Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Sweet: Obama's Monday North Carolina visit to Edwards home follows Clinton's Thursday drop by. UPDATE. Obama cancels meeting.

| 13 Comments

WASHINGTON--UPDATE 3:30 P.M. CHICAGO TIME
NEW
From Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton, regarding Obama meeting Monday with John Edwards: "No meeting today – scheduling problem."
OLD
Seeking his endorsement, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) flies to North Carolina later Monday to meet with former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) in his Chapel Hill home. On Thursday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made a similair house call on Edwards who dropped his presidential bid but has not said if he will back of his former rivals.

An Edwards aide told me that Elizatbeth Edwards was in on the Clinton meeting. The reason for the meetings is to go over--again--a lot of what has been talked about, the committment of the Democrats to fighting to eliminate poverty.

Edwards wants to "gauge their committment to the cause," I was told.

Clinton and Obama have been wooing Edwards for weeks. Not clear when, if, Edwards will make a move.

He has reservations about both of them, I am told, and they are this: Can Clinton really be an agent for change? Is Obama tough enough to be president of the United States?

13 Comments

Can Hillary Clinton really be an agent for change? Sure: just ask all of the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and Washington lobbyists donating to her campaign.

Is Obama tough enough? Ask Dan Hynes, Blair Hull, Gery Chico, and the Illinois Republican Party. Better yet, ask Bill Clinton.

Some argue that Obama isn't really "battle-tested." Well, I quote Sun Tzu:

"the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete."

I just read on yahoo that a Pew Research study says that at the present rate this country is going, by the year 2050, the U.S. population will be 438 million people. Up from the present number of 296 million. The study also says that number could change, or be much lower, if the country's immigration policy changes. So if you want your kids and grandkids to live like sardines, like they do in third world countries, vote for the open border supporters such as Obama or Clinton.

i believe the only thing mr. edwards can deliver is a check. keep the endorsement...and all that sympathy he and lizzy garnered. he should ride into the sunset of american politics like danny quayle, jack kemp, al haig, bob kerry, and other of his ilk and style. f---k 'em!

Edwards delivers a lot of credibility with the left wing and the adult wing of the Democratic Party. Only by a real attention to guarding the vote (as Jesse Jackson recommends--'arrive with five' three weeks early so there's no surprises the newly constituted Democratic ground legal team can't handle) will the Dems win regardless of WHO is at the top of the ticket.
Dems can't have a street fight ala '68 9 weeks before the general election and keep the focus on winning what they've got in terms of registered people in November. This will take focus. Dean should tell Hilary and Obama to either get with Edwards NOW or agree to a Michael Moore moderated debate for Rolling Stone which includes: Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and maybe even Richardson.
Given that some Republicans may have entered and voted for Obama in open primaries (in a cynical move) and done so also in open caucuses, lest he be seen as a spoiler, there should be no further delay meeting with the man who gave both front-runners the courage to incorporate a LOT of Edwards' platform and ethos into their popular strategies. That deserves a bit more respect than it's currently getting, it seems. A mature campaign should act accordingly.

A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Michael Bloomberg! Why is that? Just look at the headlines of the British Press coverage of Obama-Rezko. (you do the work, I will spare you the details)
Or, just look at the Chicago Sun-Times first ever interview with FBI key witness against Rezko, real estate broker John Thomas in the February 10th edition of the Sun-Times. Or, read John Kass's February 10th story in the Chicago Tribune.
Any more questions?

I heard Hillary will be campaigning in Ohio ahead of the state's primary. Any details on the when and where of any events?

MODERATOR--PLEAZE REPOST THIS EDITED VERSION,. MY 2ND TO LAST SENTENCE IS NOT COHERENT! THANKS!

Edwards delivers a lot of credibility with the left wing and the adult wing of the Democratic Party. Only by a real attention to guarding the vote (as Jesse Jackson recommends--'arrive with five' three weeks early so there's no surprises the newly constituted Democratic ground legal team can't handle) will the Dems win regardless of WHO is at the top of the ticket.
Dems can't have a street fight ala '68 9 weeks before the general election and keep the focus on winning what they've got in terms of registered people in November. This will take focus. Dean should tell Hilary and Obama to either get with Edwards NOW or agree to a Michael Moore moderated debate for Rolling Stone which includes: Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and maybe even Richardson.
Given that some Republicans may have entered and voted for Obama in open primaries (in a cynical move) and done so also in open caucuses, lest he be seen as a spoiler, there should be no further delay meeting with the man who gave both front-runners the courage to incorporate a LOT of Edwards' platform and ethos into their popular strategies. Edwards deserves a bit more respect than he's currently getting for running a campaign only on federal matching funds, it seems. A mature campaign should treat him accordingly.

Lisa Barr, you may be correct that some republicans voted for Obama in the primary because I personally know two loyal republicans who did vote for Obama last Tuesday because they think he will be easier to defeat in November than Hillary. I, as a republican, think that strategy is brilliant because I think Obama is the easier victim than Hillary.

Not. So. Fast, Jerry. This country is going to need somebody young enough to pull a BUNCH of all-nighters solving:
1. Global Warming--we've got Al Gore and we're backed by all that SCIENTIFIC stuff.
2. Stolen elections--y'all are working on #4 right about now, right? We won't be fooled again. The Dems have a good ground game in all states--we know to videotape the detectives stalking African American voters trying to vote 3 weeks early (thanks BBC TV for doing what our unregulated news media failed to do for us in Jacksonville, FL). Our numbers will put us over the goal.
3. Getting all of our troops home safely from an ill-planned and ill-executed immoral act based upon the lack of a coherent energy policy.
4. Reminding Americans that we don't get pushed around by fear-mongers of the internal, war-profiteering kind. Say, wasn't that once ILLEGAL? For good reason, right?
5. Remembering that we do want to be nicer to you folks than you were and are to us. We don't rule over people. We live with them. We find common ground. It's healthier. It's happier. It' will be hard not to be smug, and we may have to stay up late to remember that. Thank heavens we're younger! There will be a temptation to be as smug as you folks see . And your party didn't used be that way. The Republican party has lost its moral moorings. It doesn't resemble the party my father and I used to argue about--and guess what--before he died--that WWII vet voted for Bill Clinton. And by the way--that breeze you feel? It's my Dad spinning in his grave over how far the GOP has veered off the track of common sense and decency. Sure hope it calms down.

Lisa Barr, judging by your race baiting comments in #5 of your post I assume you are black. Your comment that blacks are nicer to whites than vice versa is sheer madness. All one has to do is look at the out of control black on white crime in this country to know you are clueless. Why do you think most white people, even white democrats, are afraid to even drive their car through a black neighborhood.

Your slip is showing, Jerry. And it's not pretty. How you got that I was talking about race in item 5--I was talking about the meansprited version of the Republican (I like Repugs) versus the just plain daft version I used to debate about with my late father. (He was confused--I think it was the heart problem and a lack of oxygen to the head). But he wasn't racist. And since you think it's so very important--I'm a liberal (white--didn't used to be but Italians have 'made it') woman who's lived in African American neighborhoods--and one of the risk factors was speeding white people. (Did I see you? Were you that blur?) No, my Dad tried keeping an open mind. Your comments indicate that's not something you value. I like the comment from Bulworth:
"White people got more in common with black people than rich people." Rent the film. (It's hard to find because of its attacks on the corporate media that killed and ignored the Kucinich and Edwards campaigns.) Relax. And then, when you want something to get upset about, consider this:
A president threatening the American people with allowing a 'terrorist' attack to occur unless our representatives roll over and let corporations spy on all of us. And then--ATT and Verizon will turn all that mined data over to the government--a government that isn't respecting habaeus corpus and says torture is just dandy? Have a great weekend!

Lisa, I am also Italian. Although I am more of a Giuliani Italian, and you sound more like a Mario Cuomo Italian. My condolences on that. As for the white people speeding through your neighborhood. The reason they were speeding was because they were running for their lives from your neighbors.

(Sigh). Jerry, I really need to deal with other things, but I can’t let your hate speech go unaddressed. I don’t consider myself a hyphenated American, and I find the practice kind of like public flatulence when practiced by those of us who don’t routinely suffer anymore the same group libel you’re trying to inflict upon people you sadly view as ‘the other’—do you really think that spouting such disinformation will hurt Barack Obama’s candidacy?
Given Giuliani’s placement of the communications center in the World Trade Center—against the police and firemen’s unions’ pleas—and his selection of the no-bid motorola contract for the radios—also despite the pleas of the first responders’ unions, I doubt Giuliani is even a viable vice presidential candidate. How’s his presidential campaign doing?
But, since you’re still on the crime and race disinformation campaign, here’s a great book that will perhaps explain the biasing factors which contribute to the misconception about criminal victims and perpetrators: “White Victims, Black Villains: Gender, Race, and Crime News ins U.S. Culture,” and it’s by Carole Stabile, Assoc. Prof of Journalism at University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. And, you may want to check out the series of topics our Senator addressed with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial team on their web site.

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on February 11, 2008 9:16 AM.

Sweet: Plouffe analysis of Obama weekend sweep was the previous entry in this blog.

Sweet column: Michelle Obama calls herself "perhaps the next first lady." is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.