The saddest thing about all of this is that it's just politics as usual.

Obama becomes a serious threat to Hillary, perhaps even the front-runner, and it's time to go for the knees.

One would hope we could all move beyond that, that when the going got tough a candidate would simply try harder to win on the issues that matter to them and that they feel matter most to the American people. But apparently not. Why? Partially because it works, I suppose.

But the truth is that it's this cherry-picking of facts and stitching them together to create a story that's either partially true or barely true at all that helped get this country into a war. A war that was supposed to last six months and likely will clear six years, easy. And it was started with the same tactics only they were applied to intelligence rather than candidates.

This is why Obama was right in South Carolina to point out that these tactics matter, because they suggest the kind of president you're going to get.

When Rove and Bush went lower than low in South Carolina in 2000 to get McCain out of their way, GOP voters would have been wise to note those tactics and read them for what they were--the blueprint of how a President Bush would act when something got in his way.

Eight years later, Dem voters would be wise to note the same about Hillary.

The thing that gets me is that it seems every time I hear about Obama losing a part of the country, it's never a story of 'these voters in this part of the country considered both candidates and Clinton won,' it's always 'oooh, Obama lost poorly dressed white males who own chihuahuas and walk with a slight limp' or whatever.

It's as if we can't live with ourselves unless we're putting voters in a category.

Like other supporters around the country and the world can't use the Internet to send his campaign cash?

If I'm not mistaken, Silicon Valley has a pretty significant population of well-educated folks, why can't we just say they used their brains and voted for the candidate that they thought best for the position?

It's the same with black voters in the south, is it really so difficult to say that these people are smart enough to look beyond race and vote for the person they think will lead this country best?

I know it may be shocking, but there are people who use the Internet who are voting for Hillary. Some of them are even black. And there are beer drinkers, latinos, asians, and, yes, baby boomer women who are voting for Obama.

Obviously I realize there are people who use these things as wedges, after all, it's not just Oprah who's had some dimwit come up to her and say she's selling out women by voting for Obama--as if all those people from NOW who've flipped to Obama's camp are heading off to Switzerland to get the surgery and abandon the gender entirely. Idiocy like this has happened to people I know personally.

But in general, aren't the vast majority of us advanced enough to realize that people, be they in Silicon Valley or South Carolina, have myriad reasons for voting the way they do, and that nine times out of ten their hearts and their wallets will speak far louder than their skin color or chromosomes.

The sense I got in SoCal wasn't so much that Latinos felt Obama didn't have the record, but rather that there just wasn't enough time for him to really make an impression on them.

On Tuesday I wasn't around a radio a whole lot, but I still heard two different Latino Hillary supporters interviewed. In both cases, the first name out of their mouths wasn't Hillary, it was Bill. They really didn't even talk about her, they talked about him.

I don't know if Hillary even had to court the Latino vote much, because the name recognition is so strong.

Obama had to do a better job of getting in front of Latino voters and introducing them to what he's done and who he is.

Of course, that's easy to say and much harder to do when you're the one who has to campaign in over 20 states at the same time.

Was it more important to have, say, a town hall in East L.A. where you might close the margin some, or to be the only candidate to go to Delaware and have that be a big reason why you carried the state?

It's a tactical argument, I suppose.

As it was, Obama was endorsed by La Opinion, the big Latino paper out here.

I think it's worth re-posting something from the article that transcends the partisan nonsense going back and forth.

The women's movement is about free choice, self-determination and challenging a status quo that fails a lot of Americans, not just women. And it is not about going along. It's about transcending, about having the freedom to follow one's heart, about creating and pursuing new opportunities, and about the American dream being for all Americans.

You have a brain for a reason. Use it when you vote and the country will be better off for it no matter whom you chose.

Who didn't win CA and NY in the primaries. Because the Dems won't even have to campaign in those states, they'll win them handily in November no matter who the nominee is.

Also, if the popular and state vote both end up supporting Obama, will the Democratic Party, supposedly the 'party of the people' really accept these super delegates going against the votes of the people?