Yes, there are a lot more campaign websites in the Sidebar this morning... and other notes for FWIW readers

I'm working on the Organizing the Data posts and I'm putting them up as quickly as I can.

This is nerve-wracking stuff because I don't have a copy editor -- but I do have some of the most zealous proofreaders in the world, namely, the candidates themselves, and their nearest and dearest. I won't make mistakes on purpose, but I may make mistakes nonetheless.

I will fix mistakes when they are called to my attention, or at least as soon as I get through every roundup post once.

But failing to include each and every endorsement a judicial candidate has garnered to date is not necessarily a mistake.

I only report endorsements I can confirm, whether online, through multiple sources, or personal knowledge. That means I will miss all sorts of endorsements -- but, then again, I link, wherever possible, to a candidate's website where an interested voter can see that Candidate X was endorsed by 17 unions, 25 present or former elected officials, and all the baristas at their local Starbucks. Despite this limitation, I do not mean to suggest that I doubt any of these precious endorsements. Voters will look at your sites and see for themselves.

Slated candidates always want me to report that this township has endorsed them, or that ward organization.

Look: Supposedly -- in theory -- if the Cook County Democratic Party endorses a countywide judicial candidate, that means that all 50 wards and all 30 townships, from Barrington to Bloom, also support that candidate. Dog bites man is not news.

On the other hand, when a ward or township organization deviates from the slate, that is newsworthy, and I report it, when I can confirm it, and include it in the roundup posts. Sometimes an un-endorsed candidate will wind up with a seemingly longer list of endorsements than the Party's chosen candidate -- but I am merely the messenger. The candidate's real problem is with the fickleness of his or her alleged supporters.

I do understand.

There's a certain kind of madness that comes over judicial candidates at this stage of the process: Sober, sensible, sound men and women; pillars of their communities; bright, accomplished people -- a lot of them go a little haywire right about now. Sometimes, if you catch them at just the wrong moment, they seem to have gone far over the edge. Their sense of humor may dry up like a puddle in the Sahara. Their sense of perspective can be lost entirely.

Most candidates at this stage feel they are soooooooo close to something they want desperately. They've knocked on so many doors, gone to so many events, spoken to so many people who have offered kind encouragement. There are a lot of people pumping candidates full of balloon juice at this stage -- friends, family, neighbors, law partners, paid consultants, the aforementioned Starbucks baristas -- all telling candidates that they will win.

Most of them won't win, of course. But all the candidates are right to this extent: Win or lose, they have come soooooo close. They've made it to the ballot; they've given themselves the possibility of winning. They may even appreciate, someday, that their attempt was an achievement in and of itself.

But probably not right now.

Anyway, be understanding toward the judicial candidates in your vicinity in these final days.

And, as for the roundup posts, these are not for you regular FWIW readers. These are for the actual voters, looking to decide which judicial candidates are worthy of their votes. The site stats say they are starting to show up now....