What a biased and intemperate article. How is that Sen. Clinton's need to secure the votes of the superdelegates can be dismissed as a last-ditch effort to rely on the 'whims' of these people, while Sen. Obama's absolute dependency on securing the very same votes of the very same people is somehow celebrated as natural and normal if not in fact inevitable?

Reality check: it is Sen. Clinton, not Sen. Obama, that the plurality of the superdelegates who have publicly announced their allegiance support. If the remaining unaligned superdelegates break for her in the same proportion as those who have previously announced for her, she wins -- game, set, match. So which candidate is it then that truly should be characterised as depending on the 'whims' of these people?