And, here is my take on the reaction of my friends at Daily Kos:

You people…

…are out of control. This is the same sort of euphoria that led to the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California.

As a Democrat, am I excited that our choice will almost assuredly come down to one of a woman or a black American? Of course I am. But, my observations are tempered by the tragic reality is that this is not the right woman, nor the right black American.

The rock start like euphoria surrounding Senator Obama is terrifying. The unquestioned allegiance among supporters of Senator Clinton is no less frightening.

For goodness sake, look for substance. It's not there with Senator Obama: it's sadly all ephemeral, feel-good, empty talk. And the substance offered by the opposition camp? Cloaking a dark and foreboding 'mystery' still largely behind the curtain. The more I listen to and look at Senator Clinton, the less I am inclined to pull the lever for her either. Which is actually scarier? What you don't understand about one candidate, or what you do understand about the other?

While the pronouncements of Michelle Obama, Maria Shriver and Oprah Winfrey are indeed exciting, let's please remember that none of them will occupy the White House as President in early 2009. Apparently either Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or Senator McCain will.

Given that Senator McCain is clearly the least reasonable and desirable choice, I am left to wonder of the remaining two, who is the best choice. Is neither one of the choices? I wish…

And, that from a supporter of Senator McGovern, Governor Dean and Senator Edwards. I promised Governor Dean that I would vote for the eventual winner of the Democratic primary, and so I will. But, not happily. I feel as disenfranchised now as I ever have at any point in nearly 40 years. I have already given up my position as a precinct captain, stopped contributing to any candidate other then Senators Edwards and Dodd, and am seriously contemplating registering as an independent.

And, when the rest of you are eventually slapped by reality, I fear you will too. Sorry to rain on the parade, but it's just the way I—and so many others I know—feel about the emerging situation. For our sake and yours, I hope that my gloomy outlook is dead wrong. But, I don't think so…

Umm, Obama actually does have a lot of substance, you just have to be paying attention. I'm sick and tired of lazy, ignorant people claiming that Obama is all talk, just because he can talk. This is the same stupid shit we had to hear from Bush/Cheney, or Republicans in general, constantly accusing Democrats of not having any positions because they don't fit perfectly in overly simplistic soundbite form, or they don't form a easily echoed slogan. In fact, their strategy has always been, if we say the Democrats don't really have any policies enough times, it will become conventional wisdom. The same thing applies here. For people who actually pay attention, and for people who actually know the candidates, it is obvious Obama has plenty of specific policy goals. Any claim to the contrary just serves to highlight the laziness of the person making the claim. And just because Obama energizes people and inspires them doesn't make his supporters mindless groupies, in fact his supporters are on average the best educated in the Democratic party. Sometimes I think Democrats just don't want to have something good happen to them. Somehow if something seems too good to be true, they just want to destroy it and go for the wowless triangulating route of moderation.

And hey, we shouldn't even be having this conversation because Hillary cannot beat McCain, and that is that, Obama has a much better chance. Plain and simple. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Republican control of the presidency and Republican gains in Congress. Don't be stupid. Wake up before it is too late.

I think you have it exactly right wwjb, stop saying Obama is all talk just because he can talk!

I am not sure the Shriver endorsement will mean that much, especially this late in the game.

I suspect what we'll see above the fold in tomorrow's LA Times in the Super Bowl and maybe dual pics of Bill Clinton in South LA and Oprah Winfrey at UCLA for Obama. I think Maria gets buried by all that -- and I don't think there will be any second day coverage of the split between her and Arnold. It expected. After all, she backed Kerry and he backed Bush.

Is it my imagination or has he won every news cycle since South Carolina?

I will remain unconvinced of any argument until I see the ultimate empirical evidence, the polls on Tuesday.

Granted, I'm excited. Granted, also, I'm an Obama fan. Momentum is on our side, but it's a serious question how much, and how effective, it will be.

And plus, everybody needs to get out and vote.

But from my perch in Minnesota, things are looking really good for the good guys. If Obama stays within 100-200 delegates (or better) this one is far from over.

Shriver seems like a big deal to me. I caught the excitement just watching it on CSPAN. Looked like all the women there pretty energized. I think it helps tip CA to Obama, which will give huge momentum for remaining contests.

KOS's read is correct. This basically gives probably 4 straight news cycles to Obama on the west coast, despite Clinton having basically parked in California over the past couple days.

The Kennedy's coming out and not just endorsing, but actively campaigning with Obama.

The Times and La Opinión endorsing Obama back to back.

The hidden "news" cycle of the weekend, where the Obama Yes We Can music video dropped and went viral. Maybe not actual news, but it was information that lots of people had access to, and there was nothing even close to counter it from the Clinton campaign.

And now this bombshell of the Shriver endorsement, which will play all over print and television news in California heading into Super Tuesday.

Very interesting, and I'm not going to pretend I have any idea of what's going to happen over the next 48 hours, but I've got to admit, Obama has put himself in a position that I never would have imagined him being, even just a few short days ago.

Yes we can!
Si se puede!
Yes we can!
Si se puede!
Yes we can!
Si se puede!
YES WE CAN!!

It's ridiculous that such a pointless endorsement gets so much coverage. Maria Shriver isn't known as some sort of great intellect. So why is this such a big deal? Because she lucked into being a Kennedy? There's nothing interesting about her and her husband not sharing the same politics, either. Everyone knew that, long ago.

Why is Obama enjoying such a timely honeymoon in the press? Why are his endorsements given so much more weight and coverage than Clinton's?

Perhaps because he's getting all of them lately. Clinton started out with a number of well-known endorsers - mostly as a result of her and her husband's historical prominence and the "inevitable" tag that had been placed on her. But Obama's been getting most of the significant endorsements lately. Including people who you wouldn't expect - like Joan Baez, and Eisenhower's granddaugther - not to mention many prominent women. There's magic in the air.

Clinton has received endorsements of nearly all Congresswomen in CA. Before the campaign started in earnest.

Do you think that might have been gender based? That minimized the impact of an endorsement -- I'll endorse any female candidate.

Endorsements basically are either

a) free press that is positive

and

b) a means of hooking into another fund-raising/canvasing machine

Shriver is a bit of both.

And, yes, in a general sense, it's not so meaningful -- but then again, neither is an endorsement from Barbra Streisand, and the Clinton camp was happy to have her good will in 1992, 1996, and 2008.

The real issue here is that Obama is beginning to make strides into groups that the Clintons have felt is "their" territory.

Believe me, they would have preferred to get Shriver's endorsement -- even if it means little overall.

destor23: I realise you will now think I am a complete idiot (and you may be right) but seriously - who is Maxine Waters?

The Shriver endoresement is important because, if nothing else, she is the First Lady of California and California is an important state. That she is also a Kennedy, and that she is endorsing in a different party than her husband makes the story more interesting, not only to the press but to many Americans.

But as to the allegation that Obama lacks substance, I can only say that I have looked hard at his policies in dozens of different areas from taxation to healthcare to foreign policy (where his views exceptionally well considered) to Americans with disabilities, education reform, and environmental/climate policy. In all of these areas I was impressed with what he was saying and the level of detail in his existing policies. I didn't take them at face value, however, but e-mailed the policies out to friends of mine who work in these areas (I am lucky enough to have friends who are policy experts working for non-aligned groups) and they all came back to me saying that although there were details about which it was possible to disagree, they were impressed.

Just because Obama speaks well doesn't mean speaking well is all he can do.

Maria who?

I really liked Maria's one particular statement which I thought was political dynamite:
"If Barack Obama was a state, he would be California. Think about it......diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader."

BTW, all the commenting ploys expended to counter the Obama movement by trashing Obama supporters and endorsers must be getting harder and harder, nowadays. Imagine having to come up with 'reasons' to counter larger and larger numbers of major newspapers [three major ones in NM, for example], major public figures from across the nation, and millions of supporters of every demographic. Imagine having to stand holding onto a nearly empty political strategy bag of tricks, the last gasp remnant of which is an obvious failed claim that all Obama support must be 'naive'.

I think some of you might be missing one point about the endorsements: it's great politics! Who cares what anyone else thinks, when it comes to a presidential candidate? We all know that, on the issues, there's not a bit of difference between Obama and Clinton. But this steady stream of Obama endorsements - and the nearly-complete domination of the headlines leading up to tomorrow's election - is pure genius, politically. And I'm very glad to see it, because more than anything else, I want a Democratic candidate who can win in November! And ideally, one who can bring out huge crowds of voters to elect Democrats across the country, too!

Hillary Clinton would have a very hard time campaigning against McCain, who has her beat in experience, hands down. And her nomination would guarantee a huge Republican turnout in November, something that we likely WON'T see with Obama. The Republicans are discouraged right now (as they should be after 7 years of Bush/Cheney). All their candidates are short of money, and their talk radio boosters are apoplectic about a McCain presidency. They're bitterly divided. There's no enthusiasm at all on the GOP side,... but there WILL be if Clinton is nominated. They'll definitely work overtime, just to defeat her.

Barack Obama is the best candidate the Democratic Party has produced in years and years. If we don't get fully behind him,... well, maybe we want to lose. Maybe it's more fun criticizing than building. Maybe we're just as fearful about the future as the Republicans, and just as willing to retreat towards the past. Maybe,... but I hope not! Go, Obama!

Bill