TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.02.2008
Hyperbole of the Day

Halperin:

Take whatever you thought Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination before [John] Lewis’ decision and divide that number by as much as two — those are the odds of her winning now.

I suppose if people like Halperin treat Lewis's reversal that way this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Halperin notes that "those in the party and the press who want to write off her chances will be able to make a big deal about this development," even as his home page makes a big deal out of the announcement, guaranteeing everyone in the party and the press will make a big deal out of the announcement.)

But it strikes me as a big overstatement. For reasons Noam spelled out, black leaders like Lewis face obvious and intense pressure to get behind Obama in ways that most superdelegates don't.

Moreover, incidentally, this isn't so much Lewis flipping as Lewis flipping back. See this, from January 2007:

Atlanta Congressman John Lewis, who was a key leader in the civil rights efforts of the 1960s, said he was an early supporter of Bill Clinton and admired his wife, but called Obama "refreshing" and said he would back him. 

Apparently subsequent cajoling from Bill Clinton reeled Lewis back into the fold.

Obviously this is a nasty development for Hillary. Among other things, it's one more reminder of Bill's reduced stature with his former African-American allies. It hurts. But an event that cuts her odds in half? That's how I would describe a big loss in Wisconsin. Not this.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:27 PM with 12 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Gavriel Meir-Levi said:

Or if Barack Obama started beating/coming close to Hillary for the Latino vote - link below tells how to do just that.  For what it's worth, my own personal experience with Latino voters has followed that pattern described there-in.

www.dallasnews.com/.../DN-anchia_15edi.State.Edition1.1e38d00.html

February 14, 2008 11:53 PM

primwallflow said:

Exactly. Plus, read his rationale for switching: "Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama." While I'm sure Obama appreciates the newfound support, isn't this precisely the logic that HILLARY has been arguing superdelegates should follow? I'd venture that if Lewis' reasoning were applied to every superdelegate -- support he or she who won your constituency -- she'd end up comfortably ahead of her current tally, even after losing African-Americans.

I'm not suggesting that Lewis is a Hillary operative. I'm just saying he should have bothered to read Axelrod's memos before he re-endorsed.

February 14, 2008 11:56 PM

primwallflow said:

And actually, Halperin's take may have been even more hyperbolic, since now the Washington Post is questioning the accuracy of the Times story:

blog.washingtonpost.com/.../clinton_supporter_john_lewis_h.html

February 15, 2008 12:16 AM

ralphnelle said:

It's reported on Obama's website. I doubt they'd post the story if it weren't confirmed. Also: Lewis' rationale is the one *Obama* has been arguing for, not Hillary, and it's clear why: he's winning more states and more congressional districts (in WA he won _every_ county). Maybe that'll change on March 4th. But as of today it benefits Obama.

February 15, 2008 12:39 AM

psantillana said:

Well,  I just read about this on Sullivan's site, and - to cut and paste the quotes provided there - this was from when Lewis backed Clinton:

"He is no Martin Luther King Jr. I knew Martin Luther King. I knew Bobby Kennedy. I knew President Kennedy. You need more than speech-making. You need someone who is prepared to provide bold leadership."

And now:

"In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit. Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap... I've been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama. He's getting better and better every single day."

Whatever, dude. And/or: no sh*t, genius. Now that a ton of other people love his speeches he's suddenly not just a speech-maker. I remember thinking, back then, "how the hell can he pick Clinton?" It's all just political. He's a follower. I know I'm supposed to worship him and all, but having done seemingly more of my homework on Obama  than Lewis the superdelegate superhero had*, his endorsements don't shine any light on the endorsees, but instead show me quite a bit about him.

*either more of my homework and/or I had nothing to gain or lose politically in my choice. Either way he's a worm. Sorry. Do I feel this way about Roz whatsherface, the other flipper? No. She's a relative nobody. But he's John Effing Lewis. People look up to him.

February 15, 2008 1:42 AM

lymon1 said:

Lewis: The Dem nominee will be selected, not elected.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I agree the Lewis switch is a boost to Obama, but I'm ready to make Dave Schuester-like comments about Lewis.  Not for the original endorsement, but he blasted Obama wrt Kennedy, and now he wind-socks to him.  From the pov of his own legacy, he should have just started lavishing praise on Obama and been done with it.  

February 15, 2008 8:04 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Agreed Lymon -

Lewis is a great civil rights leader. But yeah...these politicians are just shameless sometimes.

February 15, 2008 8:11 AM

blackton said:

primwallflow, I don't see how you think Hillary will be ahead  on the superdelegate count based on constituent voting. Obama has won more states, more districts, and more people overall. His winning 20 states should ensure him more superdelegate Senators alone, where Hillary will only get less since she won far fewer states. Now I am not sure how superdelegates are apportioned, and maybe Hillary has won more based on the superdelegates being from districts that voted for Hillary, whereas Obama won more districts without superdelegate representation. But if that is the case, that essentially punishes states or districts that elect Republicans. Based on this idea of representing the wishes of the voters, Mass. voters have more power proportionally by X amount due to there being 3 Dem. superdelegates Senators in Kerry and Kennedy and Deval, Pa. with 2 in Casey and Rendell, and other states with 0 having no statewide superdelegates. It is just nuts.

It seems to me whoever has more pledged delegates (or as others have argued more votes) should get the sd's. Personally I prefer pledged since that more closely represents the same dynamic as in the electoral college (and thank God we didn't have any superelectors)

February 15, 2008 11:02 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

There are nearly 800 superdelegates voting in the Democratic primary, and literally hundreds of them are still undecided. There's a lot of time before they'll have to decide, too. So the fact that one of them has possibly switched his position shouldn

February 15, 2008 11:10 AM

lymon1 said:

blackton -- as I've written, I prefer sd's go with the total vote (the delegate primary is enough of a bow -- 80% -- to the electoral college) but the other is acceptable as long as the "at large" ones (like Al Gore -- the sd's who don't have an elected constituency) go with the total vote.  I don't know how many of those there are.  Another possiblilty is that, if this is going to be decided outside of votes, then let the delagates decide and the sd's all pledge to go with whoever has over 50% of the rd's (though that might take more than one ballots!)  I'd prefer almost ANYTHING to the sd's making their own allegedly-logical (probably horse-traded) arguments to justfy their vote.  I can hear McCain saying "I'm proud that the voters in the Republican primary elected me to be their nominee.  The Democrats don't trust their voters and have a few hundred party officials decide...."   Yuck.

February 15, 2008 11:34 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Everybody needs to watch this unintentionally hilarious debate between John Lewis and Rev. Joe Lowery:

youtube.com/watch

February 15, 2008 12:01 PM

blackton said:

lymon, yeah I think it is absurd how since I live in a district that is represented by a Republican how my district votes is now worth less than one with a Dem that has a superdelegate. Part of me is hoping Hillary gets the nod with superdelegates, she loses in the general, McCain plods along for 4 years, and the whole superdelegate thing is crushed for good. It never ceases to amaze how f-ing stupid the Democratic National Committee can be. 3 major f-ups this one, Florida, Michigan, and superdelegates.

After 8 years of the worst President, with the Republicans nominating an old man who is disliked by a majority of his party with his only issue that holds popular support within the party (the war) is against the majority of the public, with all these things against them, the Democrats will still find a way to f this up.

There will be so much bad blood by the time this is over between the two camps I don't know if either can win.

February 15, 2008 12:40 PM