Wyden calls superdelegate process "preposterous"; endorses Obama

Senator Ron Wyden has endorsed Barack Obama for President. His complete statement:

“When voters in Oregon and around the country hear the word 'superdelegate,' people start hissing. I never asked to be a superdelegate, and always thought it preposterous that my vote would be accorded greater weight than the vote of the very people who make my public service possible.

“I would gladly have worked hard to elect either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton, but fortunately, the nation's choice has been made, as it should have been, not by the superdelegates, but by the grassroots voters. The voters of Oregon certainly spoke clearly on the subject, and my vote will enthusiastically reflect their decision to nominate Senator Obama.

“Sen. Obama brings extraordinary leadership, understanding and vision to this race and will make a phenomenal president. I will work many long hours to make certain that he wins the State of Oregon and begins the job of repairing the damage of the past eight years.

“I have spoken with both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton to inform them of my decision. I want voters to know that I believe Senator Clinton would also have been an exceptional nominee and president. She is extraordinarily smart, strong, and compassionate, and I hope the country will continue to benefit from her dedicated service for many years to come.”

Oregon's superdelegates have now all spoken. Barack Obama picked up ten superdelegates; Hillary Clinton has the support of two.

Discuss.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    Thank you, Ron Wyden. And go Obama!

  • MajorMajorMajor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'd like to congratulate Senator Wyden on his late, politically convenient endorsement. I hope his chief of staff Josh Kardon, who ably helmed Senator Clinton's impressive Oregon campaign, didn't suffer any cranial explosions as a result of this news.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yahoo, Ron! Go Obama!

    "...always thought it preposterous that my vote would be accorded greater weight than the vote of the very people who make my public service possible."

    Amen, brother.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    wow, did anyone else read between the lines there that wyden would have personally preferred clinton but felt compelled to respect her resounding defeat at the hands of actual oregon voters?

    i may be just pulling that out of, well, you know, but that's how it sounded to me.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "When voters in Oregon and around the country hear the word 'superdelegate,' people start hissing. I never asked to be a superdelegate, and always thought it preposterous that my vote would be accorded greater weight than the vote of the very people who make my public service possible."

    Then why hold any primaries at all? If this is the case, isn't our primary votes just wasted votes in the long run?

    Canada is looking better all the time...

  • Mike (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whoop-dee-damn-do! Wyden finally made a decision.

    Profile in courange he is!

    I agree with trishka.

  • Rob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think a better term is "delegates at large". Let's keep them, they are important. Maybe switch to rotating primary schedules, bundling representative states into a shorter primary cycle.

  • Mike Schryver (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "wow, did anyone else read between the lines there that wyden would have personally preferred clinton but felt compelled to respect her resounding defeat at the hands of actual oregon voters?"

    It seemed to me that he was just being very careful not to offend Clinton supporters.

  • backbeat, woman, Democrat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Ron.

  • backbeat, woman, Democrat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you Ron.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "he was just being very careful not to offend Clinton supporters."

    IMHO, the way HRC has been acting thorugh all this, maybe some people really need to be offended. After all, truth does hurt.

  • naschkatzehussein (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you, Senator Wyden. It's unfortunate the nomination came down to the superdelegates being the deciding factor, but the new 50 state strategy and proportionality of pledged delegates has brought over a million new Democratic voters like myself into the party and has given us grassroots a collective but meaningful role in selecting our presidential nominee. Like the Oregon vote-by-mail system, it will take time to iron out the wrinkles, but I think the first attempt has been worth it.

  • Peter Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Then why hold any primaries at all? If this is the case, isn't our primary votes just wasted votes in the long run?

    Canada is looking better all the time... "

    What Wyden is saying is what Obama supporters began this race saying. Super delegates shouldn't overturn the will of the voters seems a concept even Canadians would understand.

    Eric, perhaps you need to find a stupider country.

  • (Show?)

    You tell him, Spiderman!

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Trishka reminds me why it is so difficult to just move over to the Obama camp. Nopt because I supported Hillary - which I did. Not because I won't support Obama which I will. But because I am not sure I want to be in the same room with some of these Obama mania crazed Hillary haters.

    "wow, did anyone else read between the lines there that wyden would have personally preferred clinton but felt compelled to respect her resounding defeat at the hands of actual oregon voters?

    i may be just pulling that out of, well, you know, but that's how it sounded to me."

    trishka you did say something I agreed with - "pulling it out of (your), well, you know."

    The right response is - "Thank you Ron" even late is better than never. Manners first please!

    Now the challenge is up to Mr. Obama to figure out how he gets the Hillary folks to sign up to work FOR him not just sit out the election.

  • (Show?)

    We are fortunate to have had two very strong candidates, unlike the Repubs, in my opinion. That is what this whole controversy has been about - close elections often don't bring out the best in anyone.

    So now that the decision has been made, let's move forward, unite, and WIN in November.

  • (Show?)

    Eric Parker: [M]aybe some people really need to be offended. After all, truth does hurt.

    Here's another truth: you rarely win people over by insulting them.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The funny thing is that any delegate's vote counts more, even with proportional representation some votes are lost. If this were the Republican mode then in OR 42% would be discounted. Multiplied by 50 states and 435 CDs these numbers get pretty large. The automatic delegates were for the most part elected as well. I'm not quite sure why Sen Wyden doesn't think that as a (D) Senator elected by OR at large he shouldn't have a vote in the Party's mechanism. Would somebody like to point out to me the benefit to the Party (and by extension, voters) of having a brawl at the Convention over a delegate split of 100 or so pledged delegates? Does it seem reasonable that the very people who have to directly deal with a Presidential campaign and President shouldn't have a say?

    Perhaps you could argue that a reduction of influence by giving automatics 0.5 vote would be more reasonable. This election has been really very very close.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am not a Hillary hater, I just detest her 'entiltlement' attitude. A person with as much education as she has under her belt would know better when it is appropriate to be stubborn and have better manners.

  • (Show?)

    By the way, I must say that I respectfully disagree with Senator Wyden. I love the current system we have, specifically because of the way it penalizes sore losers.

    Hillary Clinton has over two hundred superdelegates. If she keeps these attacks against our presumptive nominee up, she's going to start losing them. She's actually lost a handful already, but if it becomes clear she's putting her interests above Democrats winning the Whitehouse, that trickle will turn into a flood.

    Again, when you get close to a tie, that's when lawsuits become a viable option. I'd rather have party leaders decide that than unaccountable judges.

  • (Show?)

    The idea that Wyden really supported Clinton has no evidence. I believe Wyden when he says that his Healthy Americans Act is and has been his priority, and that he could support either candidate, and did not want to alienate either on account of the bill by announcing before the primaries were done. If he really were a Clinton supporter he would have come out early and helped her build up her superdelegate count.

    His tone in this statement seems about right, and it would behoove Obama supporters to pay attention to it, and to Becky's comments, who you will notice is not threatening to take her ball and go home. Or to pay attention to Barack Obama's comments in his speech, for that matter, which differ notably from the piling on of recent days around here.

  • (Show?)

    There is a smart article on RealClearPolitics about reuniting the Democratic Party, focused on sources of alienation and anger between candidate supporters, with a particular emphasis on Hillary supporters because they have to deal with disappointment. It's written by a married couple, one of whom is a Clinton person and the other an Obama person.

    I would really urge a lot of the pro-Obama posters on BlueOregon to read this. The last couple of days there has been a lot of piling on that is not going to help Obama in the least. Even if you think it, what is the point of calling Hillary Clinton names now? Let's have some respect for our fellow Democrats who supported her for good and sufficient reasons, and acknowledge and focus on the common values we all share.

    The article, by the way, goes somewhat deeper than the more superficial kind of unity call I am making here. In particular its remarks about the politics of age and agism as an insufficiently understood element of the emotional dynamics of the campaign are really worth reflecting on.

  • (Show?)

    Becky,

    I say you are welcome to the Obama campaign. I respect those who supported Hillary because they belived in her. It is hard to switch campaigns. Just ask the Deaniacs from '84 that came over and became key to Kerry's win in Oregon. However, they brought real skills and campaign leadership and we would not have won Oregon for Kerry without them. We need you now. I hope you will join us.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chuck Butcher writes, "I'm not quite sure why Sen Wyden doesn't think that as a (D) Senator elected by OR at large he shouldn't have a vote in the Party's mechanism."

    Actually Chuck, the reason we have automatic delegates is that if we didn't, these elected National Representatives and Senators would demand to be one of the delegates at the convention - taking seats away from people like us. Here in the Second CD, where we have no elected Democrats as a Representative other than Wyden, we'd still get grass roots people at the convention. But imagine if your District was home to the Governor, a US Senator, our State Party Chair, and a Congressman/woman. You could end up with half your delegate seats being demanded by these people.

    I do agree with the idea that the automatic delegates should get less than a full vote. Half would be okay by me. In that scenario, if Chuck were a delegate (I doubt he'll do it) then Meredith and Frank as State Chair and Vice Chair would equal one Chuck. I like the sound of that.

  • (Show?)

    "You could end up with half your delegate seats being demanded by these people." \ Not if they weren't allowed...that's the whole point. Change the process.

  • (Show?)
    I do agree with the idea that the automatic delegates should get less than a full vote.

    I'd happily support a system in which party leaders were allotted full votes only in tie-breaker situations where there was no clear majority of pledged votes. But having such a large contingent of the voting bloc -- and it would be large even if they had only half a vote apiece -- is just a throwback to the days before primaries had much of a role in shaping the party choice.

  • Rasheed Wallace (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I love the current system we have, specifically because of the way it penalizes sore losers. Hillary Clinton has over two hundred superdelegates. If she keeps these attacks against our presumptive nominee up, she's going to start losing them."

    Isn't this kind of like saying you could "punish" the Detroit Pistons (who just lost a best-of-seven series to the Celtics) by taking away some of their points from that series?

    What does it matter? The game's over.

    [Disclosure: That Detroit Pistons analogy isn't mine. It's from a brilliant "sports parable" that puts into proper perspective Hillary Clinton's absurd reasoning for refusing to concede. It's a must read for sports/politics wonks.]

  • Barry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    After HRC's little stunt last night, I think Gov. Ted and the other Clinton Super should annouce they're switching to the nominee, to show their displeasure toward what the Clinton team pulled last night. They're still whipping up their supporters to attack the Democratic Party nominee, and take things to the convention.

  • Munir Katul (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a current Obama supporter and a former Deaniac, I agree with the majority of sentiments expressed above. Let us start this respectful unity process soon.

    However, it is difficult for supporters on either side to start any healing process until Hillary accepts Obama's victory and concedes. Maybe her supporters can help initiate the healing process by encouraging her to find a graceful exit soon accompanied by a strong Obama endorsement.

    Munir in Eugene

  • Jack Sullivan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    wow, did anyone else read between the lines there that wyden would have personally preferred clinton but felt compelled to respect her resounding defeat at the hands of actual oregon voters?

    No, Trishka, you're wrong.

    Remember: The politically "smart" thing to do - a year ago - was to get on board early with Hillary Clinton. There was no such thing as a secret Clinton supporter... though a year ago, there were plenty of secret Obama supporters. Remember the DC joke, "Don't tell mama, I'm for Obama".

    I'm actually quite proud of our Senator who recognized that the superdelegate thing is stupid - and it's the voters who should make the decision.

    Why are people mad at a Senator who let the voters decide - instead of all those Senators who weighed in trying to push it one way or the other?

  • (Show?)

    Thanks Senator Wyden. Regarding both timing and observations, this is one you got pitch perfect.

    I'd happily support a system in which party leaders were allotted full votes only in tie-breaker situations where there was no clear majority of pledged votes.

    Ayup, I'm with Darrel on this one, and I'd add this:

    If/when we redefine Super/Automatic/Kung Fu delegates, let's reserve these tiebreaker spots for party officials who do not hold statewide or national public office.

    Public office holders get to wield power daily. That's their reward. Let 'em onto the floor at national, but don't give 'em a vote.

    If they really want to vote, let 'em run in the CD rooms or at state like the rest of us.

  • (Show?)

    I also respect Senator Wyden's decision to wait. A lot of other "super delegates" declared early because the media blockheads kept pushing the issue of needing to get the process resolved. It is appropriate that the primary is decided when all states have held their primaries.

  • (Show?)

    FWIW I think Hillary's speech last night is about one last push for contributions toward the debt. Go to her website and check out the set-up. There's nowhere it asks "Should I stay in?" or anything like that. What there is are multiple routes to signing on to "I'm With You Hillary! (optional: message to Hillary" that then transfer you to a donation page.

  • (Show?)

    "he was just being very careful not to offend Clinton supporters."

    IMHO, the way HRC has been acting thorugh all this, maybe some people really need to be offended. After all, truth does hurt.

    I disagree. I've hated all this back and forth junk all along, but now it's even more important that it stops. We need to stop attacking each other, need to stop offending each other, etc. We have a nominee and now we're in this together. End of story.

    Wyden is doing the same thing that Obama did last night - praising Senator Clinton while also reinforcing the fact that we have a nominee and we all need to be behind him now.

    McCain's going to do everything he can to poach Clinton supporters, including even considering a female VP (Texas' U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's name has been suggested). Let's not do him any favors, ok?

  • Big Al (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jenni, You are so right. Maybe some of the aforementioned folks are just paid trolls because they do not sound like democrats to me. We need unity to win in November and find a candidate that can deliver Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to the D's.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    wow, i had no idea my post would come off as divisive and inflammatory. i didn't call hillary clinton any names or say anything critical about ron wyden possibly personally preferring her. it was meant as an observation, just reading between the lines on my part. not meant to antagonize anyone. and it's also not something i'm attached to, have no evidence for, and don't mind being wrong about. :)

    namaste everyone.

  • (Show?)

    Big Al:

    Well, I have friends who are Senator Clinton supporters. And as far as I can tell, my entire family in Texas supported Clinton except for my 5 year-old nephew who was determined he was voting for Obama (and he threw a fit at the polling location when he found out he couldn't). I have no problem with that - they felt she was the better candidate, I felt Obama was.

    But shortly after they voted in Texas, it was obvious that Obama was going to win. They realize that and have been talking with all their friends and our other family members about why we need to all be supporting Obama now. The hard ones to convince thus far have been the people in my grandparents' generation - they have a hard time electing someone that isn't white and they can't seem to accept that he isn't a Muslim.

    It's those people in the Democratic Party, Independents, and those unhappy Republicans that we're going to need some time to convince that Obama is the best candidate. It's going to take every moment we have between now and November, and alienating those who were Clinton supporters just makes things harder.

    The Republican Party does not have a unified front. They're bleeding voters like crazy, they have major members and supporters who are refusing to support their nominees, etc. If we can unite behind all our nominees and work together, we can have huge wins in November. We just have to remember that we're not each other's enemies - we just disagreed on which Democrat was better for the job.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Better join bloggers anonymous then - cause in the blogging world we get to beat the crap out of anyone we want with out regard to reality, truth, justice or consequences. No one knows who we are so we can say anything we want about anyone we want.

    I am just a joking really - but now the sh-- flies will convene on me and leave you alone for awhile. At least till their next victim comes along. Fear not there will be a next victim.....thanks for the clarification.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Becky's original point (that certain Clnton-hating Obama supoprters make it hard for Clinton supporters to get on board with the campaign) is tremendously important. While I chose to vote for Obama, I can't really fault the Clinton campaign. They were running from behind and any campaign worth its salt would try to change the dynamics of the race. They needed a hail mary and it didn't work out. But they knew they would lose if they didn't shake things up.

    It is important for Obama supporters to make it easy for Clinton supporters to join the team. Trashing Sen. Clinton doesn't help.

  • (Show?)

    "I can't really fault the Clinton campaign. They were running from behind and any campaign worth its salt would try to change the dynamics of the race."

    By floating racist dog whistle comments and building up the Republican as a better candidate than Obama? No campaign worth its ethical compass would do such a thing.

    Obama could use some disaffected Bush voters in his column, too. Shall he hold back on how disastrous he's been, so as not to alienate those voters?

    Obama is being bullied by Clinton into choosing her as his VP. We can all be as sunny as humanly possible, but she is setting up the scenario whereby her supporters will scream bloody murder anyway if she's not the VP choice. The rebuke on Clinton needs to be swift and strong, to shortern her remaining relevance in the post-primary period as much as possible. The supporters will come around, and if some don't I'd rather take my chances with Hillary out and her supporters bruised, than Hillary allowed through silence to disrupt the process in Denver.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid joe - you are a piece of work! You exemplify why the merger for the general will be difficult. Hopefully you will excuse yourself for all discussions on unity.

  • selenesmom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow, this must be a far more powerful blog than I thought. Who knew that by griping about Hillary's (ex-)campaign here we could actually influence Obama's choice of running mate?

    Do we have any other special powers, like maybe getting my husband to cut our lawn, or causing the drivers on Farmington Road to merge more smoothly at 175th?

  • selenesmom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    BTW if the Hillary supporters I have talked to are any indication, everyone is aware of the issue "but then what do you do with Bill" and would be perfectly happy to see Hillary in some non-VP but leading role such as Majority Leader or Cabinet member. The idea is to keep what she represents in the party and working for Democrats, not to give out an award.

    What evidence is there for this idea of a sizable die-hard gang who would make trouble (of whatever kind) if Hillary is not made VP and only VP? "First woman president" may be the stuff of dreams, but I don't think much of anyone is as worked up about "first woman vice president."

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    one problem i have with trying to do the unity thing is having clinton supporters take any criticism of clinton as being about "hating her" or being "obama-crazed" or whatever.

    i honestly don't know how to reach out to that. i would like to be a bigger person and be able to get past being called names myself, but i'm genuinely bewildered about the steps to take.

    oh, and i read chris lowe's link, and hate to say it but i didn't find it all that helpful. #1 said, basically, don't be an arsehole, well i try not to do that, #2 said don't discount the first clinton presidency, well i'm old enough to have been an adult through it and i was not completely crazy about the job bill clinton did, and #3 i'm pretty much all about teh feminism and have been my entire adult life. plus: being a college-educated white woman over 40, who is supposed to be the target demographic of the outreach, well, as an obama supporter i feel a little non-plussed.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Wyden did exactly the right thing. It sounds to me like he's a supporter of both candidates and waited until the end of the primary season to go public. He simply did what the public, and more specifically what his consituency, wanted him to do. I find it difficult to understand how anyone could find fault with that? Especially given his take on the role of superdelegates.

  • (Show?)
    Here's another truth: you rarely win people over by insulting them.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • (Show?)

    Trishka,

    Sorry if I made the article sound like the best thing since sliced bread, as you say much of it is commonsensical, but that's the problem, so much of the discourse about this has departed from the realm of common sense. And unfortunately there are too many people who seem to need the advice not to be arseholes. That's not all on one side, of course, but I think people whose candidate has won and want to gain unity around that person are particularly well advised to follow it.

    I'm talking to myself as much as anyone, I suppose.

    I was interested in the point about age because I have been made uncomfortable by some Obama supporters' arguments that "young people are the future of the party," when the reality is that given the state of longevity in the U.S., a 40 year old is probably looking at 40 years more of voting and a 60 year old at 25 to 30 years more of voting. It is true that it is a great thing for the DP if a big chunk of younger folks get involved identifying as Democrats -- the inverse effect of Reagan in the '80s is only unravelling now. But much of the stuff I was reading seemed to be suggesting that votes across the age spectrum aren't necessary, and it just isn't so.

    But of course it is a canard to suggest that women or men who support Obama are somehow ispso facto anti-feminist or anti-woman. And demographic stereotyping shorthand is just dumb, as you say. And of course it is not true that criticizing Clinton is tantamount to "hating" her.

    In fact, focusing on John McCain's anti-feminism and disdain for women's rights, e.g. his extreme anti-abortion positions and vote to uphold a filibuster of legislation to correct a faulty Supreme Court interpretation of the right to sue for discrimination under the Civil Rights Acto of 1964, probably is a good idea in terms of looking at the common ground we all share.

    It turns out too that McCain has campaigned and appeared in an advertisement in Arizona for an effort to pass a law banning not just same-sex marriage, but any legal recognition at all of same-sex relationships.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie V: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    You are free to disagree, Stephanie. But you'll have to put forth a more cogent argument than that.

  • (Show?)
    You are free to disagree, Stephanie. But you'll have to put forth a more cogent argument than that.

    Oh, I don't disagree at all. In fact, I agree completely.

    I was just chuckling at the irony inherent in your making that observation now.

  • (Show?)

    Becky, that comment came before word of her abrupt 180. I think Howard wolfson and whoever else among her closest advisors urged her to give it up, just may have saved the party.

    If Hillary makes good on the promises made in her email to supporters, it's absolutely time to move on and mive forward My references to a rebuke would only have applied as long as Clinton refused to acknowledge the results and throw her weight behind Obama. I wouldn't say all is forgiven, but she's made an excellent start at coming to her senses, and for that I'm grateful.

  • becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Torrid Joe - I will follow my own advise. For your comments in yur last post, I thank you,.

  • Jiang (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is patently preposterous. If those votes are counted, there has to be a public split with the party, right on the convention floor, or the principles that Dems claim will be totally meaningless.

    Preposterous is the word. How disconnected do you have to be to come up with a super-delegate process to govern something you call "Democratic"? And you can just write off permanently anyone that says saying so makes you a "Hillary hater".

  • Linda Martin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well said, MajorMajorMajor. Wyden blasts the superdelegate process, but you can bet that if Hillary was in the lead and Obama was a few delegates behind, Wyden would be there front and center waiting for the opportunity to jump in and vote early. Wyden isn't fooling anyone. I talked with one of his staffers about a matter once early in the campaign. When I mentioned Obama, she literally guffawed. I feel quite certain that he was holding out for a cabinet post in the Clinton campaign. Whoever mentioned Wyden for AG should study Wyden's record closely. Talk about Washington insiders... I think someone should investigate Kardon's role. Isn't he subject to the Hatch Act? When I asked another staffer, she said, "Oh he saved for weeks for vacation time to use for Clinton's campaign!" Uh-huh. Sorry I find that difficult to believe.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie V.: I was just chuckling at the irony inherent in your making that observation now.

    There is no irony involved here, Stephanie. I have repeatedly warned both TJ and you on this blog that your personal attacks against other posters were bound to be counterproductive - which they were. You both have a habit of taking advocacy for candidates you don't support as a personal insult, but I assure you that's not the case. And lest you think this is only my view, people who read these forums that I meet at Democratic party gatherings, have repeatedly told me so.

    Finally, much of my writing was not intended to persuade you. Do you honestly think I thought I could get you to support Jeff Merkley, given the things you were saying about him? No. I was writing largely to refute your attacks, and put a political perspective slightly larger than downtown Portland, out in the public domain.

    Writing for others is what you were doing as well. And please, be honest with yourself about that.

  • Emily (unverified)
    (Show?)

    None of the superdelegates have voted yet, they have only endorsed. The real voting takes place at the convention in August.

    I urge Senator Wyden to reconsider. Sen. Clinton has won the popular vote, and she has shown that she can carry swing states.

    The allocation of delegates within the DNC system unfairly awards delegates to urban rather than suburban areas, thus disenfranchising the very Americans Clinton won.

    Obama won most of his delegates using the unfair and undemocratic caucus system, which discriminates against the elderly, the disabled, single parents with no backup, and shift workers.

    Superdelegates were routinely paid off. 82% of the Superdelegates who declared for Obama were paid the most by his campaign.

    In a further corruption of democracy, the DNC party bullies pushed Clinton out of a race that does not have a finish line until August to further their own agenda.

    The primary run was a tie. Both candidates were hundreds of pledged delegates short of the needed total: 2118. The misuse of superdelegate endorsements (NOT VOTES) to falsely make it APPEAR as though Obama had reached the 2118 number is one of the biggest fiascos of this election. Under normal circumstances, the race would have been deemed a tie and both candidates would be heading towards the convention for the matter to be decided. But the Obama/Media/DNC coalition had other plans - and these plans didn't include Hillary.

    I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. I am passionate about the subject of abortion rights, and I will tell you right now that I do not trust Obama to protect choice. Remember Bob Casey's endorsement? I wonder what Obama promised him in order to secure that that endorsement.

    I will not support a party that strongarms out of the race the most viable, electable, and BEST candidate we've had in years. I am in tears as I write this, thinking of my friend who has an autistic son. She was looking forward to Clinton's presidency, as Clinton's healthcare plan funds research and assistance for autism. Obama's plan does not.

    I used to think I could count on the Democratic Party to uphold the ideals of democracy and compassion for the underserved in our society.

    But again, nothing is official yet. Sen. Wyden and the other superdelegates have a chance to make this right by the convention in August.

    <hr/>
in the news

connect with blueoregon