SalientMan,

"And this is why all of those other "electable" people: the Bill Richardsons, the John Edwardses, the Chris Dodds, and the Joe Bidens, are all beating them handily for the nomination."

Since when is performance in party primary contests indicative of the ability to succeed in a general election? Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale... Need I name more nominees who lost the general election?

"...no president can know everything about everything!"

True. But Presidents who try to learn as much as possible about policy details don't muck it up as badly as the "I'll just hire the right people" types. I gather from the debates that Obama doesn't have as good a command of the details as Clinton. And he's certainly smart enough to, so I interpret that as a sign of laziness. Maybe not the kind of laziness that convinces one to take a month's vacation every year, but still not the kind of work ethic a President needs.

"A party nominating process is not a democratic election (on either side: witness the roles of Superdelegates, date assignments, and disparities among the states in terms of caucus vs. convention vs. primary), because in the U.S., a political party is free to select their nominee in any way they see fit: they could draw names from hats if they were so inclined."

Yes, legally, the parties are completely within their rights to nominate their candidates through undemocratic methods. That doesn't mean they should.

"If you hate Obama so much (and you must, if you really think he's an undemocratic moron with a Messianic complex), I don't understand why the 90-vote threshold matters to you."

Because I respect the democratic process more than he does. If he wins the nomination legitimately, democratic principle compels me to treat him as I would any other Democratic nominee. Barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. plans for a dictatorship of the proletariat), that means voting for him.