Got To Love Watching These Folks

While I feel quite confident that all of our readers could give a damn what these fools do next, this is further evidence that Democrats don't have a clue what a democracy really is? Interesting questions to a party who never seem to have any answers!

Question for the Obamaniacs

Here's Tom Daschle expressing the new Obamaniac line:
With Obama holding an advantage of about 140 pledged convention delegates over Clinton, his allies argued strenuously that the outcome of the contest should be determined by delegates awarded to winners of primaries or caucuses, and not by the 796 Democratic superdelegates. Former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), a co-chair of the Obama campaign, said it would be a "travesty" if Obama maintains his lead among pledged delegates but an advantage among superdelegates allows Clinton to win the nomination."I don't see how we could possibly do anything other than respect the will of the people who have voted in caucus and primary states all over the country," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And what it would say to the world, to the country, that we'd overturn the verdict of those . . . elections would be travesty for . . . the party and for the country."
Question: why is a super-delegate less expressive of "the will of the people" than a delegate chosen by caucus? Isn't, say, a state governor more likely to express "the will of the people" than a delegate chosen by that tiny minority of a state population willing to spend hours and hours at a caucus meeting?
In fact, didn't the Democratic party invent super-delegates precisely because it was afraid that caucus delegates would skew the party way too far to the left - by going all weak at the knees for somebody exactly like Obama? And wasn't it the job of the super-delegates to stop them? If the super-delegates allow themselves to be intimidated by Daschle into yielding to the party's caucus-attending ideological militants, aren't they shirking the responsibility entrusted to them?