whatever policy differences they might have, which while relatively minor, are not insignificant (and on which I actually prefer Clinton over Obama on several), and whatever flaws Obama might have (which he does), or unfortunate things that he's said and done (which he has), all of this pales given the direction that the Clinton campaign took shortly after Iowa, in which they decided to not just go negative, but in a way, and to an extent, that in my mind totally obliterated her moral legitimacy and viability as a DEMOCRATIC candidate, and which neither Obama nor his campaign have even begun to approach. It's like comparing jaywalking in an empty intersection to running a red in a busy one. Not even close. Thus, whatever valid policy and other reasons people might have for preferring Clinton over Obama, these have been totally made moot given her and her campaign's despicable behavior since Iowa, which her supporters either deny, are unaware of, or have no problem with.

If you're saying that Obama's just as or nearly as bad, that's rediculous.

If you're saying that she hasn't been that bad, that's just dishonest.

If you're saying that it's ok to support someone for valid policy and other reasons even though they've discredited themselves utterly in other ways, then that's Rovian.

So yes, I'm saying that anyone who still prefers her at this point despite all that she's said and done, is either stupid, ignorant, delusional or cynical. Or a very close friend or relative, whose blindness one can, I suppose, excuse, or understand.

And btw, note the following key modifiers in the KO excerpt that you cited above:

First, I will never, and would never, attack or discourage Senator Clinton's sincere supporters and activists, be they bloggers or phone bankers or voters at the polls.
...
I've spoken to plenty of Clinton supporters and those two rationales are the most common responses one hears on her behalf.

I do not doubt that she has many sincere supporters, who aren't racists or into smears. But while I mostly respect their stated preferences for supporting her--i.e. ones having to do with policy, experience, etc.--I do not and cannot respect their overall support for her at this point given all the other stuff that she's engaged in, not only during this campaign (race and class-baiting, lying egregiously), but as a senator (Iraq vote, Kyl-Lieberman), and as first lady (totally, arrogantly and unnecessarily screwing up health insurance reform, supporting NAFTA and welfare reform).

I was never an Edwards supporter but I NEVER had the kinds of problems with him and his supporters that I do with Clinton and hers. The two cases are not comparable, because he never went negative to this extent and in this way. She's in her own league with her negative campaigning, pandering and dishonesty. And her supporters are in their own league with their ignorance, denial, delusion and/or cynicism. I wouldn't have said this before Iowa, but a lot has happened since then that has totally changed my view of her and her supporters. I was ignorant, deluded and/or in denial myself about her then. Not any longer. My eyes are wide open now, and I do not like what I see. I can only hope that more and more Clinton supporters open their eyes as well.