The Anti-Democratic Superdelegate

With the delegate count as close as it is between Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), much of the attention has understandably switched to how the party's superdelegate structure works and who these people will support.
But that focus overlooks the more fundamental question--why do we have superdelegates at all?
It seems obvious that the very existence of such a mechanism is inherently undemocratic and certainly elitist. Here are a few examples of such elitism, from the AP: "'It raises the age old political question. Are we elected to monitor where our constituents are ... or are we to use our best judgment to do what's in the best interests of our constituents,' said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, a Clinton supporter even though Obama won his district."
Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina believes the role of the superdelegate is similar to that of a member of Congress: "We ought to be doing the nation's business when we go to the floor of the House to vote," likening it to the superdelegate role at the party convention.
Nice, huh? One would be hardpressed to think of a better way to patronize one's constituents. Apparently, the children out there--also known as voters--need adult members of the party to decide what's in their best interests.
MoveOn.org has tried to bridge the divide with an online petition, which says:
Let the Voters Decide
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still taking their case to the voters, and millions have yet to cast their ballots. Join 350,000 MoveOn members to tell the superdelegates to let the voters decide who our nominee is.

The rationale for the existence of superdelegates includes this sort of thing:

"The difference I see between the congressional representatives opinions and those of the public are:
1.) Congressional representatives have to operate right in the bowels of the political ecosystem everyday and may have better insight as to which candidate could fare in the ecosystem to achieve the party's goals. (There's a lot of unbelievable shenanigans that you don't see being reported outside of DC.)
2.) That's tempered by the money flows and other forms of influence going on in DC.

While you may not agree with the Superdelegate system -- which puts the delegates under no obligations to vote in one way or another -- those were the rules that were put in place by the Democratic party, and the fact is that voters chose their congressional representatives to make decisions on their behalf when they voted for them at the ballot box."

And the voter is to take on faith the "insight" of the representative who, because of familiarity with the "ecosystem," is more in the know than the typical voter? Well, sure, that representative is deeply knowledgeable about the workings of government, particularly as it relates to point #2--"the money flows and other forms of influence going on in D.C."
And yet, it ought to be noted, isn't point #2 a large chuck of the problem? Doesn't that make up an exceptionally large piece of voter discontent (lobbying/special interest influence)?
But worse is the final point, that "voters chose their congressional representatives to make decisions on their behalf when they voted for them at the ballot box."
Yes, that is so, as regards legislative decisions, but not regarding the party's presidential candidate. By that logic, why do we have primaries and caucuses at all? Why not simply defer to the wisdom of our elected representatives?

Sen. Clinton and her representatives have made clear where they stand on the issue (from the Washington Post):
--Clinton: "'Superdelegates are a part of the process. They are supposed to exercise independent judgment,' said Clinton ..., who wants to put into play hundreds of the unelected delegates, as well as large contingents from Michigan and Florida, where the candidates did not campaign."
--"Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, himself a superdelegate, told reporters Saturday that the delegates should exercise 'their best judgment in the interests of the party and the country,'" and said of a potential re-vote of the Michigan and Florida primaries not contested by Sen. Obama [due to the Democratic Party's decision to penalize those states for moving up their primary dates], 'we don't need a redo," said Ickes, who voted as a Democratic rules committee member to penalize the states. He said of Michigan: 'The people have spoken there.'"

Beautiful. Nothing like the (D)emocratic process at work in all its glory. Of course, one might argue that it's the business of the Democratic Party as to how it organizes itself and what constitutes it's rule structure. Then again, it is the Party that has chosen to cast itself as the voice of the people by stating, among other things, that "honest government" is part of its "vision."
As Princeton professor of history and public affairs, Julian Zelizer, observed: "It couldn't be more ironic; these are two people that party reforms were meant to bring into the Democratic Party. They might need the bosses to kind of decide which of the 'new Democrats' wins."
But Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) sees the situation clearly enough: "It's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not superdelegates. The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is."

The best way to ensure that is to have the superdelegates stand down and let the voters decide. How's that for a revolutionary and democratic idea?