Ickes: Obama and Clinton Can't Win

Even as Hillary Clinton and her aides begin the official effort to rally around Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is circulating past attacks on Obama from the Clinton Campaign. Is this the cost of the long, sharp primary that worried so many Democrats? A new RNC press release urges reporters to recall that senior Clinton adviser Harold Ickes once completely wrote off Obama -- it even comes with a YouTube recording. "The fact is -- he is not going to be able to win the general election against John McCain," says Ickes. But if this is the best pushback Republicans can do during Unity Week, they're in for a long campaign.

Ickes, a hardscrabble strategist who has worked for Democratic figures from Gene, Ted and Jesse to Bill and Hill, is well known for his decisive declarations. (See his testimony at last weekend's DNC meeting, for example.) In fact, Ickes issued a similarly gloomy forecast for his own boss, Hillary Clinton, when speculating on her prospects in 2004. "I'm one of the few in the semi--inner circle who don't think she can win," he told Time. "It would be a brutal, bruising fight. It would make this year's race look like kindergarten," he added. (Now if Ickes just declares that McCain can't win, all the bases will be covered.) For the record, Ickes has already begun walking back his remarks, stressing on Tuesday that Obama can indeed win:

Anything that I said regarding that [Obama] could not win, and anything following from that, was a misstatement[...] I've been saying to superdelegates all along that I think that Obama can win...

And who cares about a losing campaign's predictions about an opponent losing, anyway? Very few people, I'd bet, which makes this one of the few benefits of our strategy-saturated campaign discourse. The RNC is trying to drudge up an intraparty "attack," but it sounds more like warmed-over punditry. And if the upset victories of this year's nominees prove anything, it's that voters still exhibit a healthy resistance to the pundits' emphasis on polls, strategy and electoral predictions.

Photo credit: Acaben

Comments (45)

1. Harry who?

   If Ickes is the best punch the GOP can throw this time around, they can hang up their gloves right now.

   Obama is blessed with the weakest GOP opposition since Goldwater '64.

   Let's pray that after a landslide victory, he doesn't fall into LBJ's trap of being willing prisoner of a catastrophic inherited war.

   Posted by sloper at 06/05/2008 @ 12:31am

2. The screams of course will be, "See? Even they don't believe in Obama!" It's a specious argument. Ickes was acting as a partisan at the appropriate time. One simple statement of support for the Democratic nominee takes some of the teeth out of this. Unfortunately people is dumb.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 12:47am

3. Soooo what the Republicans think if they tell everyone "oh yeah did you hear Obama can't win" everyone will just go oh they say he can't win so lets vote Republican? Is this really the best they have? Really? Jesus Christ is Karl Rove slipping or something?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 01:15am

4. To be honest if you're Karl Rove right now you keep a low profile. Of course the fat pig can't keep his face off FOX News and show his total contempt for Congress. Oh man the Sergeant-At-Arms needs to get busy!

   Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 01:18am

5. Had Hillary Clinton had the grace and decency to exit the campaign a good month ago, Barack Obama would probably be in a stronger position to take on McCain and the Republican propaganda machine.

   Unfortunately, she received bad advice from that little weenie of a man Harold Ickes, and was not helped at all by her West Virginia/Kentucky-type base of support, which constitutes an awful blend of hillbilliness and rank bigotry.

   The sooner Ickes, the Clintons, McAuliffe, and Wolfson leave the world, the better off everyone will be.

   Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 02:05am

6. Harold Ickes...Hillary's Bob Shrum.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 08:43am

7. "...people is dumb." "...West Virginia/Kentucky-type base of support, which constitutes an awful blend of hillbilliness and rank bigotry." Careful, your elitism is showing!

   Posted by meathelmet at 06/05/2008 @ 10:38am

8. Posted by meathelmet at 06/5/2008

   On the back of my car there's a bumper sticker that reads, "I'm an elitist. If you don't like it, blow off."

   By the way, after Clinton's win in Kentucky, they showed a close-up of one of her supporters in the front row. He had a tatoo of a rat on the back of his neck.

   Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 12:38pm

9. Won't the "party of inclusion" needs thos rat-necked votes come November?

   Posted by meathelmet at 06/05/2008 @ 12:50pm

10. need those

    Posted by meathelmet at 06/05/2008 @ 12:51pm

11. Meath: "Won't the party of inclusion needs thos rat-necked votes come November?"

    No, not at all. 99% of the time they vote for Republicans.

    Obama shouldn't give a rat's tattoo about West Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. He should worry about winning Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, and the Carolinas.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 12:53pm

12. Obama shouldn't give a rat's tattoo about West Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/5/2008

    Ohio and Florida are in play. Why not try to win them all?

    Ahh, the pure progressive requirement, which is equal to vote repellent. I'm glad you aren't advising Obama. Idiot.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/05/2008 @ 1:10pm

13. The point of the RNC press release is to tune the punditry to their message and provide them with talking points. No doubt they will succeed, as many in the chattering class have long served as lap monkeys for the Republican Party. In the end, the public will decide the issue.

    Posted by robgo2 at 06/05/2008 @ 1:16pm

14. Incidentally, my brother came up with that line. Stupidity knows no socioeconomic strata. It's always interesting how folks will try and get you to mean something that's not even close to what you said. I didn't even come anywhere near mentioning a state or a particular group. So pull your self-righteous stick outta your ass.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 2:16pm

15. yut- My self right-righteous stick? Pot calling the kettle black perhaps? Lighten up Francis.

    Posted by meathelmet at 06/05/2008 @ 2:45pm

16. Posted by Benchrest at 06/5/2008

    You sound like somebody who'd wear a tattoo of a rat on his neck.

    Both Ohio & Florida are very conservative states, with constituencies that are not exactly inviting to a progressive like Obama. He can pander to them day in and day out, or he can broaden his electoral strategy to get western & mid-western states. The latter strategy is far sounder.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 2:52pm

17. Stupid question: if the 50 state strategy worked so well in the primary, and Dems outdid Reps by very large margins in every primary, why not contest every state? Obama's message is one of unity, that means going out and listening to everyone, up to and including those who vehemently oppose you. Hearts and minds don't change overnight or easily, and the Reps have a vested interest in making sure they don't change. He didn't choose doing this in a facile fashion, which is admirable. If he pulls this off, and I hope he will, the effects could be quite profound. The end of thirty years of conservative recklessness could be at hand. But I'm not prognosticating, just a feeling.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 3:01pm

18. Oh and Meathead, I think I stuck a nerve there. Calm down, just watch who you call an "elitist" when you're putting words in my mouth.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 3:03pm

19. The latter strategy is far sounder.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/5/2008

    Is it now? We shall see, you little "blow off elitist".

    I will make note during the general, and come back and beat you over the head with it when your stategery is not implemented by Obama.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/05/2008 @ 3:05pm

20. "Both Ohio & Florida are very conservative states, with constituencies that are not exactly inviting to a progressive like Obama."

    Hold on there. Ohio has only recently elected a Democratic Governor and a progressive Democratic Senator. With an expected large increase in turnout of black and young voters, I see no reason why Obama cannot win this state.

    Posted by robgo2 at 06/05/2008 @ 3:39pm

21. Once again, a deceptive headline from the bastion of left wing.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/05/2008 @ 9:11pm

22. The problem is that if Obama's hateful supporters, including liberal blogs, continue their hateful attacks, they are simply alienating those electorate who Obama needs to win the general election.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/05/2008 @ 9:13pm

23. Is it now? We shall see, you little "blow off elitist".

    I will make note during the general, and come back and beat you over the head with it when your stategery is not implemented by Obama.

    ---------

    Who appointed you asshole of the month?

    Let's see now. Ohioans didn't seem to know that it was both Hillary & Bill Clinton who favored NAFTA, and Obama who was against the idea. They punished Obama and rewarded Hillary on this issue, when common sense would've dictated that they do the opposite. It was in Ohio that a surprising number of voters said they voted for "reasons of race."

    In Florida we have a large fanatical anti-Castro constituency and a sizable Jewish constituency that is suspicious of Obama.

    Now Obama can follow the advice of certain pundits and spend an inordinate amount of time and money in those states, trying to overcome what are probably insuperable odds, or he can focus on states that seem quite receptive to him, like Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Missouri.

    One doesn't need to be an elitist to figure out which strategy makes more sense.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 10:59pm

24. Posted by robgo2 at 06/5/2008

    Almost 80% of the state of Ohio is White. Clinton won 6 out of 10 white men and 7 out of 10 white women.

    According to exit polls, 20% of Ohioans said that race was either "the single most important factor" in their voting decision or "one of several important factors."

    These data suggest that Ohio will be very problematic for Obama.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:07pm

25. On the back of my car there's a bumper sticker that reads, "I'm an elitist. If you don't like it, blow off."

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/5/2008

    YOUR words, NOT mine.

    We shall see, won't we. Do not act suprised when I bring it up in the very near future.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/05/2008 @ 11:16pm

26. On the back of my car there's a bumper sticker that reads, "I'm an elitist. If you don't like it, blow off."

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/5/2008

    YOUR words, NOT mine.

    We shall see, won't we. Do not act suprised when I bring it up in the very near future.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/5/2008

    ------------

    By all means, bring it up. It is telling that only you have gotten bent out of shape by a comment I made earlier.

    Let us remember, in any case, that it was Clinton who focused on the so-called "important" states in the primaries and LOST. Obama took caucuses seriously, campaigned in places that nobody attributed much importance to, and ended up winning by over 200 pledged delegates.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:28pm

27. Frankly, I'd want Obama to nominate a long-haired hippy to the SC. Someone who favors the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, who's opposed to the death penalty, who's opposed to the idea of judicial review, and who'd favor federal marshals arresting Bush & Cheney on charges of war crimes.

    Now THAT is the kind of Supreme Court Justice the country so desperately needs.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/5/2008

    I recognize the content of your suggestions to the man who will hold the highest office in the land. In order to do that, you must first appeal to public perception and hope your political calculations are better than your opponents. Your strategy and suggestions leave much to be desired.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/06/2008 @ 12:10am

28. Benchrest: "I recognize the content of your suggestions to the man who will hold the highest office in the land. In order to do that, you must first appeal to public perception and hope your political calculations are better than your opponents. Your strategy and suggestions leave much to be desired."

    ----------

    Your writing is pretty bad. The correct word is "opponents'," not "opponents," and the "you" in the second sentence is the wrong pronoun for "man" in the first.

    I wasn't offering "strategy" in the earlier post. I was expressing a preference.

    I know you're aching for a fight here, but you need to slow down and think a little bit. Right now you sound miffed and confused.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/06/2008 @ 12:34am

29. He who lives by spell check, dies by spell check. I am not aching for a fight, you are actually fun to debate, but you seem to require progressive perfection, and are proud of being an 'elitist', both of which are recipes for disaster.

    Your changing the subject to writing style pretty much sums up the outcome to the debate.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/06/2008 @ 12:51am

30. Oh, BTW, in your last sentence you used the word "sound", which is incorrect since you cannot actually hear me. The correct word would be 'seem'.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/06/2008 @ 12:57am

31. Benchrest: "He who lives by spell check, dies by spell check. I am not aching for a fight, you are actually fun to debate, but you seem to require progressive perfection, and are proud of being an 'elitist', both of which are recipes for disaster.

    Your changing the subject to writing style pretty much sums up the outcome to the debate."

    ------

    You can't get out of your own way. I was correcting your grammar, not your spelling, and mentioning how bad your writing is.

    For example, "recipes for disaster" is a cliche. The phrase "progressive perfection" is awkward, too. Nor am I "proud to be an elitist." In fact, I was being a tad facetious earlier in claiming to be an elitist.

    We were not debating at all. You kept quoting things I wrote in an apparent attempt to ridicule them. Your motives are thus suspect.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/06/2008 @ 01:12am

32. Posted by KSP556 at 06/6/2008

    I suspect you are a sore loser.

    No comment on my last post?

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/06/2008 @ 01:15am

33. Benchrest: "Oh, BTW, in your last sentence you used the word "sound", which is incorrect since you cannot actually hear me. The correct word would be 'seem'."

    -------

    No, you're wrong. Written words leave an impression and often convey a mood and tone. Webster's recognizes this usage:

    "2: to make or convey an impression especially when heard..."

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/06/2008 @ 01:23am

34. Benchrest: "Oh, BTW, in your last sentence you used the word "sound", which is incorrect since you cannot actually hear me. The correct word would be 'seem'."

    -------

    No, you're wrong. Written words leave an impression and often convey a mood and tone. Webster's recognizes this usage:

    "2: to make or convey an impression especially when heard..."

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/06/2008 @ 01:23am

35. I believe "heard" is the key word you are looking for.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/06/2008 @ 01:27am

36. "Especially when heard," NOT "only when heard."

    Your batting average remains .000.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/06/2008 @ 01:48am

37. Come on...didn't even Rupert Murdoch come out and predict landslide by Obama if he were to win the nomination? The DNC needs to start throwing that around over and over...who cares about Ickes??

    Posted by phnord at 06/06/2008 @ 11:22am

38. This is ridiculous. No one cares what Ickes has to say. What people will care about though, is what Rev. Wright had to say for 20 years while Obama was seeking his spiritual counsel. That, my friends, people will care about.

    Posted by umichballer44 at 06/06/2008 @ 2:24pm

39. It amazes me that people think Rev. Wright won't be an issue, or that he is only an issue among racist while folks. Let me clue you in, race wouldn't be an issue in this campaign if Mr. Obama and his family and hadn't embraced a spiritual leader that hates white people. If McCain had attended a church that was openly hostile to blacks he would have zero shot at the presidency.

    Posted by umichballer44 at 06/06/2008 @ 2:44pm

40. Finally we have a race to November. Remember it is not a race to 50% +1 vote but a race to 270 Electoral Votes. I am not the proprietor of this website so don't think I am pushing anything, but check out

    http://www.270towin.com/

    to see what the future holds for both candidates. This one has the possibility to be a blowout or a nail-bitter. The states that really mater the most are once again Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. All other states are pretty much decided. Whichever candidate wins 3 of the 4 will likely win it all.

    See ya, West Anson

    Posted by westleyanson at 06/06/2008 @ 3:53pm

41. Benchrest, KSP556 - luv ya both but yer not contributin' much to the discussional landscape here with yer bandyin' formal, lexical and conceptual semantics. Take it offline, grab a Chicago Manual of Style and slug it out over IM.

    Posted by guanabana at 06/06/2008 @ 4:00pm

42. Ickes is a perfect example of why there is no truth in politics.

    Posted by apolitical at 06/06/2008 @ 4:52pm

43. The winner of the gen. will be, imo, the candidate that chooses the right v.p. Note that McCain has yet to choose a veep, most likely 'cause Karl Rove told him to wait until the Dems choose, then choose the veep best suited to upset the Dem ticket. Sad, but seems true, the Republicans have mega-billions to toss around for brain washing, playing up wedge issues, and keeping the Dem party un-united. My guess is if Obama chooses a male v.p., McCain will choose a likeable and savvy female running mate; could be Condie Rice; 2-4-1, female and African American; great resume on foreign affairs, cool and savvy under pressure, smart as a whip and certainly a woman that doesn't iron shirts. Downside, she may be too connected with Shrubya to suit his "maverick" persona. Florida's Gov. Christ is a lightweight, un-married, and more suited to the Dem party. lol

    Posted by Bolted at 06/06/2008 @ 8:13pm

44. Posted by guanabana at 06/6/2008

    Agreed.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/06/2008 @ 11:14pm

45. Underestimating the American People, is a useless task! Review the current ECONOMY!

    Move Forward or Retreat?

    We only have to evaluate the situation and what is needed to resolve it.

    Posted by simplewisdom at 06/07/2008 @ 10:26am