fear among the White majority will hurt the country and the democratic party for a long time. And If Hillary plans her corination cermony on the grave of a fallen black church- Well Good luck.

Democrats would rather risk a single election than long-term minorty abd liberal backlash.

My take- This is another timid and shameful atempt to stoke of flames of Xenophobia- third in two weeks- from the HQ of Hatred.

I, for one, wouldn't mind Hillary stoking the flames. She is seriously underestimating the risks and her tactics of division are going to burn her alive.

What I cannot understand is why HRC's female backers, at least the ones whose main motivation is to have a woman president in their lifetimes, are willing to achieve their ends this way.

My wife was a HRC backer til she just got disgusted at her campaign's tactics.

It's a cliche, but true in this case -- the ends don't justify the means. When we have a female president, she should win on her own merits, not by slandering someone else.

This is really sad for the Clintons. They're trying to scare people into supporting Clinton, and they're using racebaiting and fear mongering.

This is sad.

Dear superdelegates: don't succumb to this.

Something many of you fail to realize is that the Wright thing isn't strictly about race. What did most people object to? God damn America. One of the reasons Obama's speech didn't do that much for me was that it was a classic case of misdirection, albeit well done. People objected primarily to Wright blaming America, and secondarily to Obama dissembling about it. So what does Obama say? "Yes, it's time we had a discussion about race." Obama made it about race. Of course there's people who reacted to Wright because he's black, or because a glimpse of the black church experience freaked them out. But as much as it might be pleasing to Obama supporters to dismiss anyone who objects to the Wright stuff as a dumb old racist, the fact is that much of the objections have nothing to do with race.

And how is it that Hillary's not allowed to mention what will clearly be a problem for Obama, while his campaign has been talking about how unelectable she is for months?

And guess what? She has every right to say she wouldn't stay in the church. The guy humped the podium while insulting her and her husband. She's supposed to go out of her way to defend this guy?

OK haters, have at it.

And if Hillary is the nominee, we can expect to see her Tuzla tarmac reception played on a loop between the convention and November with a voice over of Hillary's tall sniper fire tale, followed by a parade of vets railing against her "theft of valor," an offense punishable by court marshall.

The reason we've not seen the Obama camp whisper this fact is the same reason that Ickes, et.al., seem not to understand why they're losing so badly. It's toxic politics like their insinuations about Rev. Wright, the same tactics employed by Bush-Rove-Cheney, that has at once disgusted and energized the dems this season. They just don't get it.

And if they haven't picked up on that by now, well, there's not much chance of them learning that lesson before June 10, when primary season ends. No matter; they'll learn shortly thereafter, when the flood of supers sends them all home, hopefully for good.

It pains me to say that the Wright issue comes up in almost every conversation I have with "ordinary people" in Portland Oregon who are not Obama supporters.

Some say "he's toast" with sadness, and mention Wright. Some say "I'll never vote for him" with satisfaction, and mention Wright.

I say "he has rejected and denounced"... they say "why did he stay in that church?"

I say "he didn't say those things when Obama was there..." They say how do you know, and get a knowing look in their eyes that says "yeah right... sure he wasn't there." They don't believe it.

This is in "liberal" northeast Portland Oregon. I'd be thrilled to have Obama. I plan to vote for him. I think he is going to be slaughtered on this issue. It is going to be ugly. I'm still gonna vote for him, hoping against hope... hoping that he can through demonstrated personal integrity somehow cause this guilt by association to seem unfair and beside the point, as it does to me.

I just don't know.