Oregon Superdelegate Meredith Wood Smith for Obama
In today's Oregonian, Oregon's Democratic Party Chair Meredith Wood Smith announced she would be backing Barack Obama for President.
Why Obama? Because he received the majority of the votes in the Oregon primary, and he demonstrates the leadership needed to get us out of Iraq, restore our economy, begin the tough job of providing health care for all Americans and, most of all, heal the divisions in our nation.
His commitment to grass-roots organizing, similar to Howard Dean's "Fifty State Strategy," will help Democrats win our down-ticket races. His deep understanding of our Constitution ensures that he will appoint judges, to both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, who will truly defend our constitutional rights and freedoms.
In 1960, I was too young to vote, but I was so inspired by John F. Kennedy that I worked on his campaign and continue to be motivated by his legacy of social and civic responsibility. He is one of the reasons I became chairwoman of Oregon's Democratic Party. I believe that Obama is providing that same inspiration for our next generation of leaders.
Finally, the contrast between Obama and Sen. John McCain could not be clearer. On bringing troops home from Iraq. On commitment to our Constitution. On telling the American people the truth. Obama has the ability to build -- not just talk about -- a governing majority to actually solve the major challenges facing America.
Read her full statement here. Meredith Wood Smith is the seventh superdelegate to announce. She joins Representatives Earl Blumenauer, David Wu, and Peter DeFazio as well as DNC Committeewoman Jenny Greenleaf in support of Obama. Governor Ted Kulongoski and Rep. Darlene Hooley back Clinton.
The remaining undecided superdelegates are: DPO Vice-Chair Frank Dixon, DNC Committeeman Wayne Kinney, Gail Rasmussen, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, and Senator Ron Wyden.
Discuss.
|
May 28, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 28, '08
What will "Johnny Gnosis" have to say about this?
9:43 a.m.
May 28, '08
HAHAHAHA! Good one, Katy.
For everyone else, here's what Johnny Gnosis said last week:
What a dipshit.
May 28, '08
Now, that's leadership. Come on the rest of you Oregon Superdelegates.
May 28, '08
Meredith, thank you so very much. Indeed, Obama cares about all states and territories. Thanks for all that you do.
10:15 a.m.
May 28, '08
This is a classy statement--all about the positive and the future. Well done.
May 28, '08
C'mon, that's leadership? Waiting to see what a vote is to publicly confirm who you voted for a week earlier is not leadership.
11:03 a.m.
May 28, '08
I would also like to thank Meredeth, not just for her vote, but for her continuing leadership at the head of the DPO.
I know this decision wasn't easy for her. Both candidates in the race have a compelling story.
May 28, '08
The SuperDelegates must feel pretty good knowing their votes count much more than your average voter. A real Elitist system, designed by the entitled. Is that how "universal healthcare" will work? You bet. One system of healthcare for the party elite and one for the rest of us.
May 28, '08
Okay, who leaked the plan to Leo? (Don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to infiltrate the party elite to get some of those sweet health care perks.)
11:41 a.m.
May 28, '08
Thank you.
May 28, '08
As a biased observer, I think Meredith made the right call by waiting until after Oregon voters voted.
At a Debate Club/Brewhaha/Bus Presents recently, there was an interesting debate/straw poll about whether automatic delegates should vote their conscience, vote their State's preference, or vote the national party preference. There was no consensus -- indeed, the room was almost evenly split among the three options. And for an elected representative of the Party, deferring (at least in terms of announcement date) to the State's first-relevant-presidential-primary vote-in-40-years (the "FRPPVIFY") seems mildly Solomonic.
As for my fellow grassroots adherents and the question of whether automatic delegates should be scrapped (or at least the system, if the delategates themsleves), normally my grassroots leanings might suggest that this "elitist" system is crap. But to me the question is much closer.
Automatic delegate votes will be dispositive only in the case of an essential tie, in the context of many different voting systems (open or closed primaries, caucus or regular balloting, special election or common primary, different dates, etc.) and methods of selecting delegates. And what's the best way to break ties? I don't know if it's elitist to suggest that elected representatives of the Party should step in and help resolve those near-ties.
I'm prepared to say the popular vote version smacks more democratic. But I'm not ready to cast aspersions too stringently or stridently. In the modern world of campaign finance, I'm not so sure the alternative isn't pretty elitist, and I'm not confidently sure of what system would be most likely to produce publicly-interested, bottom-up results, or what process would pick the best nominee (queue Doris Kearns Goodwin and Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" here).
Anyway, cheers Meredith.
Unity's not just a river in Egypt. I mean....
12:05 p.m.
May 28, '08
I still say that having unpledged delegates allows the party to fend off bogus legal challenges in a close election. Can you imagine today's situation with Michigan and Florida, in which a single judge knew that he or she was effectively choosing our nominee?
No, I much prefer out current system, warts and all. Because, among other things, I know our party leaders, and trust them not to abuse their authority.
They're all progressive Democrats. Don't pretend they're neocon Republicans.
May 28, '08
Meredith and I have found ourselves on opposite sides in some cases, but we are good friends and allowed to disagree. Some time back knowing the pressure being put on the super delegates I told her that she was Baker Co's choice for Chair and that I trusted her judgement to be based on good thinking. While her choice pleases me, I would defend her regardless of whether it had matched my preference.
May 28, '08
our democratic leaders are all progressives? Good one. Tell that to Steny Hoyer. If leadership were progressive, we'd be out of Iraq, military commissions would have failed, and telcos would not be under consideration for immunity.
Our leadership are scared centrists.
May 28, '08
Jefferson,
Interesting use of "automatic delegates" (three times, no less!). It's the favored phrase of Clinton supporters, not so much Obama's and has me wondering if automatic delegate vs superdelegate is something like astronaut vs cosmonaut.
Would be presumptuous of me to read too much into it, though.
Now if Bill would just endorse! (I know....after June 3rd).
May 28, '08
Just another Democratic sheeple. Before it was the Pubs, not it's the Dems. The truth is we'll be in Iraq for a very long time no matter who is President. So, why is Obama lying about it?
May 28, '08
TJ: I think TA meant Oregon's Party leaders (and I read it to mean Party-qua-Party...that is, Jenny Greenleaf as distinct from Ted Kulongoski...or Howard Dean or Steny Hoyer).
Eric: hadn't noticed the clearish split in usage...I used "automatic" to be mildly offbeat perhaps, and because it's at least as descriptive as "super." Also, my impression is that "super" is the press-granted moniker, rather than what the Party calls itself. For instance, the press might call me "Blonde B*stard," but I'm still going by "Jefferson" or even "Jeff," and would hope my friends might do likewise (although I would expect many of the sensible ones to use the aforementioned press-granted-moniker).
Love the cosmonaut reference though (black-helicopter-owning-troll alert: I prefer astronauts to cosmonauts, and am prepared to sign a loyalty oath to that effect).
1:24 p.m.
May 28, '08
Thank you, Meredith.
1:24 p.m.
May 28, '08
torridjoe: If leadership were progressive, we'd be out of Iraq, military commissions would have failed, and telcos would not be under consideration for immunity.
Mark, please don't pretend that you speak for progressive Democrats. It's pretty damned arrogant of you. You're not even a Democrat yourself.
I've likened the current situation in Iraq to a hostage situation: if the House used the only arrow in its quiver against Bush - withholding funds - he's just arrogant, evil, and stupid enough to order the troops to remain in Iraq in an increasingly unsafe situation to be able to grandstand on it. Believe it or not, Mark, some progressives don't think we should be playing chicken with the lives of our troops. Not tens of thousands of them.
Again, you can spend a lot of time wishing progressive Democrats were less "scared" of public sentiment. You can pretend that public concerns for the safety of the troops doesn't really matter, that our overwhelmingly right wing dominated media wouldn't immediately seize upon the issue to pretend that Democrats are unpatriotic, or that this wouldn't affect the behavior of low info voters who still harbor racist and sexist sentiments. You can also wish for a pony. But that doesn't mean that progressives who recognize political reality are corrupt like neocons are.
1:26 p.m.
May 28, '08
As an Obama supporter I am, of course, pleased with Meredith's decision. I believe it was appropriate for her and the party officials to wait until after the election and to factor in the decision of Oregonians while keeping open what is best for the party nationally. The others, that's you Frank, Wayne, and Gail, now need to get off the dime and announce.
My only problem with the super delegate thing is where some of them have voted out of loyalty for past favors from the Clintons or whomever had the power to hand out favors. Obama hasn't been around enough for that. I think that most of super delegates have voted for better reasons, but 100 delegates were signed on before the primaries started and that is not right.
1:43 p.m.
May 28, '08
"Mark, please don't pretend that you speak for progressive Democrats. It's pretty damned arrogant of you. You're not even a Democrat yourself."
What is the bizarre resistance you have to referring to me as torridjoe? Do you think you're exposing something?
It's even more damned arrogant for you to keep saying I'm not when I am. In any case, I'm speaking for progressives, of which I definitely am one. The Democratic leadership is not progressive by any stretch of the imagination--unless you were born after 1980.
This is an absurdism with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Without funding there is no war, and the President cannot change that.
Ah, the "let's continue to be scared of stupdity" argument. The right wing dominated media has tried this three times in three elections this year. They have failed every time.
The public IS concerned for troops' safety, which is why a majority of them would like to begin bringing them from harm's way immediately.
We have a craven and cowardly leadership. But beyond that, none of this reply from you responds to the point that it is not a group of progressives. All you do is argue the same position as the worried centrists, you don't establish their progressive bonafides. In fact, you validate their lack of them.
2:02 p.m.
May 28, '08
It's a little distressing that idiots like TJ continue to conflate local dem party leadership with the Third Way bastids we've all been fighting for at least the past five or six years.
During that time period, we've had our own little bloodless revolution right here in Oregon, as Deaniacs have infiltrated key party positions and the Dean 50 state strategy is being pushed by those Oregon leaders locally as the 36 county strategy.
To dismiss our local party leadership as being in the same ideological boat as Hoyer, Schumer, et. al., is to disrespect the efforts of thousands of state Dems who have decided to roll yup their sleeves and prompote progressive ideals and leadership.
Meredith Wood Smith is the de facto leader of that group within our state. Purity trolls have their role, but they are way off base when they attack our own new leadership, because they're too ognorant or intellectually lazy to have seen and acknowledged our efforts.
<hr/>Meredith, you played this game exactly as I would have wished, and I thank you (and our other party kidz) for having had the sand to put up with all of the pressure, threats, and disrespect until such time as you deemed appropriate to declare.
May 28, '08
They're all progressive Democrats
:lol:
2:46 p.m.
May 28, '08
what the fuck, pat? Who on earth gave you the idea we're talking about local dems? Since when is Steny Hoyer local?
Perhaps you should redirect the 'idiot' insult towards the person who thinks Iraq policy is made in Oregon...
May 28, '08
Torridjoe: Calling you Mark is an example of the "PowerWord: IRL Name" Internet argument tactic.
3:28 p.m.
May 28, '08
It's pointless to argue any substantive issue with an eye toward any change in your positions TJ. It ain't gonna happen. We've all seen how you define discourse.
All of us are able to read this very short thread and to discern what Steve was saying, how you replied, and my comments regarding your take.
I'll let readers make up their own minds, as it would be useless to imagine that you would ever concede any point at any time, to anyone.
4:19 p.m.
May 28, '08
pat, you do understand you are empirically and objectively wrong, right? It's not a matter of positions or opinions. Steve and I were quite clearly discussing national Dem leadership. Your attack had neither merit nor relevance. But you go on ahead and propagate your version of reality, where you know what I'm talking about but apparently I don't.
And apparently you define discourse as being personally insulting.
May 28, '08
I think Meredith handled this perfectly by waiting until after the primary and then supporting Obama because Oregon supported Obama. Given the absurd role that the Democratic party has given to superdelegates, this is the correct way for a party official to return that power to where it belongs.
Automatic delegate votes will be dispositive only in the case of an essential tie. . . . And what's the best way to break ties? I don't know if it's elitist to suggest that elected representatives of the Party should step in and help resolve those near-ties.
First, Jefferson, please stop calling them automatic delegates. It's a clear effort to spin as reasonable what is otherwise indefensible. Superdelegates is the accepted term, and has been since long before this election.
Second, what is an "essential tie"? Depending on the exact count, Obama has at least 10% more delegates than Clinton. In most elections, 10% is a landslide. What's troubling to some of us Democrats is that the system is designed to throw the election to the superdelegates if it's remotely "close". If my math is right, a candidate would have to win over 62% of all pledged delegates in order to secure the nomination WITHOUT superdelegates. Thus, the Democratic party has decided that any nomination fight that is even kind of/sort of close will be decided by superdelegates.
It doesn't have to be that way. All delegates could be pledged, in which case the first candidate to get the majority is the nominee. There would never be a "tie" in such a case. The relevant question is whether a truly close race that is decided by a few dozen pledged delegates is somehow more divisive than a race where superdelegates overturn the will of regular old party members. I can't see how it would be.
Under a truly democratic nominating system, the battle would have been over a few weeks ago, and Obama could spend millions campaigning against McCain instead of setting up shop in Puerto Rico. The current system has allowed Clinton to hold onto a glimmer of hope that the superdelegates would overturn the will of the party.
Thankfully they haven't. But the fact that they have the power to do so should be troubling to all of us.
4:30 p.m.
May 28, '08
torridjoe: The Democratic leadership is not progressive by any stretch of the imagination
Nanci Pelosi, (D) San Francisco, isn't progressive.... Neither is Ron Wyden. Or Ted Kennedy. Yeah, yeah. And in Freeperland and LGF, FOX is the only "Fair and Balanced" media. Thanks for proving there are people as divorced from reality on the left as there are on the right.
Again, there are dozens of extremely good reasons why our national leadership has been playing footsie with the DLC and BlueDogs. The #1 being: they HAVE to, to do any good at all. But just because your hometown team can't win every single game, it doesn't mean they're not trying. And that's ESPECIALLY true when you're talking about our local leadership.
Insofar as your contention that the public wants the troops home, you are of course right. They want Bush to bring them home. But polls have equally shown that they don't want Democrats to turn our troops into a political football. What, do you think our elected representatives are so stupid, they don't keep track of what constituents want?
The real problem you have, "TJ", is that you're projecting your dislike of your fellow citizens onto the representatives who are simply doing the job of, well, representing them. Not at all unlike that HRC supporter who whined "Use some independent judgment" to Jenny Greenleaf when she said the people have spoken "and I have listened".
4:51 p.m.
May 28, '08
Eric Ramon:
A lot of us use automatic delegates instead of super delegates. Super delegate is a phrase used by the media - there is actually no such thing. The phrase used by the DNC is Unpledged Party Leader and Elected Official Delegates.
May 28, '08
Nice going, Meredith!
On the secondary tangent, I actually agree with TJ here. I don't think there is much doubt that the national party dem leaders have been remarkably ineffective since taking over the majority and the one wildcard they had, impeachment, was publicly taken off the table at essentially the moment they took power.
We definitely need new leadership in congress next year.
5:17 p.m.
May 28, '08
Welcome aboard, Meredith!
Super vs. automatic: Those of us who are what has been termed "superdelegates" by the media are vaguely uncomfortable with the term. I don't feel all that "super" and it sounds silly and I feel like I should be wearing a shirt with an "S" on my chest.
You can call it a Clinton frame if you want, but I know Meredith started using "automatic" because it doesn't sound as elitist as "superdelegate." I tried to use it myself as much as possible, but the media had drilled superdelegate into my head so far that it was difficult to remember to say "automatic."
5:22 p.m.
May 28, '08
automatic is actually most descriptive, since they're automatically delegates.
Steven, I double-checked, but it may surprise you that neither Wyden nor Kennedy are Dem Leadership. In the Senate it's Reid, Durbin and Schumer. You can add Dorgan and Murray (and I'd give you patty as progressive), but usually only those three get mentioned. In the House you got Pelosi, the others are Hoyer, Emanuel and whatshisface from SC. those are not progressives.
I don't know what you mean about them being cowardly because they have to be to get things done. What have they gotten done butfund 2 yrs of war, eliminate habeas and other delights? Don't want the war to continue? Stop paying. Don't want telco immunity? Don't write a new FISA bill.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see you apologize for safe centrism.
6:25 p.m.
May 28, '08
Doesn't she spell her name Meredeth? Anyway, thanks.
Steve M., I don't have time to go into it now because I have to go to an anti-war meeting, but while I think there is something to what you are saying, I also think that there were ways (actually may still be if Bush lives up to his threat to veto a war funding supplemental with domestic spending in it) to fight tougher over the war spending to expose that it is Bush who is playing politics with it, to override the will of the people, without "playing chicken."
Pelosi of course is a progressive. But the scheme she concocted for this most recent supplemental was designed to look like doing more to oppose the war than it really was, to provide political cover for herself and others, rather than to actually oppose the war. I don't like it and I think she's failing her own values as well as the people, progressives included but not exclusively. If she put the same energy into being clever about opposing the war as she has into being clever about looking like she's opposing the war, it would give us stronger ground on which to fight that issue against McCain.
Will try to come back to that later, here or elsewhere.
May 28, '08
I know Meredith started using "automatic" because it doesn't sound as elitist as "superdelegate."
Which of course doesn't actually make it any less elitist. But it sure sounds better!
There is nothing inaccurate about the term "superdelegate". In fact, it's more descriptive since these unpledged delegates have the power to overturn the popular will of Democratic voters, which pledged delegates do not. (I'm aware that pledged delegates can technically vote for whomever they wish, but practically that is not the case.)
The spin inherent in the term "automatic" is a clear reflection that the party is uncomfortable with the actual role that the superdelegates play, and they're trying to put a smiley face on it.
8:32 p.m.
May 28, '08
this was no surprise to me. given Meredith's support of the Dean 50-state plan and the DPO's grassroots-oriented efforts, i was certain she would support the candidate whose entire effort could be described as "Dean 2.0" as opposed to to the one who thought old-style power politics would crush all opposition by Feb 5th.
nonetheless, it's good to hear her say it at last. and Brother Wayne Kinney as well.
8:38 p.m.
May 28, '08
For the record: When I was in my first term as a DNC member in 2004, and working with Meredith on the delegate selection plan for Boston, I used the word "automatic," to describe those types of delegates, and it was used in the training materials that year.
I never heard the word "superdelegate" until January.
I've never felt particularly super. After all, I announced this spring that I would declare for the candidate who offered me Secretary of Baseball, and I didn't get one offer.
8:40 p.m.
May 28, '08
For the record: When I was in my first term as a DNC member in 2004, and working with Meredith on the delegate selection plan for Boston, I used the word "automatic," to describe those types of delegates, and it was used in the training materials that year.
I never heard the word "superdelegate" until January.
I've never felt particularly super. After all, I announced this spring that I would declare for the candidate who offered me Secretary of Baseball, and I didn't get one offer.
May 28, '08
At least you know how to double post, Wayne!
I think George W. has that Secretary of Baseball job in mind for himself...
9:42 p.m.
May 28, '08
When that happens, I have no idea how I did it. I'm pretty sure I'm not hitting the button twice.
I am not the person that the DPO looks to for technical advice. In fact, if the DPO starts a Luddite Caucus, I'll fit right in.
10:17 a.m.
May 29, '08
Thanks Meredith. I'm glad to see your thoughtful, friendly leadership shining through yet again.
May 29, '08
"Super Delegates is the accepted term." Ahh, how we do allow the media to control our minds. "Automatic delegate" is the exact term in the only authoritative document; the written rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Where some people have glommed onto the idea that it's some kind of shibolethic mantra (if I can coin a term) revealing one's support for Clinton is a mystery to me! Meredith has from day one resisted being called "super," because of the implication that it somehow makes her somehow better, or more important, than all the other delegates who will be sent to Denver -- all of whom will have exactly the same vote she will have, one. We therefore use the correct term in our family, regardless of the willingness of so many to join the flock shepherded by the national media.
10:09 a.m.
May 30, '08
No disrespect to Meredith, but the super delegates are not equal to regular delegates. The hold their status ex-officio, not due to election by the voters to be delegates, and they have a freedom to choose for whom to vote that the other delegates do not.
The claim that because someone has been elected to office that makes him or her an elected delegate is an intellectually dishonest sleight of hand. When people voted for Ted Kulongoski to be governor they were not voting for him to be a delegate to the Democratic national convention, or at least, they were not aware that they were doing so and it entered very little into reasons to vote for him or not. Also, he was not chosen only by Democrats, which in Oregon and other closed primary or caucus states puts him on a very different footing from other delegates.
Members of the DNC are chosen by several methods I believe, in essence by self-selected party activists and possibly by elected officials. I suppose the actual individual pledged delegates also are chosen by a set of self-selected party activists; but they remain more restricted by their pledge.
There are arguments that can be made for having elected officials have convention votes and for having persons who are representatives of party activists and officials having convention votes; Steve Maurer has made a number of them quite ably. But they are not the same and they are not equal, but have superior power to ordinary delegates.
That does not make them bad people or mean they have sought out illegitimate power for bad reasons. But they are different and have more power, and the question is whether having that kind of distinction is a good thing for the party or not; with a subsidiary question of whether the particular current mix is a good one if we do want to have a mix.
In some respects, particularly with the elected officials, it is questionable to me to even call them delegates.
Jun 4, '08
Hillary is the RIGHT kind of change to lead this country. If the super delegates choose Obama, it's political suicide for the democratic party. Whatever happened to democracy? The last time I checked, Hillary has the popular vote. She should get the nomination hands down. Obama is just too liberal for my liking. I'll just have to switch parties and pull the lever for McCain. Hopefully, you super delegates will come to your senses before it's too late.
Jun 4, '08
"Hillary is the RIGHT kind of change to lead this country. If the super delegates choose Obama, it's political suicide for the democratic party. Whatever happened to democracy?"
HRC's problem isn't democracy, it's her distorted view of entitlement. In her world, she feels that having the first woman in the White House supercedes having the first African-American in the same position. She is being uptight and stubborn because she got suprised by the popularity of Obama - in other words, she is acting like a spoiled 6 year-old that didn't get her way and she is throwing a huge fit over it. Its time to take take your toys and leave...