Myra Bronstein

...

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

I never doubted for a second.

His MO is so transparent.

He lurks in the shadows of forums for hours a day, targets individuals and pelts them with private propaganda, refusing to engage in straightforward discussion and open himself up to questions.

What is the Sixth Floor Museum if not a tangible symbol of an official cover-up?

...Reagan.....Wounded."

One of Poppy Bush's rare failures.

I misstated the data...

A common theme in the work of the leading anti-alterationists. Here's Josiah Thompson suffering precisely the same ailment:

Josiah Thompson, “Proof that the Zapruder Film is Authentic:

“The FBI first learned of the Muchmore film, for example, when it was shown on the New York City station WNEW-TV just after midday on Tuesday, November 26th.”

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zapho...pson-proof.html

News to the FBI, evidently:

Mr. Specter:

How did you obtain a copy of that film?

Mr. Shaneyfelt:

Our first knowledge of this came as a result of a review of the book "Four Days" which covers the assassination period, in which representatives of the FBI noted a colored picture taken from a motion picture film that did not match either the Nix film or the Zapruder film.

Once we established that, then we investigated and learned that it was made by Mrs. Mary Muchmore, and was at that time in the possession of United Press International in New York, and made arrangements for them to furnish us with a copy of the Muchmore film. That is the copy that I used for examination," 5WCH140.

Same subject, same outcome:

JFK Lancer: 2064, Why all the assassination films are authentic!

Posted by Josiah Thompson, Wed Dec-31-69 06:00 PM

Wed Apr-30-03 08:37 AM

Richard Trask wrote about this in both his book, “Pictures of the Pain,” drawing on an earlier article by UPI’s Maurice Schonfeld in the “Columbia Journalism Review.” According to Trask, Marie Muchmore walked into the Dallas office of United Press International (UPI) and sold her film to them UNDEVELOPED for $1000 on Monday, November 25th. UPI immediately took it to Kodak for processing. UPI then shipped either the original 8mm film or a 16mm print to UPI's home office in New York City. Further research by Gary Mack, has shown that Muchmore's film first was shown in New York around midday Tuesday, November 26th on WNEW-TV.

As we have seen in this thread, Mack has proved unable to do anything of the sort, despite repeated requests to do so, over an extended period.

But note the trick - the inter-locking, mutually-reinforcing...bluff.

Well if Gary Mack won't follow up it's certainly not for lack of time or interest.

I see his name in the 'Users browsing the forum' list about 25% of the time I'm here.

And I'm here a lot.

And now for something completely anticipated:

Link to the "Parrot" sketch:

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html

(And it's "shagged out".)

And now for something tangentially related:

http://www.rickyhitmanhatton2.com/video/vi...ns-funeral.html

Of course the cultured moderati of this Forum would not permit publication of a transcript.

RIGHT!!!

But I sorta snuck it on here...

Oh, you miss nothing Mr. Drago.

"Dear Citizens of America,

In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.

Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

...

19. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad."

http://starrgazr.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/...ter-to-america/

We're working on it John. Glad you're not buying the official story.

British democracy, Myra, is currently as vibrant as the Norwegian Blue in the Python sketch.

And now I belatedly understand your comment Paul.

Thanks for the report from that front on the moribund status of British democracy.

As the UK goes, so go the colonies.

And now for something completely anticipated:

Link to the "Parrot" sketch:

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html

(And it's "shagged out".)

And now for something tangentially related:

http://www.rickyhitmanhatton2.com/video/vi...ns-funeral.html

Nonsense!

America is merely fagged out after a prolonged squark.

:lol:

That is the funniest expression I've ever heard Charles.

It's from the (in)famous "Parrot" sketch.

"He's not dead. He's resting."

OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Even better.

A brilliant application of a priceless quote.

Didn't catch it. My bad.

A very funny man asks the most serious question about the USA, post WW2! Say no more...say no more...say no more....

Yeah.

It is THE most important question one can ask.

This case is the rosetta stone.

Nonsense!

America is merely fagged out after a prolonged squark.

:lol:

That is the funniest expression I've ever heard Charles.

...

Yes, important information. Along with several other bits of evidence puts final nail in coffin of SS having done it.

-Several persons saw another man with gun drawn, sometimes identified as Cesar.

-Sirhan's gun not pointed in right direction, nor correct distance to explain shots to RFK.

-Too many bullet holes at scene - probably main reason door jamb was destroyed, along with other evidence

-Cesar's gun not taken as evidence or tested and he lied about when he 'sold' it.

-inability to match bullets to supposed assassin's gun

-and several other annomalies.

The RFK is as compelling a case of a fabricated scenario as Dallas...not surpising as the same people were beind both. The RFK case is in even a bigger black-hole than is that of JFK, sadly. I think it is an easier one to 'solve'.

Then there's the niggling little detail of Coroner Thomas Noguchi's finding that the killing shot came from 2-3 inches behind Senator Kennedy's right ear, exactly where Cesar was standing, whereas Sirhan was many feet in front of the RFK.

Great post John. This is huge. And once conspiracy is proven in the RFK case, the whole thing crumbles.

...

Myra, It is worth adding, I think - something the Daily Bellylaugh would never volunteer - that Richard Tomlinson has been hounded by SIS because he became a whistleblower. The last I heard about him he was on the breadline living in Europe (not France). The depths that the SIS has gone to, to manipulate him and these events are partly covered (or were) on his blog that disappeared last July. The Bellylaugh merely mentions Tomlinson was imprisoned, thus creating (spinning) a certain lack of sympathy in the minds of ordinary law-abiding Brits.

That is certainly worth adding and knowing David, thank you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

--George Orwell

"Dear Citizens of America,

In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.

Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

...

19. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad."

http://starrgazr.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/...ter-to-america/

We're working on it John. Glad you're not buying the official story.

I'm just linking these two related threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;mode=threaded

I just discovered the other one.

More on the Milosevic plot which seems identical to the Diana plot:

"Diana inquest: MI6 'plotted tunnel murder'

By Nick Allen

Last Updated: 4:19pm GMT 13/02/2008

MI6 plotted to murder Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in a staged car accident in a tunnel five years before Diana, Princess of Wales died in a similar crash, a renegade former spy has told the inquest into her death.

Richard Tomlinson, who worked for MI6 in the early 1990s, told the High Court he had seen a two page document, drawn up in 1992, detailing three plans to kill Mr Milosevic.

Diana inquest: MI6 plotted tunnel murder

One plan was to use a strobe light to blind Mr Milosevic’s chauffeur

...

A third plan was to use a strobe light to blind Mr Milosevic’s chauffeur as his cavalcade passed through a motorway tunnel during peace talks in Geneva.

Mr Tomlinson said the plan was shown to him by a senior MI6 officer referred to as “A” who argued that a crash in a tunnel would mean fewer witnesses and a greater chance it would be fatal.

The former MI6 officer also said he had been shown a strobe light by members of the SBS during his training in Poole, Dorset.

He was told that the equipment, which was portable, was intended for blinding enemy helicopter pilots as they tried to land at night.

Mr Tomlinson gave evidence on a video link from Marseilles.

He was called as a witness to the inquest after he told a French magistrate that the Paris car crash which killed the Princess, Dodi Fayed and chauffeur Henri Paul on Aug 31, 1997, bore an “eerie similarity” to an MI6 plot.

He told the inquest that “A” was a “very ambitious and diligent” MI6 section sub-head, aged in his early 30s.

He is referred to as “Fish” in Lord Stevens’ police inquiry into the crash. Mr Tomlinson said “A” showed him the plan in his office on the 11th floor of Century House.

It gave a justification for murdering Mr Milosevic because of his plans for a greater Serbia, a feared genocide of Albanians in Kosovo and his support for Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader.

The circulation list for the document included the private secretary to the head of MI6. “There was no doubt in my mind that A was entirely serious about his plan,” Mr Tomlinson said.

“He was an ambitious and serious officer who would not risk his career by making such a proposal in jest.”

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...3/ndiana113.xml

Great post, Myra.

Thank you Mark.

...

I suspect all three of these points have influenced people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn to develop an attitude of “indifference” to the JFK assassination.

I agree with Michael McMahon that it is ridiculous to then state Chomsky is a disinformation agent. For that to be true, he would have had to make detailed statements on the case. Instead, he has only shown indifference.

...

How is it even possible to attempt the "indifference" defense? Especially in light of the fact that Chomsky wrote a book on the subject of alleged "indifference" titled "Rethinking Camelot: Jfk, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture."

And given that I already reported that fact in post #12 in this thread, can you be unaware of that fact John? Or are you simply ignoring it like Chomsky ignores, or misrepresents, the existence of NSAM #263 along with the McNamara/Taylor report which ordered all US personnel out of Vietnam?

The premise of the Chomsky book is this:

"From Publishers Weekly

Veteran critic/activist Chomsky ( Deterring Democracy ) analyzes the issue most prominently posed in Oliver Stone's film JFK : was President Kennedy a secret dove whose assassination extinguished a chance to end the Vietnam War?...One of Kennedy's trusted, dovish advisors described the president in September 1963 as supporting the war, and Chomsky calls the record on this issue consistent."

http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Camelot-V...5364&sr=8-1

From an Amazon review:

" An succinct rebutal to the theory JFK was going to withdraw., September 19, 1998 By coolbunny.com (Norwood, NJ United States)

Although I do not always find Chomsky's political analyses persuasive, this book is a well-presented, sharp rebutal to the theory that JFK planned to pull the US out of Vietnam... At the very least Chomsky raises serious questions which must be answered by anyone claiming that John Kennedy had already decided to pull the US out of Vietnam, but was assassinated before being able to do so."

From another review:

"In a sharply argued, thoroughly researched book, Noam Chomsky shreds the notion that JFK was some kind of angel who would have ended the Vietnam War by bringing the US armed forces out of Vietnam, and letting the Vietnamese win. Rather, as Chomsky shows all too clearly, Kennedy was the criminal who escalated this war into outright aggression, and planned to withdraw - after victory. ..."

And finally, my personal favorite:

"Chomsky's pseudo-dissidence is revealed by, among many other lies found throughout his oeuvre, his repeated insistence upon the CIA's unwavering fidelity to successive Presidents. Where the evidence is contrary, he ignores it. Nowhere is the suppression more systematic than in Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture. Consider, in particular, his Stalinoid survey of the Vietnam coverage of the New York Times from October 3 to December 4, 1963 (in this paperback edition, pp.82-83). One omission, among many, will suffice.

...

Chomsky was, and remains, the creation and creature of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rethinking Camelot represented the cashing of the CIA's most important dissident chip in its unending war against both genuine dissent, and JFK's memory. It is a measure of the fear, corruption and cowardice prevalent in mainstream Anglo-American academia and media that Chomsky's imposture has gone unchallenged for so long."

Posted by Paul Rigby, October 1, 2005

Here's why the subject of President Kennedy's intentions with Vietnam matters so much.

"There can be no question, then, if we stick to the record, as Chomsky rightly insists we do, that Kennedy had decided and planned to pull out, had begun to implement those plans, and that Johnson subsequently reversed them."

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/morrisseych...etnam1993.shtml

"The point is crucial. If one manages to say, as Chomsky and others (Michael Albert in Z, Alexander Cockburn in The Nation) do, that in truth there was no change in policy, that in fact there never was a withdrawal policy but only a withdrawal policy conditional on victory (until after Tet), and that therefore Johnson and Nixon simply continued what Kennedy started, then the question of the relation of the policy change (since there wasn't one) to the assassination does not arise.

...

The reason is clear. Once you admit that there was a radical policy change in the months following the assassination, whether that change was a reaction to a (presumed) change in conditions or not, you must ask if the change was related to the assassination, unless you are a fool. Then, like it or not, you are into conspiracy theory--which is anathema to the leftist intellectual tradition that Chomsky represents."

[Emphasis mine.]

That is why, IMO, this subject is so important to Chomsky that, far from being "indifferent," he wrote a book on it. And that is why, IMO, Chomsky is such a valuable assett to the CIA. He is a human limited hangout. He may admit to US imperialism and corporate dominance, in general and vague terms. Not much going out on a limb there. But he will NOT admit that corporate backed gangsters took over the government in 1963. That is THE specific and detailed truth we are not to know. Because, as Michael Morrissey says so well:

"Chomsky admits that a "high-level conspiracy" theory makes sense if "coupled with the thesis that JFK was undertaking radical policy changes, or perceived to be by policy insiders." Rethinking Camelot is devoted to refuting this thesis."

It is critical to the conspirators still running the government that radical policy change not be tied to the aftermath of President Kennedy's murder. Because radical policy change is an obvious motive.

Chomsky helps the regime deny the obvious motive.

From Tree Frog:

Very convenient location, central to everyone.

Frog

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...om.37afff4.html

Central to everyone; accessible to no one.

I'm continuing the resurgent Noam Chomsky discussion here so as not to derail the excellent thread "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery."

...

Why doesn't Chomsky accept a conspiracy in the death of JFK? For one thing, we don't actually know if he does or not.

...

It's also possible Chomsky hasn't really studied the case at any length. In the end, we don't know, but to call him an agent of disinformation is just plain ridiculous.

At least do some basic fact checking before posting.

Chomsky has literally written a book on the subject.

"Rethinking Camelot: Jfk, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture"

http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Camelot-V...4267&sr=8-1

He has written at length about the JFK assassination and has made numerous strong statements denying the likelihood of a conspiracy. For example:

"...It's true that I know very little about the assassination. The only thing I've written about it is that the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible to a quite extraordinary degree.

History isn't physics, and even in physics nothing is really "proven," but the evidence against this claim is overwhelming, from every testable point of view, remarkably so for a historical event. Given that conclusion, which I think is very well founded (that I have written about, a lot), I have no further interest in the assassination, and while I've read a few of the books, out of curiosity, I haven't given the matter any attention and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed.

People shouldn't be killed, whether they are presidents or kids in the urban slums. I know of no reason to suppose that one should have more interest in the JFK assassination than lots of killings not far from the White House.

Given the plain facts about (1), I think it is clear why (2) is gibberish. Parenti or anyone else who reads what I have written can readily determine, if rational, that (2) is gibberish, because of the plain facts about (1). That's simple logic. One cannot adopt a left-wing perspective (or any other perspective) on an issue that one has no interest in and nothing to say about.

On the single matter just mentioned, there is no "left-wing" or "right-wing" perspective. The evidence is so overwhelming that questions of interpretation hardly arise. If someone can show that they do, I'll gladly look. But what I have looked at on this question (for example, various elaborate theories about JFK's alleged intentions on Vietnam, or policy changes resulting from his death, or similar things about Cuba, the Cold War, etc.) simply does not begin to withstand rational inquiry. That's true even of work by personal friends who are serious scholars on other issues, but who become so irrational on this issue that they cannot even read the words that are before their eyes, sometimes in the most remarkable ways.

As for whether "power elites perceived JFK to be a threat to the status quo," the statement is close to meaningless. If someone can produce some coherent version of the statement, and then some evidence for that version, I'll be glad to look at it.

I don't know Parenti's work well, but most of what I've read is quite good and useful, except on this topic. That's not unique to him. The JFK assassination has engendered a kind of cult-like reaction, and ordinarily rational people act in what seem to me very strange ways."

http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomskyforumcmt.htm

[Emphasis mine.]

"These articles by Michael Morrissey, Bob Feldman, Daniel Abrahamson, and Benjamin Merhav among others, may get you thinking twice about Noam Chomsky and similar nationally touted "critics" of the government. Chomsky, in particular, is thought of as the creme-de-la-creme of anti-government muckrakers while he simultaneously embraces every facet of the government's cover story when it comes to who was responsible for killing JFK, or the origin of AIDS, or the Vietnam War turn-around following the JFK assassination, or 9-11. Despite appearances to the contrary, Chomsky sides with the government's version of events with virtually every major 'conspiracy' scandal to emerge in the past 45 years."

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyindex.shtml

[Emphasis mine.]

Please take the domain name of this last resource to heart Michael. Ideally before you post again on this, or any, subject.

[Remark and emphasis mine.]

As it happened, did Bowers' perch in the tower provide a shooting angle?

No.

I don't believe it did either.

Don't know if this helps, but Don's map says that Bowers' last view of President Kennedy's limo was as Z-237.

http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg.

I'm having trouble finding the actual tower on the map, which is weird. Dang, where is it?

Is the CIA monitoring our Forum?

No

Thank you. I feel so much better now.

...

Oh me too me too.

I especially appreciate the level of detail that Andy presented to us in his conclusion, indicative of just how much respect he has for us as critical thinkers in a forum dedicated to research and discussion.

Luckily, Arnie's tough.

Do you know why Maria's family allowed her to marry Arnold?

They're trying to breed a Kennedy who can take a bullet.

:lol:

Giggle, snort.

Thank you Charles. Really.

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

...

Huffington post has video of Shriver's speech at the Obama rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Click on the video link under the headline.

Thanks for posting that, Myra.

Maria's got the Kennedy charisma. Very impressive. Ditto the intro from Michelle Obama. There's a political future for her I suspect.

Maria's married to Arnie and he's a Republican. Hmmm. Isn't that a kick in the head. Luckily, Arnie's tough.

It's all coming together for Obama. He's California. The most important statistic in his favor is that he leads the all important Kennedy clan endorsement race. Kennedy endorsements are becoming much sought after commodities. Good to see.

People are now realising, due to the mainstream's weakening grip on political discussion and agenda, that the JFK show was a pretty good show. America won't stomach another bad show like the Bush double feature. It stank and stinks.

Now they're trying to sell a Clinton double feature. One with a bit of a twist, anyway.

p.s. the only double feature worth seeing would have been the Kennedy one. It was sold out then cancelled before intermission, of course. And the theatre management didn't even apologise.

I personally am stunned that Maria turns out to have an independent cell in her body.

Until now I thought she was a Stepford wife, silent and dutiful.

And I'm in agreement with your excellent review of the big show Mark.

Not only did she do the deed, she did a heckuva job. Personable, sincere, folksy yet articulate.

Cleverly invoking the Kennedy affiliation while seeming not to capitalize on it.

How brilliant was it for her to quote Eleanor Roosevelt?

"Do one thing every day that scares you."

Eleanor was up on that stage with that impressive lineup of women: Oprah, Michelle, Caroline...

What a powerhouse.

And Maria was the one that turned it into a headline making super-event.

Right before super Tuesday.

Most impressive. And most unexpected.

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

...

Huffington post has video of Shriver's speech at the Obama rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Click on the video link under the headline.

Quasi-interesting Frank Rich column on the JFK/Obama torch hand off:

http://tinyurl.com/yum6wg

"BEFORE John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.

Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.

J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.

How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

In other words, Kennedy needed two things. He needed poetry, and he needed a country with some desire, however vague, for change.

Mr. Goodwin and his fellow speechwriter Ted Sorensen helped with the poetry. Still, the placid America of 1960 was not obviously in the market for change. The outgoing president, Ike, was the most popular incumbent since F. D. R. The suburban boom was as glossy as it is now depicted in the television show “Mad Men.” The Red Panic of the McCarthy years was in temporary remission.

But Kennedy’s intuition was right. America’s boundless self-confidence was being rattled by (as yet) low-grade fevers: the surprise Soviet technological triumph of Sputnik; anti-American riots in even friendly non-Communist countries; the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. at an all-white restaurant in Atlanta; the inexorable national shift from manufacturing to white-collar jobs. Kennedy bet his campaign on, as he put it, “the single assumption that the American people are uneasy at the present drift in our national course” and “that they have the will and strength to start the United States moving again.”

For all the Barack Obama-J. F. K. comparisons, whether legitimate or over-the-top, what has often been forgotten is that Mr. Obama’s weaknesses resemble Kennedy’s at least as much as his strengths. But to compensate for those shortcomings, he gets an extra benefit that J. F. K. lacked in 1960. There’s nothing vague about the public’s desire for national renewal in 2008, with a reviled incumbent in the White House and only 19 percent of the population finding the country on the right track, according to the last Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. America is screaming for change.

...

Richard Goodwin knew in 1960 that all it took was “a single significant failure” by Kennedy or “an act of political daring” by his opponents for his man to lose — especially in the general election, where he faced the vastly more experienced Nixon, the designated heir of a popular president. That’s as good a snapshot as any of where we are right now, while we wait for the voters to decide if they will take what Mrs. Clinton correctly describes as a “leap of faith” and follow another upstart on to a new frontier."

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9S1Go...U8fu-tBFidEK-UQ

LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Maria Shriver -- wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a member of the powerful Kennedy political clan -- on Sunday endorsed Barack Obama for US president, just days after her former-actor husband backed Republican John McCain.

"The more I thought about it, I thought, you know, if Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California," Shriver said to cheers at a rally held at the University of California for the Democratic presidential contender.

"I mean, think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader!" said Shriver, a member of America's foremost political dynasty.

Her endorsement came one week after her prominent uncle, US Senator Ted Kennedy and her cousin Caroline -- the only surviving child of slain US President John F. Kennedy -- publicly endorsed Obama.

Shriver said her own endorsement Sunday was a spontaneous decision.

"I thought to myself when I woke up this morning ... there's no place I should be but right here today," she told the celebrity-packed rally headlined by talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, Obama's wife Michelle, and pop music legend Stevie Wonder.

Obama, Shriver said, "is about the power of us, and what we can do when we come together. Because as everybody up here has said, there is much more that unites us than divides us."

"He is about empowering women, African-Americans, Latinos, older people, young people. He's about empowering all of us."

Shriver's backing of the Illinois senator comes just two days from "Super Tuesday" on February 5, when California and 20 other US states hold nominating contests...."

Spontaneous decision.

'Kay...