This is a bit old, but it's worth mentioning (since it may not be particularly germane after, say, tomorrow): Geraldine Ferraro, one of the original members of the Hunt Commission (the group that created the superdelegate system twenty years ago), argues convincingly that "the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow." But then she goes a bit off the deep end:

But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party.

Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

I seriously don't understand how the whole "count Michigan and Florida" thing is actually a legitimate argument. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states. Either the Clinton-boosters who are pushing this thing have lost their minds, or they're being intellectually weasely, and neither of those eithers would be particularly encouraging.