If her victory were perceived to be awarded via an insider deal (ie, superdelegates overturning primary results)

1. Superdelegates voting their candidate of choice is not an insider deal.
   
2. Superdelegates are delegates.  They don't overturn anything. They vote, and their votes are counted with all the other delegates. The only thing extraordinary about them is that their seat at the convention is "automatic" -  they are not selected and allocated according to  the primary/caucus results.
   

That's what they're there for.

How is Obama going to win the nomination without superdelegates overturning primary results? Without some kind of "insider deal" like, oh, I don't know, the DNC pretending FL and MI don't exist?!

But this leads to another reason that I support Clinton: I think she'll do the work to unite the party. She's talked about it for literally months, and she's a Democrat through and through.  She has a long history with the AA community, and she will continue to reach ot to them.

I am not interested in trying to guess what people are thinking as they exit the voting booth. The polls clearly show that the number of Clinton supporters who won't support Obama is much higher than the number of Obama supporters who won't support Clinton.

Head-to-head state polling supports this conclusion. Heck, the primaries THEMSELVES support this conclusion. If Obama "is" the nominee, why is he getting defeated by 35 and 41 points in swing state primaries at this late date?

Now, are Obama supporters going to hide their heads in the sand about the electoral facts? Or are they going to realize that the writing is on the wall?

The media has been happily parroting Obama's talking points for him all along.  And, at the same time the media has taken anything that has come out of Hillary's or Bill's mouth and searched high and low fot the worst possible interpretation they could put on it.

When Bill's fairytale comment was twisted intentionally by Michelle Obama into something she could call racist Donna Brazile should have been out there slapping Michelle down for doing that.  Instead Donna joined in the chorus with Michelle.

Obama, should he be the nominee, will almost certainly pick up zero disaffected Repubs and a serious minority of independents.  His inexperience and clumsiness will hurt him in the end.

Clinton, on the other hand, has a much stronger record of building coalitions -surprisingly- across party lines, and the fact that she is a more moderate and less liberal Dem will appeal to independents more.  Her more hawkish stance on security issues will also negate some of McCain's only real advantage in the race.

In regards to caucuses, I have severe reservations about their ability to truly reflect the will of the people in the same way a regular straight up primary vote does.  Caucuses have weird and confusing rules, typically draw substantially less people because they take so much longer, and just don't seem representative of their counties.  I think it's long past time to retire all caucuses and their elaborate confusing rules.

In particular, the Nevada caucuses really pointed out to me how skewed they could be.  Remember, the union of hotel workers (that endorsed Obama) was allowed to caucus in their workplace, whereas the teacher's union (that endorsed Clinton) was not allowed the similar convenience.

I'm new here and haven't noticed an explicit reference from him on this.

I recall back in 2004 (I think) he was a Clark supporter and I guess I assumed he was for Clinton because General Clark is on her team.