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.

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.

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.

"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...

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

Profile in courange he is!

I agree with trishka.

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.

"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.

Thank you Ron.

Thank you Ron.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.]

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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/>