Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Sweet: Obama boasts " ”I’m confident I will get her votes if I am the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee." Friday developing storylines; McCain factor looming.


LOS ANGELES, CALIF.—The Obama and Clinton camps returned to sharper rhetoric on Friday, after hitting the mute button at the Thursday debate.

*But first: Paul Bedard, who pens "Washington Whispers" at U.S. News & World Report, has an item about Barack Obama's exercise routine where I'm quoted about working out with Obama. LINK

* Obama, at a press conference at the Westin Bonaventure before taking off for New Mexico (no endorsement from Gov. Richardson, the trip is to talk economics in a Feb. 5 western state) said Clinton at the debate did not “adequately explain” how the U.S. got into Iraq. During the Hollywood debate, Clinton having to explain her vote authorizing the war was one of her weakest performances of the night; too much explaining. Obama ally Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) gets on a conference call soon to talk about the debate and Iraq.

*Turning to health care, Clinton's team, livid about a direct mail piece issued by the Obama campaign, held a conference call in the morning with health care experts condemning what they called “GOP attack tactics” in their mailer.

The print pamphlet showed a picture of a young couple at a table, evoking—for those around for the anti-Clinton health care plan fight in 1993-- a couple named Harry and Louise who were effective in helping raise concerns over “Hillarycare.” Obama had a shouted question at him at the end of his press conference, as he was walking out. Later, Obama advisor David Axelrod said the Obama mailings were based on “fact" and Clintons' stuff was "fabrication." Shown a picture of the couple from the mailing, Axelrod said the picture was "standard" and were not evocative of Harry and Louise.

*Obama wins endorsement.

*With John McCain looking more like the probable GOP nominee, Obama said he was a better pick than Clinton because he could compete with McCain for independents.

*McCain stumps in suburban Chicago later today. Obama is increasingly mentioning him. “I have consistently gotten sizeable independent votes. And I actually think that independents are predisposed towards voting Democratic in this election because they are tired of George Bush. I think John McCain has enormous biographical appeal as a consequence of service to our country. And In no ways diminish or sell short that appeal. But the fact is id that he is tethered himself to bush policies, both foreign and domestic, and I think the American people, particularly independents, are looking for a different approach.”

*Obama also made this boast: A reason he should be the Democratic nominee is ”I’m confident I will get her votes if I am the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee. And that I think illustrates the potential difference in how we would run our campaigns.”


The part about getting the votes by the supporters of the other candidate should they be the nominee is probably right.
Look in the comments section of any blog - democratic or mainstream news sites like Politico, and any story about either Clinton or Obama are worst than a raging Bush conservative against a total progressive. Both have supporters who absolutely hate each other and intelligent discussion is impossible.
A tip for you: The media keeps saying that the African Americans will not vote for Hillary as a protest if things get worse. Well, it's not just them. Many of Senator Obama's suppoters, all colors and ages, ect. feel that way.
There is a serious rupture in the party.
Many say they will not vote for the other but, more so the supporters of Sen. Obama.
So, there is some truth to this statement.

John McCain is taking a huge gamble. He is staking his entire campaign on the fact that the surge has "worked", and he was the only one who said it would. The fact is that ( as reported by NPR yesterday) Al Sadr's Medi army was reined in by him because he was loosing control of it. The only way to tell who was loyal to him and who was loyal to Iran, was to stop the bombings and attacks. Ergo, any actions that subsequently occurred = Loyal to IRan. I suspect he has taken this time to figure out where his followers loyalties lie and probably root them out. This "armistice" expires in about a month. Then what will he do? I would hate to have betted my entire campaign upon this. If Obama understands this, all he has to do is wait. The last election was lost by the Republicans, I believe in large part because the country believed the Iraq strategy of Rumsfeld was not working. Now..the common wisdom is that the Petreus strategy is working...but is it really? Personally, I see no Political progress the only real measure, in my mind. The violence is down..well it was until yesterday. Very tricky....and very dangerous.
So, here's my contribution to McCain. :-) and his downfall??

The Dems were wrong and I was right.
To Leave Iraq without a fight
Just shows to me no insight.

No-one's in charge, it makes me shudder.
"My Friends..I'll place my hand upon it's rudder"
I hope it's mine, and not Al-Sadr's?

Obama also made this boast: A reason he should be the Democratic nominee is ”I’m confident I will get her votes if I am the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee. And that I think illustrates the potential difference in how we would run our campaigns.”
See, THAT'S what I find so wrong about Obama. Is this a threat? Is it ego? Is it just plain ugly?
Let me say, speaking for my self, I find his comments repulsive, and this is not the first time he has said that. What happened with "bring us together", or for that matter his Party?
I have been following the excellent articles on Rezko, because I wanted to understand it.
From what I can tell, Obama so far, has not been charged with helping Rezko to launder money. But Obama was in a law firm for 9 years connected to Rezko thru work it did for him, and others connected to him, he served in the State Senate, so how could he not know that the man who was a huge donor, on his Finance Committee, known in Political circles, who had built these slums in Obama's own district, how could he not have known what was going on? Did he not know about the heat being turned off? Did he not ASK Rezko what was going on?
How can we trust this man? He has done nothing to end the war, and I'm sorry, he was NOT there, in DC, after it had been hit on 9-11, so what he says means nothing compared to what he has done.
This COUNTRY supported going into Iraq, WE were crazy after 9-11, so to me, how a person has voted in the Senate, since 2004, matters most.
What about health care? How much will it cost to buy HIS insurance? Will the same discounts and options, over 200 different insurance plans, be available to us to buy, as they will be in Hillary's plan? Who are the 15 million people he leaves out?
I have a lot of issues with him, and am not sure at all he would win in November. The GOP is NASTY, and McCain is using the BUSH PR/advertising team, so do you think they MIGHT use Rezko to "illustrate" Obama's great, day ONE judgement? Obama has tried to sweep that away, but when the trial starts, he will be smeared by the GOP, which will be terrible.
Maybe you can explain this to me, and what impact the Rezko trial will have on Obama, or will the networks ignore it and not cover it?

Suzie,At least these people have plans and not slogans. Whether you agree or disagree with them that is up to you?

People should be questioning Obama about Rezko. I also agree with some of your statements about 9/11. I would vote any candidate if they can lay out a mission statement backed up by a plan.

Also if you think the GOP is going to smear Obama about Rezko then you are wrong. Clinton tried and was called a racist. The same thing will happen before November as well.

Obama is playing and will use the Race Card to his advantage.

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets


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 1, 2008 12:46 PM.

Sweet: Clinton, Obama Hollywood debate. Kodak Theater Jan. 31, 2008. Transcript was the previous entry in this blog.

Sweet: Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Michelle to stump for Obama in Los Angeles on Sunday is the next entry in this blog.

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