Unlike most politicians, when JK posts a diary on Daily Kos, he actually reads and responds to the comments posted in-thread. People posting on dKos wanted to know about the Democratic superdelegate situation. This was his his response:

I’m glad people are talking about this superdelegates question because I think there’s a big divide here between one campaign that bottom line, flat out wants to see the nomination decided by the voters in primaries and caucuses who have turned out in unprecedented numbers, and the other campaign that’s content to see this thing decided by the insiders and the superdelegates – even if that means overturning the verdict of the voters in all these states. I think that outcome would be very dangerous for our Party. I think it would cause a grassroots revolt that could really hurt us in November.

I also want to throw something out there because I know that if I’m hearing it from reporters, you’re hearing it out there: the RNC did a press release that asked whether Ted Kennedy and I would cast our votes as superdelegates for Hillary Clinton because she carried Massachusetts. This argument has been echoed by the other campaign. But you know, it got me thinking -- in Maryland, where Barack won overwhelmingly, will Clinton superdelegates like the Governor and Sen. Mikulski vote for Barack? In Maine, will the Clinton superdelegate Gov. Baldacci vote for Barack who won Maine with over 60%? Or Sens. Murray and Cantwell in Washington state? If you want to ask that question of me, you could sure ask it of a lot of superdelegates. It’s an artificial question, and I don’t think we need to repeat GOP talking points here.

Bottom line, the big difference: Barack’s campaign is ahead today because of the votes of the people in huge numbers in the states, period. And that’s how this nomination ought to be decided.