From here.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/15/667822.aspx
*** Are we understanding John Lewis? The New York Times is front-paging that Rep. John Lewis, who has endorsed Clinton, will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, since his congressional district overwhelmingly voted for the Illinois senator. However, Lewis’ office is adamant that Lewis isn’t endorsing Obama. So is that the distinction? That he isn’t changing his endorsement, but will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama? Pardon us if we’re a bit confused… And Georgia Rep. David Scott -- another Clinton backer -- has apparently endorsed Obama. Not counting Lewis (because the situation is confusing), Obama has gained 12 superdelegates since February 5, while Clinton has lost a net of three.
Sounds like the confusion is the distinction about who he "Endorses" vs. who he will cast his superdelegate vote for. Which is bizarre, but I guess gives him the ability to say he didn't renege on his "endorsement" of Clinton.
If true, I bet both camps will be more careful about getting supers to pledge to "vote for" and not just "endorse" their candidate.
Posted by Gryn at February 15, 2008 10:59 AMgryn,
until we have clear statements from the congressmen or their spokespeople, we shouldn't assume anything.
Posted by Turkana at February 15, 2008 11:08 AMTrue, just didn't know if you had seen that.
I did caveat with "if true", but it would seem to explain the contradiction unless there was either blatent lying by a reporter or some serious back channel pressure to get Lewis back in line.
Posted by Gryn at February 15, 2008 11:13 AMthese guys may not have fully jumped on the bandwagon, but they think they know which way its rolling.
Posted by T2 at February 15, 2008 11:14 AMThis site tracks the super-delegates and shows who's endorsed whom and has updates on the bottom showing who has decided to endorse and who has switched.
It's currently listing John Lewis as switching.
Posted by CG at February 15, 2008 11:19 AMcg,
that site is clearly basing its assumption on the nyt and ap stories.
Posted by Turkana at February 15, 2008 11:20 AMThis is just the latest example of the divisiveness of the Obama campaign down here in GA. His campaign has pitted blacks vs. whites and it has been ugly. So ugly, in fact, that fully 1/3 of Dems down here are saying that they won't vote for Obama by either sitting home or voting McCain. It has been horrible. Everything we've done to try to build the party has been undone by the Obama campaign.
And the things my family said his campaign did in SC were bad too. Obama supporters think that he'll do well in GA. I want what they're smoking.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 15, 2008 11:57 AMGa6thDem, the GE will be back to the usual redneck GOP vote and McOld will carry the South, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is the candidate.
T2,
I'm talking about how it affects party building down here not about whether either one will carry GA. Obama supporters seem to think that he'll carry ga hence my statement about wanting what their smoking.
This is just the latest example of the divisiveness of the Obama campaign
What did they do?
Posted by CG at February 15, 2008 12:47 PMUhh, how did Obama's campaign pit blacks against whites exactly? Maybe I'm ignorant, but it's news to me. Unless the impetus was merely that Obama happens to be a minority which may be divisive to some southern Dems in and of itself.
Anways, I think the general notion isn't that he'll pick up deep red states, but more purplish ones from the West and Midwest where historical racism isn't as deep of a cultural institution.
There was that poll nationally that 85% of the supporters of both Clinton and Obama would be happy voting for the other candidate in the general so 1/3 sounds a bit extreme, but I guess it's plausible in your locality.
Posted by Gryn at February 15, 2008 12:49 PMI hadn't seen that Turkana. I was interested in finding out exactly who the heck these super-delegates are, particularly the ones from my state. Other than the members of Congress, I haven't heard of any of them.
Posted by CG at February 15, 2008 01:03 PMGryn, you need to check the stories that Jessie Jackson, Jr. (Obama's campaign co-chair) is threatening Black congressmen with them losing their seats if they don't back Obama. This was confirmed by one congressman already. If true, this is despicable and ugly. I really shudder to think of the race war that would ensue if this were on the news a few cycles - and it will be in the GE, you can bet on it, if Obama gets nominated. The wingnuts will make this into something extremely ugly.
gryn,
big tent had a very interesting post on cognitivedissonance's point:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/14/225232/180
Posted by Turkana at February 15, 2008 02:31 PMOkay, thanks for the link. Yeah, I hadn't heard about that before (which is why I scour anti-Obama sites, both sides are getting segregated information).
I agree, that's really not cool. Jesse may claim he's just pointing out an obvious fact to them, but it still reeks of intimidation.
I'm really hating everything about superdelegates right now.
Anyways, I'll see what I can do to spread it around the pro-Kos sites. I know they get tunnel-vision (as I hope you know pro-Clinton sites do as well).
Posted by Gryn at February 15, 2008 02:47 PM