All of this talk about Rep. John Lewis' "switch" - is he unendorsing Clinton? Is he endorsing Barack? Neither? Both? - is missing the point.
Greg Sargent explains:
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.
I've been saying this for a few weeks now, but for the most part I've felt like no one was hearing me: there is no chance that the party will be "torn apart" by a fight over the Supers Delegates. They aren't going to "decide" this race - the people voting in the various states will. If Obama wins Ohio or Texas, it will be over before Pennsylvania. If he does not, it will be over shortly after Pennsylvania. Either way, a very solid majority of the remaining uncommitted Supers will go whichever way the political winds blow. This isn't going to go to the convention, nor is this going to devolve into a fight over MI and FL. The people will have their save, and their say will be decisive.
This shouldn't be so hard for people to see and understand. The Supers are all party officials and elected representatives. More importantly, they are all party officials and elected representatives who up until this point managed successful political careers. Their livelihood quite literally depends on their ability to attract the support of voters. They understand this. They aren't going to overrule the people because to do so would likely end their careers!
All this talk of the party "tearing itself apart" is nonsense. There is not a single Super Delegate whose career is not wholly dependent on the party's continued existence. Not one. Does anyone really think that these people are so loyal to one candidate or the other that they would destroy their own careers rather than bend to the people's will? Really?
Take a look at the history of parties in this country. The last time we had a party fully self-destruct was when the Whigs imploded over the very same issues that led to a full-scale national Civil War. Does anyone really think that the battle between Clinton and Obama involves issues and commitments that run that deep?
Now no doubt some of you are reading this and thinking, "but what about 1968? Didn't the Democratic Party tear itself apart in 1968?" Quite simply, no, it did not. Hubert Humphrey may have been forced to fight hard for the nomination, but in the end he lost to Nixon by less than one percentage point nationwide.
The events during the 1968 convention made for dramatic television, but to describe them as "self-destruction" just makes no sense. And lest we forget, those events came after a series of tumultuous national events, including but not limited to the Tet Offensive, the announcement by LBJ that he would not seek a second term, and the assassinations of MLK and RFK. So yes, the 1968 convention was dramatic, but it was hardly an example of a party "tearing itself apart."
If anyone knows this it is Rep John Lewis. And that's the point. Lewis knows that the fissures within the party aren't that deep. He prefers Clinton, but not by much. His announcement today isn't about an endorsement or un-endorsement. It is a signal to the rest of the Supers that it is the will of the people, and not their personal preference, that must decide this election.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
