Obama got an endorsement and turned it into a media spectacle, complete with a long speech

and the media covered it, and replayed it over and over again.

It was an ENDORSEMENT. It didn't require a speech from Obama, yet he gave one anyway as is his right. And the media played along and covered it nonstop for two days, repeating parts of his speech over and over again.

Meanwhile, his opponent won a primary in which voters expressed an overwhelming preference for her candidacy. And she gave a speech. Big f'ing deal. Whether or not there were delegates awarded has nothing to do with the result in votes.

If it helps you to think of it this way, she won an ENDORSEMENT from the FL Democratic electorate. But stop the bellyaching about her audacity for giving a speech after winning a primary. YOU KNOW the other two would have done the same. It's politics.

My point still stands.

not individual states".

Obama locked up some delegates of the Kennedy kind, Clinton got an individual state, which by her own definition doesn't matter.

Clinton won more votes; the perception going into Super Tuesday will be that she has a lot of popular support.

The ones his people were yelling were so terribly undemocratic.

Hey, it's OKAY when it's OBAMA.

The same thing applied to Bush in 2000.

Every primary is organized by the state Democratic party according to DNC rules, by not directly by the DNC.

I won't try to explain why, but from CNN to MSNBC, which are what I have been watching, the talking heads are so obviously for these two. They all absolutely HATE Hillary Clinton and have constantly pointed out what a, if you'll pardon the expression "straight shooter" :sarcasm: McCain is.
P.S....I'm not an American, and this is just my observations from afar. I have also noticed that they are constantly going on about Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy endorsing Obama. They NEVER mention that Hillary is backed by Robert Kennedy's family. Robert Jr., Kathleen and others in the family. This seems rather unfair to me.