When Bush was running for President the Left lamented that he "didn't have enough experience" (though he was a company owner and a two-term Governor) and that we couldn't have a President that needed to "learn on the job." All those concerns have gone right out the window with one-term Senator Barack Obama.
After Hillary won her Senate seat and George W. Bush won the presidency due to the electoral college, Hillary decried the decision and proposed the EC be done away with and the President be decided by the popular vote.
NOW, that Hillary has 219 EC votes and Obama only 202 the story changes. Now her campaign is suggesting that since the general election is decided with electoral college votes...why shouldn't the nominee in the primary be picked the same way...?
"The Clinton camp has argued that Mrs. Clinton’s having won the big states should be an important factor when considering her electability.
“Presidential elections are decided on electoral votes,” a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said in an e-mail message.
But Mr. Wolfson said superdelegates would also be looking at the popular vote when determining which candidate to support.
Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said that the idea of using the Electoral College as a metric was specious because the Democratic nominee, regardless of whom it was, would almost certainly win California and New York.
Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.
At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.” (source)
Interesting how opinions change in just a few short years...