Times Reporter Reiterates: Lewis Will Vote For Obama At Convention
Jeff Zeleny, the writer of The New York Times's disputed story today reporting that Rep. John Lewis, a Hillary supporter, will vote for Obama at the convention, just went on CNN and stood by his reporting, offering some key clarification.
He said:
When I talked to Congressman Lewis last night, he said, "look, the voters in his district on Super Tuesday in Georgia overwhelmingly supported the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. And he said he would quote, "never ever do anything to go against the action of them." So he says, if this comes down to be a super-delegate vote — which he hopes and believes it will not — that he will support Senator Obama. But even more than that, he says he's concerned about this campaign going into a long fight to the convention. He said it would be damaging to Senator Obama and to Senator Clinton. And he said unequivocally that he would cast his vote for Senator Obama.
So according to Zeleny, Lewis said that if this comes down to a scenario where super-delegates will be required to decide the outcome, he will definitely vote for Obama. This appears to suggest that he'll vote for Obama whether or not he wins the pledged delegate count, because he wants to honor the wishes of his own constituents. In other words, Zeleny is standing by the story.
There was no direct quote from Lewis on the vote in the Times story. And according to The Washington Post, a Lewis spokesperson earlier said the Times story was inaccurate, though she didn't specify precisely what Lewis did say. She could have meant that it was inaccurate to say that this constituted a switch in endorsements, for instance, a version that wouldn't be at odds with what Zeleny said above.
Lewis' office will be releasing a statement with further clarification today. We'll keep you posted.
More than fuzzy slogans:
Full article:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=56b5000b-a425-4ff9-a818-ad218bbe8d1b
February 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drip, drip, drip. The Clinton firewall may have just started to spring a leak.
February 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is potentially damaging to hillary. it'll be interesting to see what lewis' statement later says
February 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn will just dismiss it, because, well, a civil rights legend doesn't really matter, either, in Hillaryland.
February 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of firewalls...
ARG has Obama up by 6 in Texas.
February 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me, Greg, that it is *already* damaging to Hillary, whatever Lewis's statement later says.
We have a major figure of the Democratic Party in the south publicly waffling on his prior commitment to Hillary. Moreover, Lewis' expressed desire to avoid a *fight* at the convention registers his disapproval of what the Hillary campaign has already promised--a fight for all the superdelegates, no matter what the pledged delegate count happens to be.
February 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter what Lewis says at a later date. It matters what he does.
The press may want him to readjust his statement to willow back to Clinton as a uncommitted. Anything offered by Lewis as a clarification will only send the Clinton press operatives deeper into vacuous spin, twisting, twisting, twisting in the wind.
Technically, Lewis has gone from an endorsement status, to uncommitted. But is framing his eventual support for Obama.
I think what many fear is that he represents another current joining the wave.
February 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you could see the Clinton campaign try to blame this on the intimidation of Jesse Jackson Jr. We don't know for sure if he talked to Lewis, but the reason Lewis gives for his switch sounds quite a bit like the argument Jackson made Cleaver. Of course, it's possible that he came to this conclusion on his own since it is fairly obvious. But this would be one way for the Clintons to downplay the significance of this.
Another way would be to suggest that Obama superdelegates in Clinton districts should similarly commit to voting for her. The problem for her is that there aren't many districts where her advantage was as huge as the one Obama had in the district Lewis represents.
February 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday the Times article's overzealous headline was "Black Leader Pulls Support from Clinton." Obviously the Jeff Zeleny misstated Lewis's tactful position, because today the headline has been changed: "Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama." Big difference between "tilts to" and "pulls support from."
The body of the article, however, still follows the original headline's lead, which was not Lewis's point of view, it was Zeleny's. Lewis attempted to articulate something complex, and Zeleny bulldozed it to fit his own now-apparent point of view. The first time I read the article, I thought something wasn't quite making sense.
So thanks for the op-ed piece masquerading as objective reporting, Zeleny, you biased moron. And thanks once again, New York Times, for getting it wrong.
February 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Readytoblow,
Lewis now states that he in all likelihood will not vote for Clinton at the convention. He stated this tactfully, yes, but he did state it. How is this not adequately described as him "pulling support" from Clinton? He previously was committed to her, now he says he'll change his vote.
February 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis is trying to be nice to Hillary even though he's throwing her under the bus. Well, good.. couldn't happen to a more deserving person. Even if all the supers change to Obama, my candidate, I still think it's a stinking undemocratic sysem and should be trashed.
February 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keeping this story alive helps the Obama campaign and hurts Hillary.
My reading of the whole story is that Lewis has presented a challenge to voters. A challenge to get out the vote for Obama. To continue the "spirit" that has begun to move for change. To lift the number of pledged delegates even higher. Looks to me like he is "withholding" endorsement of Obama like one would hold out a "reward" for getting out the vote, for making a historic landslide. It's a challenge WI will take up! On Wisconsin!
On Wisconsin... for Obama! ♪♪♪
February 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it me or did this seasoned politician underestimate the effect his conversation with Zeleny would have? I get that this is a very hard election for people who have a long history with the Clintons, but how many times is Lewis going to send signals one way, change his mind, send signals another way, then change his mind again?
February 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Each day is like seige warfare, the Clintons are the power held captive in their fortress of virtual political power and at the gates is the insurgents who want to take over that power. Each day something happens to challenge the walls of power, be it votes (meaning people showing up with pitch forks, whole countrysides and now the nobels of the empire slowly understanding political reality is that this is over. Super delegates have their own political power base to consider, be it in the neighborhoods of GA or places like CO or WI or where ever.
If you read the book Art of War....this is nothing new. The Clintons are an empire on the decline and those who want to survive the empire will step aside.
February 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I think it's much more like the Ee of
February 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I think it's much more like the Eye of Sauron...
February 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis must have finally gotten that severed horse's head that JJJr sent him...
February 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't cry for me Argentina...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woman_with_the_Whip
February 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
wj,
The short answer is, I've read more than the Times account of what Lewis said. He is not as knee-jerk as Jesse Jackson Jr. or Jeff Zeleny (or TPM, for that matter) want him to be. He is not "pulling support" from Hillary, even if he does ultimately vote for Obama. But we're not quite there yet, are we.
Lewis's point is about uniting the party behind one candidate. His point references a complex thought process for blacks about a black presidential candidate. Obama is demonstrating that he is not a one-hit wonder or merely a popular "black" candidate who can't garner white support. That is what Lewis is speaking to and why he is addressing his constituency's desires. Lewis dreads the thought of going to the convention (in August) with a tie and wants to help negotiate something before Denver, if it becomes necessary.
I think in general we should go by Lewis's words (and actions), not by Jeff Zeleny's agenda. From SouthernPoliticalReport.com:
The Southern Political Report has learned that contrary to reports in the New York Times, Congressman John Lewis has not committed to Barack Obama in the Democratic superdelegate battle. Lewis, is reportedly facing a potential challenger who Democratic insiders told SPR “is trying to take advantage of the Clinton-Obama situation.” “Regardless of who John supports for the Democratic nomination the chances of him losing his congressional district are zero” said the informed source.
February 15, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If one uses the logic that superdelegates should reflect the will of the people (which is not why they were created, but a principle I basically agree with), Lewis should absolutely cast his vote for Obama. Obama won GA overwhelmingly in a true, democratic primary with a huge turnout. That vote definitely reflects the will of the people. If we had a Dem governor here, I also think he should cast his vote for Obama. However, since the regular delegates are doled out proportionally, it would seem undemocratic to have the supers be divided up winner take all, which poses a dilemma in states where one candidate may have won all or most the districts, yet the other still carried a fair share of the vote. For example, in most southern states where Hillary lost big, the will of the people was still to give her 35% of the vote or so.
The other issue is how to handle caucus states. Obama would not have the lead he does now were it not for his big wins in caucuses ( and small ultra-red longtime Hillary hater states like UT and ID) on super tuesday and afterwards. I do not believe that caucuses with their low turnouts of relatively elite voters truly reflect the will of the people of a given state. (I know that turnout was higher than ever in most of these caucuses, but most were still 3-20X less than in the primaries.) Obama owes his victories to his impressive grassroots organizing, something will serve him well in the GE (and shame on Hillary for being so shortsighted on this account). But getting out a disproportionate number of one candidates supporters does not really tell what the public actually thinks. (That is a Rovian strategy, BTW, that has consistently beaten Dems despite most Americans siding with the Dems on most issues). I think in those states, since no true public will was expressed, the decision needs to be made by the superdelegates according to whatever criteria they deem fit. And in some cases, the reasonable decision might be made that their votes should be used to balance a skewed caucus vote that is not truly representative of the total population.
February 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the "no true public will was expressed..." line is fatuous, but I agree with your conclusion in the main. The superdelegates exist beyond our control for a reason. They should choose as they see fit. As an Obama supporter, I hope that they choose my guy, but if they do not then we will have lost the race fair and square and I will get behind Sen Clinton as our nominee.
February 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis must have finally gotten that severed horse's head that JJJr sent him...
-- Posted by JTHB
------------
Dear JTHB
If we are writing about horses, you truly are a horse's ass. I have had the honor of meeting Congressman Lewis. You can see the dent in his head -- made by southern racists when he was almost beaten to death fighting for civil rights. I also recommend that you read his autobiography. To insult this man in such a feckless, swarmy manner shows you are much in need of a rudimentary grounding in modern American history.
Along with John McCain, he is one of the few men in Congress who have demonstrated a level of physical and spiritual courage that most of us can only imagine.
You owe us an apology for this stupid comment.
February 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The insult was aimed at JJJr.
And it is a comment on the entire super delegate wooing process.
To suggest that Lewis is, by dint of his past, a demigod beyond criticism is, I venture, exactly the sort of stupid reflexive thinking he should resist.
Then again his entire handling of this on again off again will/will not support/endorse/whatever is evidence of a fecklessness, of a scrambling for advantage, that hardly fits with your hagiography.
For such a man of courage it is striking how quickly he has abandoned his previous commitments. Or am I not allowed to notice that he is kinda sorta reneging on his word to a friend and supporter of very long standing?
As to your self aggrandizement as PC cop, I suggest that you remove your head from up the ass of the horse JJJr decapitated.
February 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah. The old tired PC canard......
Boring...............
February 15, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boring...............
Yeah, well.... that's JTHB in a nutshell. Boring, and utterly, utterly predictable.
Assuming for the sake of argument the insane argument that JTHB is making -- that JJ, Jr. would engage in the kind of intimidation tactics he describes -- is true (I know, I know, but just suspend your disbelief at JTHB's insanity for a moment), to suggest that Lewis, whose history you have summarized well, would give in to such intimidation is and insult to Lewis. The fact that JTHB doesn't get that just demonstrates JTHB's intellectual and moral caliber. The remaining insults to Lewis in JTHB's reply to you further demonstrate the same.
February 17, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink