Today's Talk of the Nation on NPR featured commentary from Harold Ickes, David Plouffe and Geraldine Ferraro (you know, for balance.)  Of course, after last night's results, all three of them were talking delegates.  I didn't really hear anything new or groundbreaking from Plouffe or Ickes.  I do want to note that Ickes said that that there was no real difference between pledged delegates and super-delegates, which is to say that he wants to lay the groundwork for removing the "pledged" from in front of "pledged delegates."  More on this momentarily.

What was most interesting was the commentary provided by Geraldine Ferraro.  As she had said in her recent NYT Op-Ed, her stance is that the super-delegates are there to lead, not to follow.  Like the comments of Ickes this isn't anything new, but these two views seem to be opposing one another.  Pledged delegates aren't really pledged to anything and neither are super-delegates.  So, the message is clear: Expect the Clinton campaign to throw out the rule book.  Ferraro will be their heavy hitter on this, since she helped write the current set of party rules.

There were two other things that Ferraro said that struck me as being very bizarre.  One had to do with Rush Limbaugh.  Ferraro related an anecdote about listening to a caller (are we still allowed to call them dittoheads?) on the fine radio program of Limbaugh.  According to her, the caller expressed that he was absolutely opposed to Clinton getting to the White House and said that, for this reason, he had voted for Barack Obama.  Ferraro took this and ran with it, claiming that this is boosting support for Obama to Clinton's detriment.

She must not have listened for long, because this is exactly bass-ackwards from what has actually been going on.  As most of you probably know, Limbaugh has been urging his legion to go out and vote for Clinton to help keep her in the race.  The reason for this, something that he and other GOP faithful have plainly expressed, is twofold: They'd rather face Clinton in the general and they think she is getting away with attacking Obama in ways that the GOP won't be able to.

The other weird moment was toward the end of Neal Conan's talk with Ferraro.  She was talking about Rep. John Lewis switching from Clinton to Obama.  She seemed to be taking exception to the explanation that Lewis has given, that being that he feels his current stance better represents his constituents.  Fair enough.  Neal Conan went on to add to her point by saying that by this logic, Senators Kennedy and Kerry would have to switch also.  Then came Ferraro's reply, "Not only Kennedy and Kerry, because they're white, but also Governor Patrick..."

Wait, what?

Seriously, I've listened to it about a dozen times now and it's the same every time.  Did she actually say this?  I almost feel like I'm getting this wrong because Conan didn't stop her on it, but as I said, it sounds the same to me every time I listen to it.

The audio is here.  The moment in question occurs at the 43:00 mark.  Take a listen and tell me what you think.

In summary, if you think the last few weeks have been dirty, if you think you've seen the "kitchen sink" in action, you may want to think again.