Waak had maintained her neutrality in the Democratic nominating race, telling a local TV station as recently as a month ago, "I chair the party that will host the convention, so it's only fair I stay as neutral as long as possible."
In a statement put out by the Obama campaign in which Waak cited his "electability" in Colorado and the West, she gave three reasons for her support: Obama's big victory in the Feb. 5 Colorado caucuses; that Obama's "message of change" can beat Republican John McCain in November; and that the country needs his "visionary, uplifting leadership."
Does this put pressure on Colorado's remaining Superdelegates to endorse? I sort of doubt it. The remaining uncommitted Superedelegates are Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Ken Salazar and Congressmen Mark Udall and John Salazar.
Ritter has vowed to remain neutral as the host Governor of the DNC. Don't forget too that he has extensive ties to the Clinton machine which makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that he would endorse Obama anyway. Senator Salazar has also vowed to remain neutral. Salazar is really the elder statesmen of the state Party and Waak is a relative newcomer so I don't see her influencing him at all. As a candidate for the U.S. Senate Udall cannot afford to alienate either potential nominee. It's a safe bet that he will abstain from publicly endorsing at least until after all primary voting is wrapped up next week.
John Salazar is an interesting case as Obama dominated the state, except for Salzar's district. Clinton actually won a handful of the counties in Congressman Salazar's district and about half of her overall support in the state is located in CD-3. Still at this point I think the safe money is John Salazar following the lead of his brother and not publicly endorsing for at least another week.
So ultimately the Waak endorsement is really just about another Superdelegate moving into Obama's corner. No more, no less.