The idea that the superdelegates exist to "ratify the will of the Democratic primary electorate," expressed most recently by Kos's front page piece, is misguided. For better or for worse, they have a different function.
(As others have said, by this logic, MA's John Kerry, Kennedy, and Patrick would be bound to support Hillary; WA's Cantwell and Murray would be bound to support Obama; and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.)
As I see it, even though the party bylaws link them to state delegations, the superdelegates are kind of like at-large representatives. Here's why.
What is it that the "superdelegate" groups have in common? What's their constituency?
- The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
- The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
- All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
- The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
- All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.
(from: 2008 Democratic Convention Watch)
What they have in common, who they represent, is the party in a general sense. Thus they're not connected to the winning or losing of the state-by-state primaries.
From that, I get the interpretation that the superdelegates are supposed to do what they think is best for the party. If they were locked into the state-by-state results, there'd be no need for a special class of "superdelegate," just more delegates per state.
Consequently, by design, they're meant to vote their consciences.
Sure, it might be politically smart to cast their votes in accordance with the outcomes of their state primary. Hence, the talk of "ratifying the will of the electorate." But they might want to override that if they think one candidate would be sufficiently superior for the party that it outweighs other political considerations.
Thinking of the superdelegates as representing the party at large definitely helps me make better sense of why I've been balking at the idea that they need to follow the state primary results or the majority of the pledged delegates. Contravening those results would be a risky course of action, to be sure, but the DNC has to have envisioned a "good of the party" standard for taking that risk.
Consider a scenario in which Clinton ended up with more pledged delegates. Don't you think there'd be a strong-to-the-point-of-irresistible movement calling on the superdelegates to swing their votes to Obama... because it would be best for the party? If you support Obama, wouldn't you want to keep that as a possibility?
This "will of the electorate" frame is a tempting shortcut, but it's not the DNC's design, and the existence of superdelegates pledged to candidates other than their state primary winner already shows it's inoperative. If you want to make a case for a superdelegate to behave a certain way, I think the best rhetorical tactic is to use the frame of the "good of the party," or, to be more precise, the party at large.