Today’s Globe had a note about a slew of Massachusetts politicians who were demanding that NARAL retract its endorsement of Obama. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, and other legislators said that Obama wasn’t pro-choice enough for them, in part because he voted “present” on a few Republican measures.

So, Obama is smart enough to avoid snares set out by the Republican party, and that means he’s not pro-choice enough? I take his votes as a sign that he can govern with his brain, pick his battles, and know how to avoid stupid no-win battles. Even if you disagree with my take on the votes, what do you have to gain by pointing out the flaws in Obama’s policies at this point? You’re not going to be voting for McCain.

And of course this gem: “We encourage you to . . . wait until the Democratic nominee is clear.” The Democratic nominee is clear. I know that Hillary is still campaigning, but she doesn’t get to say when the race is over. The race is over whether she knows it or not. And, evidently, there are a bunch of people in Boston who don’t know it either!

It just blows my mind that people would expend political capital, take shots at their allies, and otherwise draw attention to an entirely lost cause.

That Globe article had another gem down the page. Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that her superdelegate vote would go to Clinton. Memo to Martha: You’re a bit late to the party; everyone is heading home already. And you showed up at the wrong house.