SUPER-D SHIFT: John Lewis To Cast DNC Vote for Obama

Georgia Congressman John Lewis, the Civil Rights movement veteran whose early and until-now steady support helped Hillary Clinton maintain a measure of political credibility in the African-American community, has announced that he will cast his superdelegate vote at this summer's Democratic National Convention for Barack Obama.

Lewis is not formally switching his endorsement from Clinton to Obama at this point -- although the former aide to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. suggests that such a shift could come in short order. But his pledge to vote for the Illinois senator at the convention certainly increases the pressure on superdelegates who represent congressional districts and states that vote for Obama -- especially African-American federal and state officials -- to embrace the will of their constituents.

Superdelegates are elected officials and party leaders who are guaranteed delegate slots at the party convention and are allowed to vote as they choose in the presidential contest. They are not bound by the results of primaries and caucuses in their states but, as the Lewis shift illustrates, they may be influences by the returns.

Obama won 66 percent of the vote in Georgia on Super Tuesday -- one of his best finishes in any state that has voted so far -- and took 35 delegates to 19 for Clinton. Obama won by a 3-1 margin in the Atlanta-area district that Lewis represents.

That result, along with the growing sense that the Illinoisan's campaign is transforming the political landscape of the Democratic party, has caused Lewis to announce he side with Obama at the convention in Denver.

"In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit," explained Lewis, whose influence among African-American House members and many of their white liberal colleagues is substantial. "Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap."

Lewis is the second African-American congressman from Georgia to announce that, despite having endorsed Clinton, he will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama when it comes time to nominate a candidate. Congressman David Scott, whose 13th district cast close to 80 percent of its vote for Obama in the February 5 Democratic presidential primary, announced last week that he would respect the wishes of his constituents.

In Wisconsin this week, Congressman Ron Kind announced that he would cast his superdelegate vote for the candidate who wins his 3rd district in the February 19 election.

After being lobbied aggressively by both the Clinton and Obama camps, Kind said, "I'm going to keep faith with the voters and respect their choice."

If this keep-faith-with-the-voters standard takes hold, it will turn up the heat on a number of key Clinton backers. For instance, New York Congressmen Edolphus Towns and Gregory Meeks represent districts that voted solidly for Obama, as does New York Congressman Yvette Clarke.

In Wisconsin, Clinton campaign co-chair Tammy Baldwin represents a Madison-area district where Obama appears to be running well going into next Tuesday's primary. If Baldwin's 2nd district does indeed back the senator from Illinois, the popular representative will undoubtedly be asked by Obama's enthusiastic local backers to follow the lead of fellow Wisconsinite Kind.

But the pressure on superdelegates to vote like the voters will not always favor Obama. For instance, Massachusetts Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, both Obama backers, could come under pressure to cast convention votes that reflect the Bay State's support of Clinton in its February 5 primary.

Comments (38)

1. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I don't think (or feel) that Obama will be the dem nominee as many here would suggest. I don't like Hillary at all, but I believe she will take TX and OH just to keep things interesting.

   Posted by ACook at 02/14/2008 @ 10:59pm

2. Next to the destruction of the entire system of super delegates, this trend taking hold would be a very good thing for the future of the republic becoming more democratic.

   Posted by shadow master at 02/14/2008 @ 11:07pm

3. Well, if even long-time black Clinton backers like John Lewis is flipping, Obama is increasingly the `Black' Candidate.....don't be surprised that all black Supers will align w/Obama..... a balck Super would be `scarred' for life if Obama goes on to win the Presidency and he/she didn't back him.

   Tough place to be if you're a Super who supports Clinton for policy, experience or just friendship reasons!

   Posted by Happy at 02/14/2008 @ 11:21pm

4. "Next to the destruction of the entire system of super delegates, this trend taking hold would be a very good thing for the future of the republic becoming more democratic." Posted by SHADOW MASTER 02/14/2008 @ 11:07pm

   If Obama wins the nomination, this may prove to be his greatest contribution.

   At any rate, the democratic groundswell makes it increasingly difficult, though not impossible, for the Clintons to undermine the popular will.

   Watch Billary at their dirty work in FL & MI, far more devious than the super delegate game.

   Posted by sloper at 02/14/2008 @ 11:23pm

5. I think all elected Democrats should respect the will of the voters in their districts. This is what democracy is about, and to do otherwise would disenfranchise these voters.

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/15/2008 @ 01:06am

6. Al Gore is in the wait if Billary pulls its tri-mangulated depleted uranium air strike on our dem process. And they knows it. Barack on one side, Al Gore on the other-- Billary on the another; remember the shoot-out in the 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'.

   http://www.gorehub.com/

   Yep, very tri-mangular. But how is it distributed is the question...

   Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 01:39am

7. er, --Billary on yey another; ...

   Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 01:40am

8. ha-- yet

   Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 01:41am

9. Bush Says Paternalism Over in U.S. Aid

   Feb 14 08:13 PM US/Eastern By BEN FELLER Associated Press Writer

   WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring the age of paternalism over, President Bush said Thursday the United States demands clear results for the billions of taxpayer dollars it sends to Africa. He accused other nations of exploiting the continent's resources or irresponsibly offering aid as charity.

   "America is serving as an investor, not as a donor," Bush said in a tone-setting preview of his six-day trip to Africa, which begins Saturday.

   Bush's speech was largely aimed at Congress, which sets the foreign aid budgets that will ultimately shape whether his initiatives outlast his presidency.

   The president said the United States has a moral imperative and a vital security interest in helping Africa overcome disease, poverty and instability. His message reflected that foreign aid goes over better with lawmakers and the taxpaying public when it turns up tangible results and lasting change.

   Meanwhile, with conflicts roiling Africa, Bush sought to show an engaged administration. His African travels are not about peacemaking, but Bush said that during the trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will split off to Kenya to support political reconciliation led by former U.N. chief Kofi Annan.

   More than 1,000 people have died there since late December, when a disputed presidential election led to bloodshed.

   Bush offered to delay going to Africa if it would help settle an unrelated fight with Congress about a terrorist surveillance law. He did not make clear how such a postponement would help.

   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

   Alll together: "What a piece of worm bile scum shit that hsuB is. He's less than human gas that should be ignited. hsuB should look himself in the mirror slap himself and then grab an ice pick and attack himself stabbing himself for each death not only in Africa but also in Iraq. What a sick souless thing it is that we allow in our WH.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 02/15/2008 @ 01:51am

10. yet another terrorist attack:

    DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) -- A gunman dressed in black stepped from behind a curtain at the front of a large lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday and shot 21 people, five of them fatally, then shot and killed himself, said university president John Peters.

    Four died at the scene, including the shooter, and two later died at the hospital, he said.

    At least 22 people, including a graduate student who was teaching an ocean sciences class, were shot, Peters said.

    Seventeen victims were taken to Kishwaukee Community Hospital, its Web site said.

    Of those, six were in critical condition and were flown to other hospitals. One fatality, a male, was confirmed -- but was not the gunman, the hospital said. Two were admitted, and three others were discharged. The other five were not addressed on the Web site.

    Four of the fatalities were female, said Peters.

    Most of the injuries are head and chest gunshot wounds, a hospital spokeswoman told CNN.

    *********************************************************************

    there were at least FOUR terrorist attacks in the u.s. last week.............................

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 10:01am

    Were these attacks truly terrorism? I don't know about each incident but I was under the impression that in most of the cases it was a person who was very upset with their wife/husband/friend and wanted to kill them. Techinically this is not terrorism because the intent is not to incite terror in others.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:13am

    Blacksburg, Va. was a very unlikely place for the shootings to take place----I guess that is why it so scary to people---because something like that could happen anywhere.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:35am | ignore this person

    I think that people living in this area kind of feel that the shootings were just a random incident----kinda of like being hit by a meteor.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/12/2008 @ 10:39am | ignore this person

    *********************************************************************

    random + random + random + random + random = pattern

    so, who is the real bogey man?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 01:57am

11. NICHOLS SLIPS INTO BLACK ENGLISH VERNACULAR:

    "That result . . . has caused Lewis to announce he side with Obama at the convention in Denver."

    Posted by Rintrah at 02/15/2008 @ 03:20am

12. I don't like Hillary at all, but I believe she will take TX and OH just to keep things interesting.

    Posted by ACOOK 02/14/2008 @ 10:59pm

    Actually, Texas is shaping up to be quite interesting for a couple reasons I've only just discovered and which are not getting much media coverage:

    --Texas holds a primary and a caucus . . . the caucus opens after primary polls close and awards 67 of the state's 193 delegates.

    --like many states, Texas awards primary delegates by district, but the number of delegates any district gets is based on past Democratic participation: thus, a state Senate district in Austin--30% Hispanic--gets 8 delegates, but a state Senate district in the border city of Brownsville, where the population is 91 percent Hispanic, gets only three.

    The way Obama's ground game has worked in previous states--both primary and caucus--targeting specific districts with particular voting patterns, could make Texas a lot more innerestin than it seems on the surface.

    http://tinyurl.com/3ba7za

    Posted by Rintrah at 02/15/2008 @ 03:28am

13. "Bush Says Paternalism Over in U.S. Aid" Feb 14 08:13 PM US/Eastern By BEN FELLER Associated Press Writer

    Does that include Israel?

    Just joking.

    For over 30 years, Israel (not a developing country & with a population roughly that of Brooklyn + Queens) has been the No. 1 recipient of US foreign aid, and that's not counting military aid. Billions every year.

    Will W&Co stop this paternalism as well? The child is now very adult & with hundreds of nuclear warheads all its very own & the means to deliver these all over the MidEast & into much of Europe.

    What exactly are we still subsidizing there in our No.1 stepchild?

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 05:04am

14. egypt gets almost as much, just for context.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 08:38am

15. Well, again, I'd be more persueded that John Lewis is "just the first" of tsunami of Hillary people switching to Obama.....

    if it wasn't John Nichols predicting it!

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 09:04am

16. egypt gets almost as much, just for context.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/15/2008 @ 08:38am

    and they're equally worser in their own special ways.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 09:16am

17. I think there is a fundamental weakness in Hillary's nominee bid that shows when she lost 8 and possibly 10 in a row. Even if she wins Texas and Ohio there is a weakness there. Obama has climbed from 20 points or more deficits to catch up to her she has basically not moved while he has continued to improve.

    There is a lot of irony in this election but one of the biggest is that a while back at one of the debates Hillary touted being a CEO president that she is a manager. Obama on the other hand said that he is a visionary not a very good CEO. Yet he has managed to organize and effectively run a political campaign that has put him not merely in striking distance of the nomination but ahead of Hillary. Hillary's campaign on the other hand is imploding her message keeps changing and her finances are dwindling. I know this is a poltical campagin and running the presidency will be different but cant this be used as an indicator of how both candidates handle challenges. Obama said in one of his stump speeches when they were down the message didnt change and when they are up the messages didnt change. There is a level of consistency in his camapgin that shows someone who stands firm for what he believes in. Hillary's message is not consistent isnt that cause for concern about how things will play out in her administration. This is why I'm not confident in HIllary as a candidate in the general election. I feel like she has identity issues she doesnt know who she is or where she stands.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/15/2008 @ 10:13am

18. we can see their true character in how they handle defeat

    and victory. and that is one of the beauties of our admittedly flawed system.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 10:33am

19. Hillary's message is not consistent isnt that cause for concern about how things will play out in her administration. This is why I'm not confident in HIllary as a candidate in the general election. I feel like she has identity issues she doesnt know who she is or where she stands.---Posted by HARRISCRL3 02/15/2008 @ 10:13am

    Notice how quickly she dropped "experience" in every 12th word of her speeches for...."change"...right after Iowa.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 10:38am

20. What exactly are we still subsidizing there in our No.1 stepchild?

    Posted by SLOPER 02/15/2008 @ 05:04am | ignore this person

    we are subsidizing the only democratic country in the region. does that count for something?

    perhaps Israel could be far worse? like invading and occupying another country, to the tune of 100,000 plus dead Iraqis. just for context, of course.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 10:45am

21. "we are subsidizing the only democratic country in the region. does that count for something?"

    Of course not. That is not the purpose of foreign aid. Let Israel be Israel. Moreover, Israel is NOT a military ally of the US: there exists NO alliance treaty between the US & Israel. Israel was offered a military alliance treaty by the LBJ govt right after the '67 war when Israel grabbed the "occupied" territories. Israel rejected the offer for 2 reasons: 1) all military alliances require all parties to specify their countries' exact international borders; 2) every party to a military alliance must inform the other(s) of its intention to attack another country PRIOR to attacking.

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 12:26pm

22. 75% of the foreign aid to Israel is spent in THIS country. Israel gets the goods but the money stimulates our economy, and goes into the pockets of well connected corporations.this is incidentally true of ALL foreign aid.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 12:40pm

23. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/15/2008 @ 12:40pm

    foreign rich people aid is a better name.

    better yet, IMF aid.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/15/2008 @ 12:49pm

24. well...any superdelegate who votes against the wishes of his/her constituents is a target. if all black districts go obama, is it racial tribalism for the reps of these folks to vote obama?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/15/2008 @ 1:07pm

25. "better yet, IMF aid." FZ

    Mmm, how sweet it is, like borrowing money from Tony Soprano on the shy.

    Re "tied aid": whatever we ship to a developed country like Israel, enables that country to release finance for another endeavors ... like the costs of military occupation, a huge military apartheidlike wall several hundred km long, several hundred nuke war heads etc. Get the pic?

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 1:17pm

26. Lanny & the rest of the Clinton surrogates keep brining up Teddy Kennedy & John Kerry but I think it misses the point. I don't want to see the Clintons use superdelegates to contradict the majority vote of the people. I haven't heard either Senator from Massachusetts say they will do that.

    Posted by lindabahlman at 02/15/2008 @ 1:25pm

27. like the costs of military occupation, a huge military apartheidlike wall several hundred km long, several hundred nuke war heads etc. Get the pic?

    Posted by SLOPER 02/15/2008 @ 1:17pm | ignore this person

    let's see, what OTHER country does this remind me of? wait it's on the tip of my tongue....

    somebody help me out here...

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 1:52pm

28. Could it be?!?!?!? FRANKGRITS save us!

    American Research Group--February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

    Democrats TX

    Clinton 42%

    Obama 48%

    Someone else 3%

    Undecided 7%

    Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

    22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 2:03pm

29. "let's see, what OTHER country does this remind me of? wait it's on the tip of my tongue.... somebody help me out here." Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/15/2008 @ 1:52pm

    Aye. And it ain't la belle France, nor Germany any longer ... not even the Russkies. Wonder, wonder who ...

    No, could it be the homeland of FBI-sponsored IntraGard et al? Have we met the enemy & they are ...

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 2:16pm

30. perhaps Israel could be far worse? like invading and occupying another country, to the tune of 100,000 plus dead Iraqis. just for context, of course.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/15/2008 @ 10:45am | ignore this person

    I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic or not, but Israel's record (a) since its existence as a sectarian, colonial-settler state within its 1948-67 borders, (b) specifically as an occupier of the West Bank and Gaza, and (c) as an occupier or sponsor of an occupying, puppet army in South Lebanon, isn't anything to exactly sing about, even in comparison to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/15/2008 @ 2:18pm

31. Posted by CKA2ND 02/15/2008 @ 2:18pm

    And how many times was it attacked in that period?

    Posted by Mask at 02/15/2008 @ 2:21pm

32. what I am saying is that the US lacks the moral stature to criticize Israel, since they have behaved far worse.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/15/2008 @ 2:24pm

33. what I am saying is that the US lacks the moral stature to criticize Israel, since they have behaved far worse. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/15/2008 @ 2:24pm

    What the US doesn't lack - notwithstanding AIPAC - is the legal ability to cut off, at once, further subsidzing of Israeli nuclear weapons of mass destruction, apartheid walls, settlements on militarily seized lands (granted by Yahweh 5000 years ago, not so long after the Creation according to Huckabee et al). All that's lacking is the mere - mere - US political courage. Please, don't go blind looking for it in any of the current presidential candidates.

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 2:40pm

34. HEADLINES!!!!!!!!!!!!

    BIG JOHN IS BACKTRACKING SAYING HE IS STICKING WITH HILLARY ROTTEN.....

    LET THE GAMES BEGIN

    GOD BLESS THE USA

    Posted by Frankshitsz at 02/15/2008 @ 3:26pm

35. Well the US might lack the moral stature, so why don't they just point to the vibrant peace movement in Israel itself and what they have to say about the occupation of the West Bank. In fact this isn't really a criticism of Israel, it is a criticism of a set of policies that not everyone in Israel agrees with. And it isn't really a criticism by the US it is a criticism of one part of the US, the left, of Likud and Likud style policies (so Olmert counts).

    Comparing which country has done worse is silly. That the republicans led this country into an immoral war changes absolutely nothing about the moral standing of the political leadership of Israel. If it helps you Emile, think of the criticisms of Israel being made by, I don't know, the people who made them rather than their country.

    And Mask when you occupy an area that doesn't want you, you are going to get attacked. When there is vast imbalance of conventional military forces, those attacks are going to be assymetric. That doesn't excuse Hamas blowing up children, but it does point to the causal chain starting with Israel's actions against the Palestinians (who after all didn't get much of a choice about which Arab countries attacked Israel in the 40's, 60's and 70's.) So if Israel wants a plan for long term cessation of suicide attacks, sounds to me like withdrawal (and not on the Gaza model) is a good plan. Take away the occupation and Hamas has a harder job, though not impossible one in the short term, of recruiting people to die. Then the real impetus for terrorist attacks on Israel would come from Saudi, Iran and Syria. Once you make Israel's security position one of state to state relations, they are going to be much safer. What Israel's enemies can do is buy themselves increased international standing and economic integration by going to the peace table.

    The thought that they are morally permitted to stay, because they started getting attacked years after they illegally occupied the areas sounds similar to saying that it is because we are being attacked that we have warrant to stay in Iraq. We all recognize how stupid an indefinite occupation of Iraq is right? My sense is that most Israelis feel the same way about indefinite occupation of the West Bank.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/15/2008 @ 3:53pm

36. Yo, SHITZ, you're a pisser. Why do you bother reading The Nation? National Review, Weekly Standard ... go for the red meat. Why settle for tofu? That would spare us wimpy vegans yr testosterone nonsense.

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 3:56pm

37. "Well the US might lack the moral stature, so why don't they just point to the vibrant peace movement in Israel itself and what they have to say about the occupation of the West Bank. In fact this isn't really a criticism of Israel, it is a criticism of a set of policies that not everyone in Israel agrees with. And it isn't really a criticism by the US it is a criticism of one part of the US, the left, of Likud and Likud style policies (so Olmert counts)."

    Absolutely. Read Amos Oz, for starters. BUT, like the US peaceniks, the Israeli factions of reason are marginalized. True, one won't learn about them in the US, outside the pages of the NYRB & even more obscure publications. And certainly not on MSM TV.

    Posted by sloper at 02/15/2008 @ 4:02pm

38. you will not learn about our peace movement in our MSM either. I have been to huge anti war marches, and the silence in the press was deafening.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/16/2008 @ 09:03am