In the aftermath of the latest round of primaries, the talking heads of CNN/MSN/Fox etc are a-twitter with their assessment of the Democratic candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Similarly, the candidates themselves are doing their own spin-jobs as they enter the home stretch of this primary season.

Obama trumpeted the fact that he has secured the majority of the pledged delegates, while Hilary points to her popular vote lead along with her wins in the swing states the Democrats need to win in the fall.

Many talking heads are saying that the majority of pledged delegates is a clear indicator that Obama should be the nominee, that the superdelegates should not contradict the "will of the people" in this. Huh? If the "will of the people" was the sole guiding factor, then the delegate formula wouldn't have ANY superdelegates -- it would be ALL pledged delegates. Why are the superdelegates in there, if not to (potentially) correct for a popular but misguided wave sweeping up the "will of the people".

In fact, look no farther than West Virginia for a case in point. Senator Robert Byrd, the most senior Senator from West Virginia, endorsed Obama this week, just after West Virginia finished totally trouncing Obama in favor of Hillary. Basically, Byrd told his constituents that he knows better. I won't debate his choice here, but if the most powerful Democratic member of the Senate decides its ok to contradict his constituents' vote then I don't see why the other superdelegates need to march in lockstep with their constituents.

The Florida and Michigan mess remains a thorn in the Democrats side, both now and in the future. Whether those delegates are included or not changes the finish line, but the finish line remains just that -- the point at which the race ends. Not before, unless all but one of the runners drops out.