This helps with party regulars. Good for the two guvs!

I'm not surprised at any Oregon politician endorsing Obama at this point, given his apparent popularity in this state.

What does surprise me is that Kitzhaber would throw in the towel on universal health care.

John

Anybody remember then-gubernatorial candidate John Kitzabher squiring then-First Lady Hillary Clinton around to help him win votes? Hillary was good enough for him at the time. Yes, we're way beyond 1994 and Hillary's old news, I realize. But this Kitzhaber endorsement of Obama isn't inspiring or refreshing. It's depressing for its betrayal and for the sheer hypocrisy and cynicism of all politicians and their campaigns. I'm happy that Kulongoski backs Hillary. As for a Barbara Roberts endorsement,well, she's old news too.

MarBel, so you're saying that because Hillary helped a fellow Democrat in 1994, Kitzhaber owes her undying loyalty, no matter what she or anyone else does in the interim?

And John Mulvey, let's be realistic about the competing health care plans. There is no effective difference among those proposed by Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Wyden, Kitzhaber/Archimedes or any other progressive advocate. That's because any actual legislation will have to survive the brutal Congressional give-and-take that's inevitable. No plan will get proposed and passed without substantial modification.

Do you really think that Hillary as President would nix a plan like Obama's that gets so many more people covered? Do you really think that Obama would resist a truly universal plan, beyond all expectations of what's possible?

The important thing is that these folks all want to move us in the right direction, and McCain doesn't. The important thing is which Democrat has the longest coat tails in order to get as many Ds elected to Congress as possible.

At the moment, that looks like Obama to me, but if Hillary somehow squeaks in, I'm on board.

The Kitzhaber, Roberts and Kulongoski endorsements say something about the candidates. Kitzhaber and Roberts were respected governors and they have endorsed Obama. Kulongoski? No tears will be shed when he leaves and he endorsed Hillary.

Such a compellingly ineffective argument. Trashing the two endorsers for their terrible betrayal, then saying what they did doesn't have any value, importance, or impact anyway. If the endorsement doesn't amount to much, it merits a shrug of the shoulder, not a reaming out for being a traitor to the entire female gender. I haven't heard the word "misogyny", nor been tarred with "being" a misogynist with such frequency, or bitterness in the past three months, as I might have thought possible for an entire lifetime. Simply for not supporting a particular candidate. I think after this election cycle the word may come to mean something other than its current dictionary reference, and instead mean a "refusal to support a female candidate for president when she believes herself entitled to the job because its her turn." Oh the outrage, the injustice...

Bill I think you hit the nailon the head.

Further on the topic of endorsements and misogyny: Elton John in his endorsement of Hillary tells all of the rest of us misogynists who don't support Hillary- .. to hell with you!

"I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I'll be there for you."- Elton John at the fundraiser for HRC.

I'm sure she takes great comfort in this. .. Whoops! Not supposed to be damning Americans these days...

I'm really surprised by the Roberts endorsement. She not only is one of the most determined advocates for women in politics that I know, but she also normally supports candidates that have worked their way to the top. Not to say Obama hasn't worked his way up, but Clinton has just worked longer to get to where she is now.

How did Clinton work longer? By marrying Bill?

"I'm really surprised by the Roberts endorsement. She not only is one of the most determined advocates for women in politics that I know, but she also normally supports candidates that have worked their way to the top. "

I have known Barbara Roberts since before she was Gov. She makes up her own mind and generally has very good reasons for whatever she does.

Two things:

1. No shock here. Both Kitzhaker and Roberts would have shocked me had they NOT endorsed Obama.
2. Roberts was actually a super in 2004. Specifically, she was our "Add on Delegate" (a delegate awarded to the winner of the primary who is technically unpledged).

What does surprise me is that Kitzhaber would throw in the towel on universal health care.

John

Agreed. Really does suck that Senator Clinton refuses to support it.

Get real. Congress will come up with the healthcare plan and Obama will sign it. Obama has longer coat tails so that hopefully we get more and better Democrats to put the plan together. Clinton is not interested in building the party.

I'm really surprised by the Roberts endorsement. She not only is one of the most determined advocates for women in politics that I know, but she also normally supports candidates that have worked their way to the top. Not to say Obama hasn't worked his way up, but Clinton has just worked longer to get to where she is now

As a woman, it doesn't surprise me in the least. A warmonger for the first woman President? (shudder) She'll send my sons to Iran in her carpetbagging New York minute.

As a woman, it doesn't surprise me in the least. A warmonger for the first woman President? (shudder) She'll send my sons to Iran in her carpetbagging New York minute.

Ummm...no she won't. I'm not a supporter and if you question this feel free to find old comments of mine. John McCain is a warmonger and he will send your songs to bomb bomb bomb Iran in a carpetbagging Arizona minute...oh wait his Stepford wife just called it to say he lived in Arizona for years before he ran for Senate there. So dear backbeat12...don't confuse your candidate.

Just one further comment on the loyalty thing. If you want to follow that argument to its logical and horrendous conclusion, just look at the Third Reich. There comes a time when personal conscience trumps loyalty.

Regarding Iran, Clinton's solid support for the Kyle/Lieberman Amendment, giving the Bush administration a legal basis for attacking Iran, gives me no solace at all that Clinton would not do likewise.

Regarding her nomination chances at this point, a win through SDs, we're going to see more coalescence around an Obama nomination in the days ahead by party leaders like Roberts and Kitzhaber. Here's a good article on Clinton's impossible math from Slate mag.: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/10/the-superdelegate-wall.aspx

Bet they wish they hadn't done that..NYT article, april 10, Obama reveals in speech his prevoiusly undisclosed connection to his time in Pakistan, not disclosed in his books-probably because he knew this story was going to break and wanted to mitigate it by telling it first...I'm willing to bet, whomever was taking a peek at his passport discovered it...CIA????...The article said the news of the speech was sweeping across the web..read it and make up your own mind..Hillary picks up 3 superdelagates-and you can expect an onslaught after this

It's not a question of loyalty. Listening to Roberts on KPOJ this morning talking with Thom Hartman, she said various things such as (I paraphrase, wish I had the exact quotes): - this is not an attack or question on HRC's fitness, but rather an approval of who she believes would make the best candidate - she will gladly lend her full support behind HRC should the latter win the nomination

Why does she think Obama would be a better candidate? She talked of the need for diplomacy to heal the rifts between the US and our neighbors and the need to talk to all our neighbors, friends and enemies alike. Her confidence in Obama's ability to do this was one of her stated main reasons. She's also been impressed with the manner in which he has handled the pressure and attacks during this campaign.

I am reporting what I recall hearing. Since I was driving, I couldn't write it down. Also, I am reporting what I heard which may or may not mirror what I believe.

I do agree with Roberts, however, that we have two excellent candidates, and I will happily support whomever receives the nomination. -tl

Sandra: "Bet they wish they hadn't done that..NYT article, april 10, Obama reveals in speech his prevoiusly undisclosed connection to his time in Pakistan, not disclosed in his books-probably because he knew this story was going to break and wanted to mitigate it by telling it first."

<hr/>

Yeah, I'll bet Kitz and Roberts are just shaking in their boots now. And that Pakistan thing.. he was probably secretly training in a terrorist camp. Everyone knows he is a secret Muslim, a Manchurian candidate who is plotting to make us all Muslims. And .. his real name is "Osama." The training they give at HRC campaign school is just doing great things for you.

It must be a sad day for you Bill R-Losing delegates to Hillary AND the breaking news about Obamas 3 week stay in Pakistan with the family of his college roomate, wahid hamid karach..Do you want to tell me WHY he left this particular 3 weeks out of his books-when he described that trip in detail-with the exception of those 3 weeks? if it was innocent wouldn't haveit been mentioned in one of his books or campaign speechs? If you have omitted it from the details of that trip, wouldn't it raise alot of eyebrows and questions? maybe that is why Colin Powell would not give him his endorsement-maybe he is waiting for those questions to be answered, I guess if he was ther for training in a "camp" he would certainly have experience no other candidate has.....

So what, Clinton loses a couple of SD endorsements, big though they may be -- the race hasn't ended, much to the dismay of many. There’s no need to attack anyone, either the former or current Governor’s. I don't believe anyone can predict what will happen in Denver or the time period between now and then. I am enthused about the possibilities for our Party. I was at a Democratic Candidates forum last night and -- miracle of miracles, everyone was completely civilized, even people running against one another.

Disagreement and discourse are healthy and promote new ideas to float to the top, among other things. However, all this constant backbiting is doing nothing but cutting us to pieces and delighting the GOP.

Things such as "The training they give at HRC campaign school is just doing great things for you" is inane and silly. It’s just plain untrue as well. I am free to speak for the campaign if called upon, in my own voice, not some robotic voice emanating from "HRC Campaign School". I don't agree with HRC 100% -- it's not a requirement to participate in her campaign. I wonder if the same is true in the Obama campaign. Can one disagree with his vote on the Energy Act and still have a strong voice in the campaign? It appears to me that everyone is on message 100% of the time. Strange to witness… I imagine he made that vote based on his sincere opinion it was the best bill coming out of this administration and that it was a good bill (according to the press release). Hillary disagreed and voted against it when she balanced the bill’s strengths and weaknesses. The same comparison can be drawn on the war vote.

Many of you will say rightly that 4025+ have died in the war and I agree. I was against the war from the outset, I protested against it, I wrote letter after letter against it…but many people in both Houses voted to give the President that power if all else failed. I didn’t agree with that decision. That said, I strongly believe Senator Clinton is by far the best candidate to lead us out of the quagmire that is Iraq, get us back on track in Afghanistan and restore our credibility in the world at large. But please know as well that the Energy Act of 2005 is as deadly to our environment and ultimately to as many American’s lives as the wars will be in the long run. The large-scale giveaways to the energy companies, the continuing reliance on fossil fuels, the spoiling of our natural habitats for short-term, ill conceived technologies such as LNG, which I know, I know, both candidates now support rolling back the Siting Authority to the State’s, but let’s not lose track of the fact that on balance, the bill should not have been signed into law as it was written, especially in the manner it was put together with the majority of the consultation coming directly from the energy companies. The best evidence of this is the price we pay for gas now and the record profits the oil companies have reaped over the last 4 years.

The questions in this Presidential Primary are not about the past, although of course they factor into how to predict the manner in which a candidate will react in the future – Still, for me, it boils down to WHO CAN BEST LEAD US OUT OF THE MESS THE COUNTRY IS IN RIGHT NOW? Not in the future, but at this moment in history. I believe Senator Obama will be a strong leader in the future but to equate his experience in the Illinois Legislature as equivalent to the US Senate is a stretch and that’s putting it mildly.

Lastly, I will close with my usual missive – I will support the Candidate endorsed by our Party. And in my opinion, so should everyone else who dares to call themselves democrats. I am not a “Conditional Democrat”. It is my hope that the participants on BlueOregon’s blogs feel the same way.

Ohhhhhhh, he went to Pakistan. I'm so troubled about anyone who might seek to interact with another culture. Boy, do I regret my trip to Mostar, Bosnia in 2006. I wonder how that could be turned against me later in life. Beautiful bridge though.

Personally, I'd rather have a presidential nominee who had traveled to many of the more troubled spots in the world. It beats the hell out of the current occupant who barely made it across the Rio Grande prior to his presidency.

Travel often, travel widely.

This morning I heard that Hillary is trying to make a big deal out of Obama saying people who have been financially struggling for a long time are bitter. Not a new point--seems to me he said around the time he was elected that S. Illinois is as Republican as southern states just as the rest of Illinois is solidly Democratic. As I recall, he carried counties Bush carried. He said something like "jobs are scarce if they are laid off, it seems like their world is falling apart, and about all they can do to get away from that is to keep the tradition of going out hunting with relatives and friends like their Dad did"--an explanation of why working class men would vote for pro-gun Republicans rather than Democrats who had their economic interests at heart.

Hmmm. The woman who worked for a major law firm and was on at least one corporate board says anyone who would make such a remark is "elitist". Obama's background is in community organizing, but he has no clue about financial struggles of working people?

For many years (incl. most of the 1990s) I worked weekends as a retail product demonstrator while being a substitute teacher during the week. One of my fellow demonstrators used to get really annoyed at anyone (esp. someone famous/making a good living) who would pontificate like that. He'd say "Let them try my life for a day and see if they survive it, much less tell the rest of us what to think".

First Hillary criticized the audacity of hope and then she says all working people are optimistic and only an elitist would say they are bitter??

Sounds like someone afraid of losing and lashing out at anything.

Personally, I'd rather have a presidential nominee who had traveled to many of the more troubled spots in the world. It beats the hell out of the current occupant who barely made it across the Rio Grande prior to his presidency.

I understand Dubya's pre-presidential campaign foreign travel was limited to a brief visit to Paris and a few visits to Mexico. The advantage of limited involvement with foreigners is that it helps people to keep their minds locked into parochial positions so they don't get confused by concepts such as people living in other nations might also be human beings with similar desires for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On the pro side of my Obama ledger is that fact that he has lived for extended periods outside of the United States.

I am guessing you have neither read his speech in San fran given to a group of wealthy donors or seen the video, because in the speech, where he said,"small town people were bitter from being left behind for 25 years, and so turned to their guns and religion, Zenophobia, immigrant hating,and Nafta hating--he also quiently dropped the remark about his time in Pakistan in 1981. There is such a hullabaloo on the internet that the Huff post which broke the story crashed about 1:30 am, and the story broke late in the day, when it went down there were already 3,259 posts, and it was hot and heavy, "small town" america was making there voice heard-it was breaking everywhere-as usual the news is way behind it. Now they are describing polls "as before his insult to america" and i guess we will know more after Penn votes. Seems like there are a lot of small town folks in Indiana too, as well as Oregon that are Bitter, bible thumping, gun toters,yes that is my rendition of his statement, but add that to your typical white american, and i think i see a pattern....This am there were over 5,000 posts and about 3 other stories on the site relating to it that had picked up 300 on each. I think its news...Pajamas, Hot Air ect...

"small town people were bitter from being left behind for 25 years, and so turned to their guns and religion, Zenophobia, immigrant hating,and Nafta hating" is not what is shown on TV--where's the link to those exact remarks?

All kinds of politicians say things which strike some people the wrong way.

But the essense of what Obama was trying to say still goes. How do you think OCA was powerful for so long? How do you think Measure 36 passed, Minnis and Scott stayed in power for so long?

Truth is, not every voter is employed full time with health insurance, and some people who would love to work full time (yes, including some college graduates) end up working in retail, or as nurse's aides, or in multiple party time positions.

And to describe all those people as optimistic rather than bitter because their faith keeps them optimistic (what I just saw Hillary saying on TV) does not describe the folks I have worked with in retail and other unsung, hard working, often low paid occupations.

The difference I see between Obama is in the way they see the problem-He looks at those out of work people in small towns and he "sees Bitter people-she sees those same people and sees them-as frustrated, her words in nyt article. This is my observation-Obama sees those peoplin that town of Penn, as areflection of the way Black people react to that same situation-they are bitter, they turn to their religion, are anti immigration, zenophobs,gun toting,blame everyone. Its not semantics-there is a real differance between being bitter and being frustrated-heck I know bitter people and they are bitter about everything-their exes, their job-if the sun comes up or it rains they are just plain bitter-and they are rich-so i am not buying bitterness as a natural reaction to a lesser quality of life-frustration, anger yes,but I see people who have a lot less than me who are optomistic, and they are not woeisme people. they keep chipping away at it. Bottom line is I think he is projecting the way black america sees hardship in america onto the way white amer. sees it-and don't even think about calling me racist,I marched for civil rights in the good ole days

OK, so that we don't get bogged down in debating the differences in definition between "bitter" and "frustrated", when Republicans ran the House they wanted to examine the pay package of every unionized public employee with a microscope, but management on the public payroll (agency heads, school administrators, etc.), now that was a different thing.

Maybe we can define the difference between bitter and frustrated by defining the reactions to this show of sheer arrogance by Dennis Richardson and the comments about it on BO:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/representative_.html

<h2>Are the people who are angry at Richardson being bitter, frustrated, just plain angry, or what?</h2>