...for the link to that eloquent essay by Tom Rinaldo (who also posts on Democratic Underground under the same alias, by the way). It expressed all of my sentiments regarding my support for HRC, and then some. All Hillary supporters should read this, and those on the fence should, too.

For those who missed the earlier post of AKA Smith, here's the link:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/3/135326/6174

I find most Obama supporters to be more of cultists than realists, who are prickly about any negative remarks about their candidate, no matter how slight. For my part, I know that HRC is an imperfect candidate (who ISN'T, pray tell?!), but her positives far outweigh her (mostly erroneously perceived) negatives - negatives promoted by the right wingers since the early 90s, as well as extreme left-wingers. Obama is too green to handle everything that will be facing the next president on his/her first day, and it ISN'T about 'entitlement', as some keep trying to push about Hillary's run for the presidency. It's about her competence, intelligence, deep grasp of the issues from many sides. I'm not going into the details about her genuine experience and on-the-ground knowhow about how Washington and the White House work, but those things really do matter! Whom would you hire for the job of president if you had to make that decision?

That she's also a woman is a nice, but non-essential plus - but by God, her sex has also made her the target of unrelenting sexist and abominably crude attacks from so many quarters - so yes, her attackers themselves have brought sexism into the game by doing these things. Everyone seems to be walking on eggshells with Obama (could it have something to do with ultrasensitivity as regards anything that might be interpreted by some as racist, I wonder?), but the abundant, derisive and sexist comments regarding Hillary all continue to get a pass in the media, notwithstanding Chris Matthews' 'apology'. And that's the way things remain today.

Thanks for your concern. (I think.) So this is what it all amounts to now - just a game. It's bread and circuses for the masses. How silly of me to take any of it seriously.

As long as we're talking endorsements, regarding those for HRC by the three elder RFK children, I do find those to be of greater import myself (but I'm weird, aren't I, being a Hillary supporter against the ovewhelming Obama tsunami you see in all of the media - left, right and centre), since RFK, Jr has been a dedicated environmentalist, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was first woman lt. governor of Maryland (although sadly lost in her bid for the governorship due to ineffective campaigning), and Kerry Kennedy has been a longtime human rights activist. I find their endorsements to be more meaningful since they've all been/are public servants and doing their work quietly, with little publicity for the most part. You know the kind - doers with a progressive agenda.

Is everyone in the entire Kennedy clan now going to publicly bestow their blessings on the Anointed One? Wherefore do we have the primaries when a majority of Kennedys (as of last comparative count) have already declared the winner with their very public votes for the Saintly One?

Oh, but we're waiting with bated breath for whom their dogs, cats and parrots will endorse, too.

Voters on Super Tuesday, just don't bother. Obama is it, if this endorsement circus is to be believed.

Sure sounds like someone's high school literary essay...or something. Wow, there's nothing sacred when it comes to pushing one's political candidate over the other.

How about analysing Clinton's shoes versus Obama's next? Their cars? Hairstyles? (Ooh, Clinton had that done to her already in the 90s!) Pooches? Cats? Whatever...!

The absurdity never ends.

I thought you'd gone to Politico already, Mr Shapiro. Guess I celebrated too soon. So keep piling on with the anti-Hillary screeds just before you go.

and goodbye. Can't say I'll miss the relentless anti-Hillary screeds of late, but the move to Politico says a lot. Toodle-oo~

Glad that HRC doesn't give a damn about these narcissistic pundits, and already sent her congratulations to BHO thrice, too, without them noticing.

So, who among these pundits - including us self-styled, amateur pundits on the Internet(s) - all just sitting on our soft behinds, blithely criticising these tireless, energetic candidates for every triviality that comes our way (a practice heavily skewed against the Clinton campaign, incidentally) - from the warmth and comfort of home (or work) - who, pray tell, among us all can even think to endure the punishing physical schedule these candidates have to adhere to in this race?

For myself, I'm glad to see HRC back on the stump after SC - she's hard at work again so quickly, despite the loss, and isn't looking back. In any workplace, that would be considered an admirable trait, no? Ah, but it's always an exception in Clinton's case, though - with her, it's considered 'rude' to do so.

Folks in the anti-Clinton brigade are so predictable in their creative contortions of events to make their feeble points known.

- the Asian American group, made up mostly of Filipino-Americans.

Fil-Ams are the dominant 'minority' in Las Vegas (about 50%, if not more), and no one seems to notice this, and they might as well have been invisible to the media.

Do you, Joan, know how they mostly voted in the caucuses? Or did anyone even notice, or care?

Did the white reporters/journalists see this relatively quiet group as obviously non-Caucasian and non-black and immediately assume that they were part of the Hispanic demographic?