Obama Meets Edwards, Pledges Party Remake

John Edwards won almost half a million votes on Super Tuesday, more than enough to have tipped several states in different directions than they went in the close race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

That was a small measure of the lingering influence of a former candidate on a race that now heads toward two more states where the populist appeal of the Edwards campaign resonated.

So Barack Obama jetted out of Wisconsin, where he is battling for a big victory in Tuesday's primary, for a Sunday meeting in Chapel Hill with John and Elizabeth Edwards. The Illinois senator left reporters behind to make what he hoped would be a secret trip, but a North Carolina television station was tipped off and got footage of Obama leaving the home where he met with the Edwardses.

Obama asked for an endorsement. But he also provided the former senator and his wife with detailed arguments about why he would be a stronger Democratic candidate in November, and an outline of how he would seek to implement progressive economic reforms as president.

A key part of the discussion focused on a priority of John Edwards: writing a Democratic platform that outlines a genuine change agenda.

"The meeting with John, we just wanted to talk about how we can move the party in a direction that focuses on middle-class issues, relieving poverty, reducing the influence of special interests in Washington," Obama acknowledged Sunday night.

The trip comes at an essential time for Obama's campaign, and illustrates how very much he wants the Edwards endorsement.

Obama has framed his Wisconsin campaign against Clinton as a fight over trade policy, but Obama's record is not a whole lot better than Clinton's on this issue. Edwards, who ran for the Democratic nomination this year as an ardent advocate for fair trade policies, has earned credibility with key unions -- especially the United Steelworkers and to a lesser extent the United Auto Workers.

If an Edwards endorsement were to help break loose endorsements from those two unions, which remain powerful players in Ohio, it would be a dramatic boost for Obama.

Additionally, Edwards remains a particularly popular figure in rural and southern states. In Oklahoma, for instance, the former senator took more than 10 percent of the vote on February 5, after he had withdrawn from the race.

Parts of Oklahoma are a lot like parts of Texas, and Obama would love to have Edwards take a swing through the Lone Star state before the March 4 primary.

Will it happen?

When he was still in the race, Edwards was clearly more sympathetic toward Obama than Clinton. And the sentiment holds.

But the leap from sympathy to support has proven a long one.

By all accounts, the discussion inside the Edwards home revolves around whether Obama is ready for the presidency. Additionally, both John and Elizabeth Edwards are concerned that Obama's health care plan is weak -- especially in its failure to commit to universality. Clinton has played on those concerns during meetings with the Edwardses and phone conversations with them.

The Wisconsin primary result could be key. Edwards knows the state well; he almost won its 2004 primary and had many backers in the state this year, most of whom are now with Obama.

If Obama wins Wisconsin Tuesday, especially if the win is by a wide margin, that could finally tip Edwards toward the Illinois senator. By the same token, if Clinton were to win -- or at least make it close after being somewhat written off in the state -- watch for a new round of campaigning in the Edwards primary.

Comments (27)

1. Pardon my French, but John Edwards needs to, "shit or get off the pot." If he does not endorse by Texas and Ohio, then he is a spent force and any endorsement that he gives will be utterly useless. Mind you I think Edwards endorsement is largely useless anyway, past just creating positive press and attention, but it seems like it would be more so if Edwards waited any longer.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 02/18/2008 @ 08:54am

2. Posted by TZIMISCE 02/18/2008 @ 08:54am

   You nailed it, with a caveat...throw in Mr Nichols making so much of it and you raise my Cynicism Level about Edwards even higher.

   The caveat is, as I see it, he endorses NEXT week or not at all. It would give Obama a boost just before the TX/OH Big Deal...too early and it would fade from the "news cycle"...too late (like the weekend before March 4th) and it doesn't have enough time to take hold.

   Week from tomorrow would be about right....Tuesday the 26th. Edwards can either do a press conference from Raleigh (at some homeless shelter of course) or actually show up in Cincinnati or Cleveland.

   But there IS the possibility he WON'T endorse Obama. There IS the possibility that he'll sit it out and see if Obama loses and JE can make a play for 2012 (still plenty young).

   And of course there's the very big possibility that despite "winning almost one million votes on Super Tuesday"...the John Edwards (who won ZERO primaries) endorsement is not worth a plug nickel.

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 09:11am

3. OH, and by the way, if I were John Edwards, I wouldn't take TOO seriously that Obama or Hillary are going to bend over backwards as President to implement HIS agenda.

   After all...it lost.

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 09:14am

4. I'm sorry, but Edwards is a self-serving hypocrite. He actually did not do too well among the people he purports to represent-the working class. That's because we know it when we see it and don't need to step in it.

   I am leaning toward Obama but could care less if he gets Edwards endorsement. If I do vote for Obama, I will be dissappointed should he name Edwards as AG.

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 02/18/2008 @ 09:48am

5. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/18/2008 @ 09:47am

   Only thing is....Dahlia Lithwick?...is Canadian. She couldn't vote for Obama anyway!

   Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/18/2008 @ 10:11am

   UH, Darin???......"The Kristol Whose Crystal Ball Never Works" by Tom Engelhardt

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 10:21am

6. Seriously the only pundit more wrong than Kristol, is his co-editor at The Standard, Fred Barnes. Or Fred "the book of grudges" Barnes, who when questioned on any hot button issue of the day, will crack ope the tome in his head and start rattling off "liberal interest groups" responsible for those woes. Favorites are teachers unions, unions, trial lawyers, and when he is feeling pious abortion rights groups. Weekly Standard "thought" ftl.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 02/18/2008 @ 10:50am

7. But also to sum up Kristol's argument, "My school of thought broke things, or at least America thinks we broke things, and the Democrats are not acting/acting fast enough to repair our damage." To take a phrase from the gaming world, cry more nub.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 02/18/2008 @ 10:52am

8. Oh and Republicans are responsible because they are the ruling class, and Democrats are a sophistic society that, due to its being out of power, has become void of ideas and unable to do more then saying "nuh-uh." I like how Kristol backhands in some Kipling by using Orwell's analysis.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 02/18/2008 @ 11:02am

9. I respect the fact that John Edwards has reservations, is not easily swayed, despite the the clamor from the media and the hype from either the Clinton or Obama camp followers...its to bad some of the lemmings didn't take as much time to listen to the differences between the three (or more) candidates, before they jumped on the band wagon...Clinton and Obamas message is almost the same..it boils down to a "choice" between race or gender...not substance! Complain about the War, and vote for more! Complain about the economic situation..and vote for more of the same...complain about health care and then vote for the candidate that will keep the health insurance companies in business....complain about no accountability and then vote for the candidate who side steps that questions with messages of hope, or message of experience..you don't want any thing to change...to cowardly to do what it takes, to actually bring change about...

   Posted by Chabuka at 02/18/2008 @ 11:26am

10. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/18/2008 @ 11:47am

    Well, actually he's offering an ANALYSIS of a book. Just like his analysises of 'How we'll be welcome in Iraq' and 'How democracy will bloom like a thousand flowers in the Middle East afterwards!'

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 12:38pm

11. MARYBRETBRAD, you do realize your posting of comments by Bill Kristol that are totally unrelated to the article is hugely off-topic, unhelpful and irrelevant. Focus, please: the topic is the timing John Edwards endorsement.

    Personally, I think Edwards, being an ambitious guy, is in a bit of a quandary: while an endorsement of OBama would hitch Edward's fortunes to the coming new generation of politicians, it would also be a definite slap in the face to the Clintons, and would likely hurt his political chances for years to come should they prevail.

    Purely from a political strategy angle, the only safe play for Edwards right now would be to sit on his endorsement until after the Texas and Ohio primaries. That way he could throw his lot in with the winner.

    Posted by wildshovel at 02/18/2008 @ 1:15pm

12. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/18/2008 @ 1:23pm

    Both require an ANALYSIS of facts and history...Mr Kristol has shown MONUMENTAL failings at that process.

    As such I'll take any take of his on Orwell, with a grain of salt the size of a "stable, safe, and democratic" Iraq!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 1:38pm

13. "The article is 5 hours old and not even 20 comments. When nobody is talking about Edwards, you can stray."

    Online, one can allow themselves to do whatever one wants; but if to contribute meaningfully the topic of at hand, one does have to stay on topic. Not thirty minutes before your off-topic Kristol quote, someone posted a relevant comment.

    Posted by wildshovel at 02/18/2008 @ 1:45pm

14. I can see that Jomamma received an eduction in the No Child Left Behind era - he can't count (votes/delegates), and apparently can't read (election results).

    And certainly he lacks any appreciation for Edwards' influence in the marketplace of ideas, since he has completely missed how Hillary is lately adopting ALL of Edwards' policy stances. Stay in School!

    Posted by sjduskin at 02/18/2008 @ 1:56pm

15. "Edwards was never in the race..."

    "Why clamour over the views of a man who received no votes?"

    Posted by JOMAMMA 02/18/2008 @ 1:45pm

    From today's Online Beat:

    "In Oklahoma, for instance, the former senator took more than 10 percent of the vote on February 5, after he had withdrawn from the race."

    (Someone has not been reading John's trenchant analysis.)

    Posted by drhammer at 02/18/2008 @ 2:06pm

16. er, yeah, Al Gore was polling better than John Edwards most of the time. Sometimes even better than Barak Obama, before they stopped including Al in the mix. Not to say Al Gore is going to endorse anyone, but the reason Al Gore won't endorse is a lot different from the reason Edwards won't...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/18/2008 @ 2:23pm

17. OH, and by the way, if I were John Edwards, I wouldn't take TOO seriously that Obama or Hillary are going to bend over backwards as President to implement HIS agenda.

    After all...it lost.

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 09:14am

    shinier packaging needed.

    substance never sells.

    "HOPE" vs. "EXPERIENCE"

    baa baaaaaaaaaaa

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:47pm

18. Only thing is....Dahlia Lithwick?...is Canadian. She couldn't vote for Obama anyway!

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 10:21am

    we've got proxies!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:48pm

19. Posted by WILDSHOVEL 02/18/2008 @ 1:15pm

    If Edwards waits, he truly will be irrelevant and his political career finished! His support in both Texas and Ohio is worth "a lot" more than the 26 delegates that he's got, so sitting on the fence until the convention will not get him any more power or leverage.

    The fact that he would even seriously consider endorsing "queen of earmarks", "Walmart boardmember", "15-year corporate lawyer" Hillary Clinton, proves what I have been saying about him all along: HE IS A PHONY PROGRESSIVE!!!

    For the REAL progressive, this is not even a close decision, so for Edwards to vacillate this long in choosing between Hillary and Obama is truly an embarrassment to himself and the entire progressive movement!

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/18/2008 @ 4:12pm

20. "The discussion inside the Edwards home revolves around whether Obama is ready for the presidency." What the heck is this about? Edwards was a one time Senator with no other legislative or community activist experience. Obama has far more experience than Clinton or Edwards!

    If Edwards ends up endorsing Clinton, he will have lost his last shred of credibility.

    Posted by PrairieRobin at 02/18/2008 @ 4:22pm

21. Regardess of what one may think or feel about John Edwards. It's about the issues. Not race or gender as the media might have us think. With a race between the two standing so razor close. Obviously, there is a need by both Clinton and Obama to seek endorsement. If Edwards holds out and does not endorse (as Gore, Biden, and Richardson are doing) he reinforces his own personal goal of seeking the populist message heard. Which shows a principled character. Clinton and Obama neither come near the outlined plans Edwards has discussed regarding the economy and poverty. Two issues as each day goes by, become more and more important to the American working class. Personally, I hope Senator Edwards takes a pass on endorsement. Taking his message on the issues to the Democratic Convention with a chance to power broke the issues for sake of the party.

    Posted by cc's corner at 02/18/2008 @ 11:11pm

22. I am sickenly aware of Hillarys political stances verses capitalism.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 02/19/2008 @ 12:14am

    ah, the verses of capitalism.

    Money, it's a crime.

    Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.

    Money, so they say

    Is the root of all evil today.

    But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're giving none away.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2008 @ 01:23am

23. I am sickenly aware of Hillarys political stances verses capitalism.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 02/19/2008 @ 12:14am

    Hillary will do the United States economy more good than any of the current crop of candidates.

    You need to read more.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2008 @ 01:25am

24. Regardess of what one may think or feel about John Edwards. It's about the issues.

    Posted by CC'S CORNER 02/18/2008 @ 11:11pm | ignore this person

    Very astute, CC.

    Although I'd much prefer Obama over Clinton for the sake of overall Democratic recruitment purposes, Clinton has outflanked Obama on probably the most crucial domestic concern: healthcare. Because of Obama's relatively weak posturing on healthcare and his coopting of narrow-minded Republican tax cuts (though the breaks would go to the right people) in place of more comprehensive job creation and wage emphasis in 'stimulating' the economy, I would like to see more debates between the two. Once Clinton is gone from the race Obama's challenges will not be progressive but conservative. Because Obama has relied on so much funding from the very institutions that destabilize our society and economic well-being he is less likey to become the progressive so many are projecting him to be.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/19/2008 @ 09:10am

25. For the REAL progressive, this is not even a close decision, so for Edwards to vacillate this long in choosing between Hillary and Obama is truly an embarrassment to himself and the entire progressive movement!

    Posted by METTEYYA 02/18/2008 @ 4:12pm | ignore this person

    Absolutely! After his calculated withholding of endorsement, he is no better than any of the other suck ups that are out of the race and more concerned about their political prospects than they are about saving the sinking ship. Edward's supporters are already in the Obama camp.....it is nonsense to think that Edwards can direct their support to Clinton. Remember....Edwards got support because he offered a alternative to the status quo. All of a sudden, Clinton is transformed into an agent of change because Edwards says so?

    Edwards has already lost my respect. His ideals are made of paper mache. His chapter has closed. Better luck next time John, and it is my sincere hope that you are left on the doorstep when it comes to any appointments assuming a Democrat wins the WH.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/19/2008 @ 09:27am

26. There are very few REAL Progressives in the Democratic Party. Kucinich and Feingold are the only ones that readily occur to me. While do not see him outside of his economic niche, Lou Dobbs put it best when he said that the Republican Party is owned by big Business, and it has a controlling interest in the Democratic Party.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/19/2008 @ 1:00pm

27. Obama's health plan is truly weak. If Americans continue to rely on Emergency rooms for catastrophic conditions, he is the status quo candidate. Hospitals get huge tax breaks for taking care of the indigent. We are better off with Hillary's mandated prevention.

    It is also too late to seek support from ambulance chaser Edwards.

    Posted by nursevic at 02/19/2008 @ 1:51pm