Is John Lewis Really Switching To Obama, Or Not?
Some big news came out last night that Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), an elder statesman and hero of the civil rights movement, was switching his super-delegate vote from Hillary Clinton over to Barack Obama — a huge blow to Hillary's super-delegate strategy.
But is Lewis really switching? Two other reports say he hasn't yet made that decision.
The Washington Post reported late last night that a Lewis spokeswoman said he was misquoted — but there was a caveat or two in their report:
But the Clinton campaign reported having no word from Lewis on the subject, and a spokeswoman for Lewis, Brenda Jones, said the Times story and a similar one by the Associated Press, saying he was contemplating such a switch, were inaccurate. Both the Times and AP stories quoted Lewis directly after speaking with him; he was not available for comment later Thursday. The Obama campaign also said that Lewis and Obama had not talked recently about a change of heart.
On MSNBC's Morning Joe today, Andrea Mitchell backed up the Post's version of the story, saying that Lewis hasn't actually switched yet, but also added that it was "only a matter of time" until Lewis came out and endorsed Obama.
For our part, we've contacted Lewis' office and hope to get more information soon, so that we can sort out the conflicting reports.
So the two "reports" referred to in the headline don't say that Lewis "isnt" switching to Obama, but both say that he is actually going to but hasn't formally done so yet?
There is a differnce between "Lewis isn't switching to Obama" and "Lewis is about to switch to Obama."
February 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Mr. Lewis got a thorough tongue-lashing from the Clintons last nite and that's where the backtracking is coming from!
There's also a difference between "switching your super-delegate vote" and "endorsing Obama". Is the WaPo article parsing? The NY Times article clearly stated that he was going to switch his vote but was not ready to endorse Obama yet.
February 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's waffled before and he's waffling again. He'll end up with Obama because that's the safe place to be right now. If he reiterates his commitment Clinton he looks like a fool when he switches later.
February 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. I know this guy is revered, but he hasn't shown a lot of leadership on this issue.
February 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notably, the Times hasn't updated their article & Zeleny (the writer) is standing by his story:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/nyt-reporter-ke.html?csp=34
February 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it wasn't wrong necessarily, but just jumping the gun a little bit..?
February 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to be an "ICON" these days. Just ask Teddy. Takeaway from this one? If you are going to clip and paste, don't make your headlines so assertive. Most reporters check with sources BEFORE they run a story.
February 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
John SFL, I agree with you. That was my interpretation too.
This notion that an endorsement and superdelegate votes are one and the same is an MSM talking point especially for elected officials. An elected official will honor or at least take the will of his constituents into consideration before making this vote.
Just the talk of him switching has accomplished its goal because it puts the Clintons on notice that they should not count on the superdelegate.
February 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh, I suspect we're arguing over semantics.
Reading the Times piece closely, Lewis was careful to say the he hasn't switched his endorsement of Hillary, and hopes to play the role of honest broker. His remarks about the DNConvention were prospective - he was explaining what he'll do in August, that when they call the roll, he'll follow the will of voters in his district and across the country.
He seems to have been surprised by the way the story played. I think he intended to exert gentle pressure on Hillary, and to signal that when it was time, he was going to use his moral authority to bring the drama to a close well before the convention. He hoped to soften up the ground. Instead, he was a little too explicit. He woke up to headlines proclaiming that he was ditching Hillary for Obama. That wasn't what he was aiming for. He wasn't trying to make a statement of personal support - he was trying to position himself as a party elder, adjudicating a dispute. So he backpedaled.
On the other hand, it's probably too late for that. He said what he said. His intentions are clear. And he's forfeited, however inadvertantly, his ability to broker a deal. He'll probably realize that sometime today, and formalize the deal. There's nothing more to be gained by sitting on the fence. Hillary's folks already feel betrayed - no need to make Obama's camp feel the same way.
February 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's precisely the way I feel about this argument.
The article is confusing, to say the least. Any casual reader would automatically conclude from the article that Lewis is now endorsing Obama. Zeleny, pleased with his (misleading) narrative, makes little effort to clarify the vitally important nuances of Lewis's statements.Lewis's statements simply suggest that he intends to honor the will of his Georgia constituents at the convention in Aug., who overwhelmingly supported Sen. Obama for president. The included quotes never even mention his endorsement of Clinton. Without Zeleny's generous interpretation of the statement that Lewis, the story still would have been an interesting one. While not an endorsement of Obama, Lewis does push back hard on the post-Potomac Clinton/Wolfson/Penn case for the nomination, claiming that a delegate is a delegate, and that superdelegates can and will deliver the election to Hillary in the end regardless of the state of pledged delegates. I guess Zeleny felt that a virtual endorsement made for a more interesting story than superdelegate pushback from a top supporter, and presented an intentionally vague -- and possibly misleading -- interpretation of the Lewis statements.
February 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are exactly correct here.
Lewis is putting all parties on notice that super delegates will not decide the nomination against a clear and significant elected delegate lead.
Other than the spin machines of both candidates, everyone of significance in the party is attempting to deliver much the same message.
All this blah blah blah about incipient civil war in the Democratic party is neither true nor helpful.
February 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis is ruining his reputation with this nonsense. He's coming across as an ineffective, bumbling, flip-flopper. If I were Hillary or Obama, I don't think I'd want his support. He'll probably switch a few more times before this is over.
February 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only who thinks it's better for him to be on the fence at this point rather than "endorse" Barack?
So, that Media doesn't amplify this before TX and OH?
February 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
He got a call from WJC and got cold feet. Completely predictable, given his past behavior in this campaign. If Obama wins more states, he'll move. It's just a matter of time.
February 15, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is confirmation. It is what most people on this thread suspected. Lewis said he will vote for Obama at the convention -- but hasn't decided on switching his endorsement yet -- just as the NYT reported. Link below:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/nyt-reporter-ke.html
February 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this endorsement really make any difference in the dynamic of this election? 91% of Blacks are already voting for Obama. How much higher can that level of support go, and what difference does such a small amount of votes make?
February 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
People are fawning all over Sen. Barack Obama, especially since Super Tuesday. But do people really know his record in the US Senate and shouldn't people know it before voting for him? After all, you wouldn't buy a car without researching it first. Here are
some facts about Sen. Obama's voting record, pursuant to www.senate.gov: He voted for an additional $36Million for Guantanamo Bay (SenRollCate 93 in 2005); He voted to move interstate, class action lawsuits from state to federal courts, thus making it harder for consumers to sue [SenRollCall 9 in 2005). He failed to vote at all on S.Amdt 3164 in 2007 to safely redeploy troops from Iraq. One final note. He did not even vote to bring Bin Laden to justice (SAmdt2135 in 2007).
Enough said.
February 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Does this endorsement really make any difference in the dynamic of this election? 91% of Blacks are already voting for Obama. How much higher can that level of support go, and what difference does such a small amount of votes make?"
----------
Oops, I forgot that little thing about the super delegates.
February 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just heard on NPR that Lewis will give a press conference this afternoon to clarify his voting intentions.
February 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If winning the MA primary was the proof of the pudding for Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, maybe you can say it didn't help. But if the proof of the pudding is that Obama has surged after the Kennedy endorsement, than you can make a good case that it has definitely helped. The only thing is the help was broad-based, not just necessarily restricted to MA or CA.
In both MA and CA, Obama closed a lot better than he was polling weeks before the primary, so my view is that the Kennedy's endorsement did help, and a lot, whether you believe it or not.
I suspect right now, Ted is pleased the way things are going.
February 16, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Grief! Can't the MSM get anything right? That's why I now come to the blogs for most of my political news.
February 17, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink