headermask image

header image

Send a message to Ed Cote and the other WA superdelegates

Supedelegate button
Click above to lobby party officials

Dwight Pelz, Chair of the Washington State Democrats is encouraging Washington residents to send a message to the Washington State Central Committee Superdelegates. Ed Cote, a Vancouver resident, would especially be the delegate for SW Washingtonians to contact and let know which candidate they support and why. There is also a link to send the same message to all six WSCC Superdelegates at one time.

Seattle PI has a story on the WA Superdelegates.

And, after you are done giving them an earful on who to support, how about getting involved in changing the delegate system so that only “the people” determine the nominees and not “the people” along with party and elected officials.

Last 2 posts in 2008 Election

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

4 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)
  1. An Open Letter to the Super Delegates:

    How can anyone in this election fail to recognize that the PEOPLE of the US are rising up and in ONE voice speaking? I dare say it is one of the first times that I can remember so many speaking with one voice, and it is contagious! Not because it is Barack or Hill; No it is more fundamental than that. What is so perplexing to me is that few public officials have recognized the true nature of this movement, the true power of this call for change. Instead I continue to hear rhetoric, and a dismissal as to why what is happening is a “fluke”.

    Wake Up!

    The people of this country are not going to allow business or special interests run this nation any more. The people are tired of working hard and not having anything to show for it. The people want change, and while the politico has addressed this with lip service about change. We continue to see the same tripe come out of DC. FISA and the Economic Stimulus package are two glaring examples of how the special interests and politics as usual have a greater say than the constituents about the course of the country.

    Now here is my point. We have spoken, we are speaking, and we continue to say the same thing; “This is OUR country and we want it to change.”

    I do not think that any man or woman should have more of a say in what is right for me, than that of my own. I continue to hear about Super-D’s saying that they know more than me and have some better judgment as to who should be my chosen president. To those I say “resign”, you have no right. You have obviously convinced yourself that you are better than the rest of us, and those of us that have spoken are just idiots. How dare you talk at me with such arrogance.

    Anyone who pledged their vote before the primary or caucus in their state should remove their pledge and refrain from voting at all. In my opinion you have proven yourself unworthy. Pre-pledging was nothing short of an attempt at un-due influence and is seen by many “common” people as politics as usual. Politics as usual will not win this. Real change will.
    For those that say they will wait and decide based on popular elections I commend you, if you have not pledged your vote then thank you. I am HOPING that these delegates will see that their true responsibility is to cast their vote in reflection of their constituents. Ensuring that the voice of the people is the one reflected.

    Super-D’ are not the solution, and they are not the cure. Super-D’s are a potential cancer that might just spread.

    [reply to this]

    1. Above written by S MorganNo Gravatar on February 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
  2. And furthermore the pledged delegates can switch their candidate choice. Their designation should be changed to unpledged delegates. Got Democracy? Nope

    [reply to this]

    2. Above written by bushtoolNo Gravatar on February 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
  3. I read one super delegate intended to cast his vote for Obama, because he is an “exhilrating” speaker. So was Hitler. Beware the word manipulator.

    We need change. We need to know the hand at the helm has the tenacity, (well displayed by Clinton) and courage and KNOW HOW to initiate changes. Not rehtoric, but actually has been at work.

    Obama was elected to the Senate because his competition was wimpy, and he is charismatic.

    Clinton is substantial, real, not a piece of fluff.

    Clintion as a woman impresses me. Cindy McCain disgusts me.

    Mrs. Obama with her shame to be an American until now is also disgusting.

    Women of America, want to unite behind a strong intellectual and accomplished woman.

    Clinton was working for civil rights in College, when Obama was being raised in another country. What is his American History? What causes did he work for, who does he know?

    If its McCain and Obama, I will feel torn, I want a steady and experienced hand at the helm. I know Clinton has that. I want her.

    I don’t want to abandon the people of Iraq abruptly, ( torn lives, mommys and babys, innocents) I want to get out, I never supported war, but we need a smooth transition, and leave those people with something going on besides sucide bombs.

    We need someone strong to fight terriosim, not someone who speaks well. Mob mentality, rabble rousing. Hitler could do it.

    Speaking well, is not the same as truly working and truly already have displayed grace under pressure. Facing crisis, maintaining dignity, inner strength. She has been through the fire, and he (Obama) is just limp, unknown, and needs to at least get his committe work done, before taking on the challenge of Presidency.

    Please consider these thoughts. Thanks.

    [reply to this]

    bushtoolNo Gravatar reply on March 16, 2008:

    Darla, I’d consider your thoughts if they were based on something called reality rather than opinion, false and misleading propaganda and innuendo.

    [reply to this]

    MattNo Gravatar reply on May 2, 2008:

    Hitler?? Your credibility hit zero with that comparison.

    [reply to this]

    3. Above written by Darla LehmanNo Gravatar on March 6th, 2008 at 6:15 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
  4. With the recent stories being reported about Barack Obama and his connections to this pastor, Mr. Wright, as well as his connections to a known terrorist from the 70’s; no super delegate from this state should back him. Its bad enough that adults attend this church and listen to this kind of hate, but to bring your children up in a church like this is a shame. Mr. Obama has waited 20 years to disagree with the hate Mr. Wright spews? Do you really believe that he wasnt aware of these sermons and never heard one of them? This plays right into Mr. Obama not putting his hand over his heart, wearing an American flag lapel pin, the comments his wife has made among other things. How can any true American of any color support this man? Why these things have not come out before now is beyond me. All of us who believed Mr. Obama have been made to look foolish, and I for one would like to see it stop now.

    [reply to this]

    bushtoolNo Gravatar reply on March 15, 2008:

    Res ipsa loquitur

    [reply to this]

    BethNo Gravatar reply on March 16, 2008:

    20 years later he is going to make excuses? Why? Because he got caught. Too many questions about this man to take a chance on him becoming the leader of this great nation.

    [reply to this]

    bushtoolNo Gravatar reply on March 17, 2008:

    Freedom of Speech and Jeremiah Wright: the lynching of Barack Obama

    [reply to this]

    BethNo Gravatar reply on March 17, 2008:

    Freedom of speech unless you are speaking of Obama? I guess thats where it gets a little hinky for me. Maybe Geraldine Ferraro should have realized that sooner. We should all have the right to freedom of speech, not just the Obama camp. Sorry, they have to do better with their damage control next time. Too little; too late.

    [reply to this]

    bushtoolNo Gravatar reply on March 17, 2008:

    Perhaps Hillary and Obama were both unfairly maligned for the comments of others from which they both have disassociated themselves.

    Likewise, it would seem that in neither case does this therefore in any way disqualify them as lacking the prerequisite qualifications to be president.

    [reply to this]

    BethNo Gravatar reply on March 17, 2008:

    I don’t recall Hillary’s campaign asking him to denounce what Mr. Wright said while Obama’s campaign demanded it.

    Even though Obama has only been in the senate for 2 years, I didn’t question his qualifications. If I were voting simply on the basis of qualifications then my vote would go to McCain, who is now leading them both in most polls.

    [reply to this]

    MariannNo Gravatar reply on March 18, 2008:

    nothing wrong with freedom of speach, I for one am glad its there for us, but just as one has the right to say it, everyone else has the right not to & speak out against it. And no one is lynching Obama, he’s cutting off his own head. Guilt by association, its actually a law. Is Obama above the law? I think not.

    [reply to this]

    4. Above written by BethNo Gravatar on March 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
This post is open for your comments

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*
This site is using OpenAvatar based on

Subscribe without commenting