Just how much is a political endorsement worth if the person who gives it doesn't stand behind his or her word and wobbles instead?

In the case of superdelegate and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew of Indiana, not much, particularly since he was against superdelegates selecting the party's presidential nominee before he was, apparently, for it.

On November 18, 2007, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced the endorsement by Andrew, who served 1999-2001, during the Clinton administration, as the youngest DNC chair in party history:

"Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to compete and win across this country," Andrew said. "I have seen up close her intellect, character, and fortitude, and I am convinced she is the best prepared to handle these challenging times. Her 35-year record fighting for America's families is as impressive as she is, and demonstrates why she will be a great President of the United States."

However, on May 1, 2008, the Associated Press reported that Andrew had officially wobbled and "switched his allegiance" to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

My blog RezkoWatch appears to currently be on a roll with concidences involving tainted campaign cash, indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and that now-famous "Rezko" lot.

The most recent episode begins on March 14, 2008, when Obama released a new list of Rezko-related campaign contributors whose money had been donated to charity. It cites one $2,000 donation by Michael Sreenan that was contributed to Obama's campaign on June 30, 2003.

A couple days ago, Mike Pridmore posted the most-excellent diary Obama's red phone is based on lies here at MyDD. It included Lie number 3: Opposing the war was politically risky for Senator Obama, which began with "First, it needs to be pointed out that Senator Obama did not develop a national profile of opposition to the Iraq War."

Actually, except for the October 2002 speech he made at an antiwar rally at downtown Chicago's Federal Plaza, during his 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, no other evidence has been produced supporting Obama's alleged continuous opposition to the war in Iraq.

Yes. It is another diary about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on plagiarism.

No. It's not simply a copycat or another cookie-cutter version of a Deval Patrick or John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton speech.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for"

Where, oh, where have we heard this before? (See the YouTube video here.)

Regular, voted-for delegates are pledged to support their candidate at the Democratic National Convention. Super-delegates are not. In fact, even if they have expressed a preference, they can change their minds.

Jake Tapper reported the following February 8, 2008, at ABC News' Political Punch blog

Obama this week warned Super-delegates to vote the way their states have voted, "if this contest comes down to super-delegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those super-delegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination." Obama suggested "the argument we would be making to super-delegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then I think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty important when it comes to the general election."

CNN's Jim Acosta reported "Clinton's lead grows when superdelegates are counted: Clinton has collected 193 to Obama's 106."

CanWest wrote February 7, 2008

But the buzz among Democratic activists was over the growing possibility Mr. Obama could triumph in the race for pledged delegates awarded in the state-by-state primaries, but ultimately lose to Ms. Clinton if she wins the support of more super-delegates. These include party officials and lawmakers who automatically vote in the Democratic nominating convention in August in Denver. So far, they are backing Ms. Clinton by a three-to-one margin.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) consistently gets credit for his reservations about the United States pre-emptively going to war with Iraq in 2003. In a single speech delivered October 26, 2002, at a Chicago anti-war rally, Obama said

I don't oppose all wars. ... And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. ... That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

This is the part of his anti-war speech that anyone with access to media has heard. It is the part of his speech upon which Obama has based his run for the presidency, the highest office in the United States, the most powerful nation in the world. But there is within this October 2002 speech, the very next paragraph, in fact, a commentary which begs explanation.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is not the only politician to have received campaign finance money from Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), and Dick Durbin (R-Ill.), who have all endorsed Sen. Obama, also received campaign contributions directly from Obama's political patron "Tony" Rezko.

1996
Sen. Dick Durbin - $1,250

1998
Sen. John F. Kerry - $1,000

1999
Barack Obama - $1,000

2002
Barack Obama - $500

2003
Barack Obama - $10,500

2004
Sen. John F. Kerry - $2,000 for presidential primary
Sen. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. - $2,000

And, yes, there are more recipients, including George W. Bush, but then he's not running for office right now and it's too soon for a presidential pardon.

h/t

In The Daily Dish at TheAtlantic.com Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) supporter Andrew Sullivan writes on January 25, 2008: (emphasis added)

For understandable reasons, most coverage of the Clintons' dual political persona focuses on the oddity of a married couple each seeking the same executive office in turn. This is indeed remarkable in American politics, although more familiar to historians of India, the Philippines or South America. And it allows for people to write as if having a power-couple as co-presidents is just an interesting, even appealing novelty.

But the trouble with such an arrangement is not its tabloidy and democratically primitive charms. It is its under-appreciated threat to democratic accountability and even the Constitution. In the first Clinton term, we had an unprecedented situation where a woman elected to nothing and with no Cabinet rank was given responsibility for the entire healthcare system. She was accountable largely to a man she was married to - not the American people. She functioned not as the traditional spouse of a president, but as a free-floating second president whose line of authority was at once clear (no one dared cross her) and confusing (what legal authority does she have anyway?). As the Clinton term progressed, it appeared that she reverted to a more traditional role - but we do not know since the records of the couple's political arrangement remain sequestered from public scrutiny.

But if we faced a problem in the first Clinton presidency, imagine what we confront in the second. ...

The problem of political dynasticism is the least of it. American politics have been riven by dynasties from the start. What America has never dealt with is this strange and corrupting arrangement whereby voters are being asked to support two-people-as-one as president. The last two weeks have shown beyond any doubt that this is indeed what is going on. By blurring the lines of accountability, by giving a former president vague but enormous powers in what amounts to an unconstitutional third term, we are sacrificing an important democratic principle and the transparency required to stymie corruption and secret deals kept from public scrutiny by the sacred bonds of matrimony.

There is no reason a constitutional republic should be forced to sacrifice its principles this way. This basic issue of accountability needs to be placed firmly on the table. One option for Barack Obama is to demand now that all the records of the Clintons' marital/political dealings with each other in their first two terms be released in full for public inspection.

Priceless!