by John McCormick
MILWAUKEE – Sen. Barack Obama said this morning that he is still trying to talk to a civil rights icon who has previously backed Sen. Hillary Clinton, but now may switch his superdelegate support to him.
"I have not spoken to Congressman Lewis. I hadn't spoken to him prior to this report," the Illinois Democrat said at a news conference. "I put in a call to him after the report to find out what he was thinking. But I have not received word from him yet."
The New York Times first reported a possible switch of support by Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a superdelegate, last night.
Obama said he believes superdelegates – party leaders and elected officials not tied to state vote outcomes – are increasingly moving to back the candidate who has won in their home congressional district or state.
"The broader point is that there are going to be a lot of superdelegates who are examining this race as it moves forward," he said. "I think increasingly the superdelegates that I talk to are uncomfortable with the notion that they would override the decisions made by voters. And so, our position has always been clear, which is that the voters should make these decisions. Whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of this contest should be the nominee and that superdelegates should ratify that decision by the voters. I know that Sen. Clinton feels differently. We'll see how the argument plays itself out."
Asked whether he had reached some kind of superdelegate tipping point, Obama did not express that much confidence.
"I think it's premature for that," he said. "I think people are still looking at the contest."
Obama also provided his view on how the system should work.
"The superdelegate system was set up for a scenario in which nobody had reached a majority, but there was a clear winner among the voters," he said. "And so the key was to close the gap. That was the point….It wasn't designed to override the decisions of the pledged delegates."
Obama said he has not personally gotten involved in trying to negotiate how delegates from Florida and Michigan will be treated at the party's national convention.
"I'm not personally involved in it. This is something that I think the staffs have been working on," he said. "Look, all we've done is try to abide by the rules…I didn't even have my name on the ballot in Michigan. Obviously, it wouldn't make any sense. I think even my six year old would even understand that it would not be fair for Sen. Clinton to be awarded delegates when there was no campaign, and in one of the states at least, my name didn't appear on the ballot. On the other hand, I want to make sure that the Michigan and Florida delegates have a means of participating."
Are you concerned about disenfranchisement of voters?
"'The notion that somehow folks who understood that these. Let me say it this way: The parties and the officials in those states understood what the rules were ahead of time, and we've done is try to abide by the rules."
Obama said he would also be willing to consider a system that would award superdelegates based on the popular vote.
"I'm happy to take a look at the popular vote as well," he said. "We feel pretty good about where our popular vote is as well."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Super People, sounds like the democratic party I know. Turns out that they are disproportionally white men, hmmm
Someone should look into that don't you think? Could it be that the party is run by racist white men?
Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
Posted by: cj | February 15, 2008 1:49 PM
Time for the Clinton thugs to start strong arming the Super D's.
Will they use photos, rumors, Bill style Bimbo eruptions, horse heads in beds? Or,will they leave voice mail for Vince Foster on the Super D's phones?
Posted by: remus | February 15, 2008 3:07 PM
Obama, You abide rules?
the rules are that super delegates are not obligated to vote according the results in their districts.
Posted by: LL | February 15, 2008 3:45 PM
Someone should look into that don't you think? Could it be that the party is run by racist white men?
Posted by: cj | February 15, 2008 1:49 PM
Circle Jerk,
No, actually that would be your party (Rethuglicans)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhSZfa1dfD4
...and pretty much everyone already knows that which is one of the many reasons that the nearly 100 year old man (McCain) who promises us LESS JOBS and MORE WAR is going to get his angry old butt handed to him in the upcoming election.
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 3:56 PM
"Could it be that the party is run by racist white men?"
As opposed to the Republican party? Gimme a break...
Posted by: SpaceMarine | February 15, 2008 4:00 PM
For all the Hillary supporters out there who would argue that superdelegates are allowed, by the way conventions NORMALLY work, to vote for whoever they like, two questions:
1. Have superdelegates ever overturned the popular vote & allocated delegates to select a nominee?
2. Is it a "normal" process for superdelegates when one of the candidates is the spouse of a former preseident who is certainly trying to cash in all 8 years of political chips and debts?
Somehow, I don't think #2 qualifies as the "usual process" enough to buy the "we should let superdelegates behave and vote the way they usually do."
Posted by: Jessica | February 15, 2008 4:10 PM
If Obama is right ... then all superdelegates should retract their votes and wait until the people have ahd their say and then go with them. What were the superdelegates doing who voted for him when he was behind the "voice of the voters"? They were going against the wishes of the people. Like the democratic leaders in Michigan and Florida, I assume Mr. Obama knew about the superdelegates BEFORE the election started. To say they should now follow the leader even though they don't trust him/her to be the best president is not following the superdelegate rule. And by the way Senator ... it's not to close the gap ... it's to widen it.
Posted by: Marian | February 15, 2008 6:20 PM
"Someone should look into that don't you think? Could it be that the party is run by racist white men?
Posted by: cj | February 15, 2008 1:49 PM"
Hopefully one day you and your fellow disrupters will find yourself alone with the real racist White men.
Posted by: hedcutter | February 15, 2008 8:49 PM
"it would not be fair for Sen. Clinton to be awarded delegates [....] when there was no campaign, and in one of the states at least, my name didn't appear on the ballot."
Originally ALL names were on the ballot, but Obama took his off. Does he think we don't know that? Or that the news media won't tell us?
If you see a race you can't win, take your name off, and then the results can't be counted? That could save a lot of campaign expense.
As for Florida, the FL Dems are being punished for something the FL GOP legislature did -- deliberately to put the FL Dems in this position. Donna Brazile is to blame for this mess. Imo the delegates should be approved as is, asap; any more mucking around will look like more favoritism.
Posted by: Old Democrat | February 16, 2008 5:02 AM
Why didn't Mr. McCormick ask Mr. Obama why he tried to put his name back on the Michigan ballot after he decided to take it off? This question has yet to be answered.
Posted by: Marc | February 16, 2008 3:12 PM
Look people..there is no way in hell they are going to be able to seat the Forida and Michigan Delegates...That would be like telling a child if you break the rules you will not be allowed to go to the dance...then you find a way to let the child go to the dance anyway...you loose credibility that way. It's easy to try to blame Barack for this but it is not his fault and the rules are the rules...sorry.
Posted by: Sophia | February 16, 2008 3:58 PM
Been a Dem all my life and at least we aren't lied to by the republicans. Turns out a large group in the Dem party is more racist then the Republicans ever were.
Lewis sold out his voters, his district and his people so the house slave could get a nice pat on the head by Master Clinton. He's no civil rights leader, he is a f money chaser.
Posted by: Mikey | February 16, 2008 6:20 PM
Originally ALL names were on the ballot, but Obama took his off. Does he think we don't know that? Or that the news media won't tell us?
Actually the DNC asked them to take their names off the ballots. The penalties that the states got were handed down by the rules committee of which a lot of the people on hillary's election team were on, they all voted for the penalties. Obama's people didn't have a say in the matter. Hillary said she would take her name off also, but then didn't, when asked why she said,"The results don't count anyway, so I saw no reason to take my name off the ballot".
Hillary and people working for her had control of the thing all along. I don't think they were thinking that far a head but now they are trying to use it to their advantage.
There is no way you can blame any of this on Obama. Clinton people decided the penalty, broke their promises and are trying to change the rules.
Posted by: tommy | February 16, 2008 6:28 PM
It's established that all names were on originally and Obama (and Edwards) had theirs removed. Do you have evidence for your claim about the DNC requesting the removal, and the quote you attribute to Hillary?
Posted by: Old Democrat | February 17, 2008 12:27 AM
The people behind this problem were, in order of infamy, the FL GOP legislature that deliberately set the primary date over the protests of the FL Dems, Donna Brazile (an Obama supporter) who pushed for no exceptions for FL (though her committee gave exceptions for other early primary states), and Howard Dean (another Obama supporter) who went along with Brazile (after allowing states favorable to Obama to go early: Iowa and SC).
In Michigan, there was no need for anyone to take their names off the ballot: Hillary, Biden, and other candidates stayed on. Obama and Edwards took theirs off as a favor to the governor of a neighboring state. Then they changed their minds and went in and campaigned for "Uncommitted." Hillary did none of these shenanigans; she just left her name alone. She did not campaign in either MI or FL; Obama campaigned in both, clearly violating the ban in FL and violating the spirit of it in MI.
Unless the newspaper story cut something from Mr. Obama's statement, he is disingeniously over-simplyfying the situation by complaining that his name "was not on the ballot", instead of admitting he himself had removed it.
It's almost a mirror image of the Alice Palmer incident, when he got into Illinois politics by getting ALL his opponents thrown off the ballot. Then it was an opponent who had changed her mind and wanted back on -- here Obama is the one changing his mind back and forth, and now wanting to throw out the Michigan election itself!
Posted by: Old Democrat | February 17, 2008 7:04 AM
Washington Post -
Obama and John Edwards were on the ballot in Florida because there was no way to remove their names, but none of the candidates campaigned there. Clinton flew in the night of the primary for a victory party in an effort to blunt Obama's momentum after his win in South Carolina.
The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida for moving up their nominating contests in violation of party rules; it declared their primaries unofficial and denied them the right to seat their delegations in Denver.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.
She won Michigan in part because Obama and other Democrats took their names off the ballot in solidarity with the DNC and as part of a pledge to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states not to participate in unsanctioned contests. (Clinton was the only one to break this pledge)
About one month later, her chief rivals took their names off the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not, but said during an interview on public radio, “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.”
Posted by: Sam | February 17, 2008 10:52 AM