as they represent the popular vote. They system the DNC is using has been tested by this primary and is found to be very undemocratic, from the caucuses that disenfranchise people to the screwy way delegates are assigned.
The super delegates will have to decide what is more important, the will of the people or the mess that the DNC has created with the delegate selection. No one can make a credible argument that Obama should get more delegates from TX, or several other states for that matter.
If you're wondering whether I think the DNC rules on assigning delegates is a good system, I don't think it is. Personally I think they should get rid of the superdelegates entirely. Next, I think if you're going to punish a state for moving its primary too early (which is reasonable..who wants to see primaries moved back to the prior October??), a case can be made to strip half its delegates. I don't think I agree with the winner take all, but whatever.
In any case, as bad as the rules are this cycle, thats what they are. A person has to get the majority of the delegates ..which obviously includes superdelegates.
And the superdelegates, whether you agree with them or not, seem to be falling in line with the winner of the pledged delegates. Honestly, I agree with that.
You can argue all you want about caucuses, but as for the superdelegates - they seem to be deciding, like the rest of America, that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
and have several times. The caucuses measure something besides how broad your voter support is. They measure how broad your support is among active supporters -- those willing to spend additional time, effort, and likely money, to help you win in the general election.
It's another metric by which the party can select its nominee, and a perfectly valid one.
