It is snark, right?

I did not see that yesterday, but I was not surfing the tubes of teh internets much yesterday.

he wouldn't have had any power to do anything about it before he won.

So everything Obama does is either wrong (on issues where you disagree), or pandering (on issues where you agree).  Does that not seem closed-minded to you?  Is there anything Obama has said or done that you agree with, without reservations?

To appear diplomatic? Do you even know the definition of the word "diplomatic"?

Appearing diplomatic is the same thing as being diplomatic. Being diplomatic means you make efforts to assuage others concerns. That's exactly what Obama is doing here.

Somehow, some way, I don't think this answer will satisfy you.

uprated for TR abuse.  This is an obviously plausible explanation for the move--equally plausible as the motive presented by the diarist.  Just depends on how you see Obama.

Just look at him, flippin' us the bird.  We do not approve!

(And can anybody seriously question my use of this image?)

In a (my) perfect world, the President would be selected based on the popular vote, and all citizens would be able to cast that vote during a one week period, so as not to disenfranchise people who, ya know, work for a living and have kids and what not.

argument. Instead of enfranchisement you are actually disenfranchising small states because the candidates won't campaign there. I like the EV system because it makes them campaign around the country as opposed to the big 5 states. Also big states would have MUCH more influence and power.

Great comment.

And don't worry about insulting John McCain. He's been doing it to our nominee relentlessly for the past 3 weeks. He certainly deserves it.

The process doesn't need more subjective analysis treated with great authority. Fact checking also frequently involves subjective calls. And I guess you want the DNC to be calling our candidates truth-stretchers every time they spin something. Putting an end to name calling? What... would you put that in the platform? Maybe have a bylaw about no meanies?

Christ on a crutch the republicans would have a field day with that and whatever whimpy ass-kissing candidate came out of a nomination process like the one you describe.

we ought to be able to easily compare where they stand on issues, what's they've done, what they've voted for and against, how they can debate, how good they are at making their points.

Welcome to the internet. All that information was available to us during this primary campaign. I don't think you're asking for more information, you're asking for more authoritative analysis of the information. You're asking for a system where voters get more establishment clues about who they're supposed to vote for. You're trying to strengthen the factors that lead to mindless voting in the first place.

I'm sorry if my response seems harsh, but your seemingly well-intentioned suggestions look like a recipe for disaster to me.

One would merely have to revisit the comments from the usual suspects to find instances where Obama was accused of cheating for merely making the most of the system as it was.

I'd rather not name names, but if you insist...

Enjoy your cynicism. Nobody else does.

Going by total number of votes means that the nominee would be decided by heavily democrat states every year.  It would also mean that all states would move to open primaries where democrats and republicans alike vote.  And finally, it would make voting on issues other than the party's nominee problematic.

I mean, if you think that's the best system then that's your opinion.  It is not, however, the only honest solution.  What's wrong with proportional allocation?  Personally, I think a direct vote would be kind of slipshod, vulnerable to manipulation, and would make the southern states useless.  Does that belief inherently make me a liar?

Almost cost him the election? Again the reality-deficient PUMA squad strikes.

Most superdelegates supported Obama in the end. He needed neither their presence nor their absence to win.

The only thing that lack of superdelegates would have done is reduced the drama and reduced the amount of leeway that the reality-deniers had to keep fooling themselves.

Are you referring to the FL and MI rules that were put in place by Ickes and Wolfson?

Nice try, but you fail.

And what's wrong with Caucuses? Something wrong with letting the most dedicated members of the Democratic Party decide the nominee? something wrong with letting states decide whether they want caucuses or not?

I'm guessing you prefer not letting too many informed people tip the scales over the low-information voters.

When it comes to the Presidential Election, all votes should be equal. When it comes to the Democratic Nomination process, the most dedicated activists and party members should, and do, dictate how their nominee will be selected.

until it was convenient for you...

al is home taking care of her kids. She works and she blogs and she takes care of her kids.  She blogs a lot, what more do you expect?  She's a terrific person, she just doesn't happen to agree with you.  

nobody cared before there was such a close contest. when it's close like this, people care. It would be the same if it came out the other way.  We should all care. We need to nominate the best candidate that can win, and that has to be the strongest one in the most Democratic states, those states we need to win the GE.  What's important is that we win.  You can be right day and night but that won't get him elected.