Thought number one, is it's good that a "liberal" rag is being objective and pointing out the shortcomings of "liberal" candidates as well as the conservative candidates. This is fair and honest and what we hope separates us from the conservatives.

Thought number two, is such honesty might be better after the general election. That yes, we have a flawed candidate, but pragmatically speaking getting him into office first and then holding his feet to the fire might be more useful. It will do us little good if we aid in McCain getting elected, who we know has far more and far more egregious flaws than our presumptive candidate.

That is of course assuming Salon really does want Obama over McCain, which judging by recent columns and the sort of readership posting letters here these days, I'm not sure it does. It really has become the Republic-lite zone here lately.

This is cause for the super-delegates to take another look at things.

The vast majority of Obama's warchest has come from small donations online. What is that, if not a publicly financed campaign? Does he need to spend tax dollars to prove he's legit?

I really don't see how that would help the situation. Obama is the first presidential candidate that owes his success to everyday working people, and it's my hope and belief he will remember us when he takes office. You dance with them that brung ya, as the saying goes here in Texas. We brung 'im, and he'll be dancing with us!

I don't think either Alex, Joan, or a lot of the readership are really over Hillary's loss here. You can smell it in the attitudes that abound.

The sad thing is that maybe Hillary was the better candidate, but from an objective view Obama himself did nothing ugly or underhanded to take the win. Yet, the posts/articles/letters all reflect as if something very personal was done to the losing parties rather than it was just a good fight and they lost.

Granted, yes Obama is a flawed politician and there is hypocrisy to point out, but lets not fool ourselves that Hillary would be better in this regards. She is no saint either and is completely politically compromised, even if she like Obama represents a better future than the Republicans are offering.

I worry the bad blood over perceived slights (mostly frankly caused by supporters rather than Obama himself) are leading people who should be working toward what is a more progressive candidate to aid and abed the real "enemy" here, John McCain.

I understand that you're pissed and disappointed (both with the outcome and our candidate himself), but don't loose sight of the bigger picture - having another 4 years (or more) of Republican leadership is a nightmare we cannot afford. Obama isn't the messiah that some believe, but there is a real, important, and objective difference between him an McCain.

In short, be pissed off, but suck it up and fix it (him) after the threat of McCain has passed. Yes, work to make Obama a better president, but get him there first.

If you think this decision was made strictly by Obama and his personal team you're fooling yourself. I'm sure Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic leadership was next to him egging him on. That includes Hillary's team if not Hillary herself. These guys know how to play they game.

So people suggesting this is a reason to look at the superdelegates again (ie: whether they should turn back and select Hillary instead) is silly. Believe me, there are plenty of superdelegates who are involved and politically savvy enough here that I'm sure that they are at a minimum are lauding this if not pushing for it outright.

This isn't some "icky" Obama trick. This is just some icky Democrat trick and politics as usual. And don't even try to say the Republicans wouldn't do it either - they would too. They're all a bunch of snakes.

I get your point to an extent, but don't like the ramifications of it much. I will vote for Obama over McCain any day of the week, but should we not at least discuss some of the mistakes his campaign has made? Can we do this calmly and rationally without being labelled as "trolls" or "repugs"? I want to know my candidate, warts and all. One of the things that disgusted me about Republicans in the last 8 years was their blind fealty to Bush, no matter what. I thought liberals were better than that and could see the world beyond the manichean ideals of "good" and "bad". Do we want analysis or agitprop?

Would not go back on her word.

"Hilary would not go back on her word."

AHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh oh...sorry, oh, god, that's funny.

I don't think the public finacing is such a hot deal. It does not prevnt PACS or 527s from raising money, and that is how the Repubican always use 527s to get out nasty ADs then deny any connection to them. The McCain camaping has refused to republican refused to speak out against the nasty attacks on Obama by 527s.

Obama got 60% of his money in the primary elction from grassroots donors giving under $100.00 each.

If we want to reform the system it can't be done in the middle of an election. by one man. The Democrats and repblican partiesneed to meet after this election and agree on new funding and other rules going forward. Don't hold your breath.

...because he can. When everybody and their brother/sister/cousin-in-law throws $25 or $50 toward a candidacy, it turns the old ideas of financing on their heads.

This appears to demonstrate that Obama is less a moon-eyed idealist than a real-world pragmatist. I find that comforting, to be honest.

This is a tough one.

I have always decried the effects of money on our politics, the fact that in general politicians spend half their time fundraising, and then the other half paying back their donors. Money is the key issue in politics today, and why things rarely change. Those who benefit from the current system have little incentive to change it.

Then along comes Obama, who of course changes many entrenched paradigms. He is not being financed by wealthy corporations or business interests. He is not being financed by special interests. He is being financed $10, $20 at a time by ordinary Americans.

What I would like to see him do is acknowledge that he has changed his mind, and admit it is because of the current flawed system. But then make a promise that once he is in office, he will push for real campaign finance reform. Outline what it will look like, and how it will work. Then I will be happy with him raising any amount of money in the current flawed system.