I understand your frustration . . . but things really aren't that clear anymore . . .
You see, you can't have it both ways. If Hillary wins the most votes -- and it increasingly looks as if she will, by winning the popular vote -- you can't say Obama should still win because he had the most delegates and the rules are the rules . . . because if rules are the rules, then superdelegates -- which are included in those rules -- need to be included too. You can't pick and choose which rules you want to keep, and which to throw out, if Hillary is actually the victor in terms of raw vote counts.
It is a perfectly viable argument to present, i.e., that the superdelegates threaten democracy, IF using them would overturn a candidates lead in both the delegate and popular votes. But if Obama doesn't have the popular vote, then the moral strength of that argument goes out the back door, because it is hard to see how using superdelegates to elect the candidate who actually got the most votes . . . it is hard to see how that is undemocratic.
Besides, being in the lead due to caucases -- which are not really representational and truly democratic -- and not allowing Michigan and Florida voters to have a say is hardly a paradigm for "democracy". If these states were counted, Hillary would be in the lead in the popular vote -- and likely at the end of all of this she will be in the lead of the popular vote even without these states. Essentially, that negates the "democracy" argument.
You see, the delegate system is shadey at best. I mean, how is it that one candidate clearly win the popular vote in a state like Texas, for instance, and yet tie in terms of delegate count? It is rediculous. The superdelegates situation just adds more confusion and question marks to the whole matter . . . but the popular vote is clear. If Hillary wins the popular vote, the argument that the delegates are what matters, and so Obama should win even though he didn't get the most votes because rules are rules, then there won't be any argument -- moral or legal -- for not including the superdelegates.
At this point, Obama's only real hope in stopping the Hillary comeback is to win the popular vote, or to gain the most superdelegates . . . and I don't think he can do either.
As for Obama being the most electable, I would have to disagree. Obama is doing well because he carries the latte liberal and black votes. But working class Americans don't like him -- and I can't imagine there is much he can do to change their minds on that at this point. Really, the scandals -- such as the rev Wright issue -- that have surfaced against Obama are issues that really negate any realistic prospect of him gaining much ground among more conservative voters. Essentially, you will have mass exodus of working class voters who would have voted for Hillary choosing McCain should Obama be the nominee. And there is no realistic prospect for victory solely by relying on Black and latte liberal votes. Granted, now that these voter blocks have largely turned against Clinton, her chances are also greatly reduced in the general election -- but the argument that Obama is clearly more electable simply no longer holds weight.
Particularly if Clinton is able to convince Obama to be her running mate, she would be able to pick up a good chunk of left wing and black voters who would otherwise not vote at all, and yet still be in the position -- unlike Obama (even with Hillary as a running mate) -- to draw heavily on working class and even moderate republican voters (particularly those voters who are concerned about the economy). If Ann Coulter supports Hillary over McCain, I suspect there will be those conservatives who will follow her.
I think Hillary is the stronger candidate overall, and her chances of winning this thing very realistic indeed.