And - aren't caucuses pretty close to the non-verified ballot which has no real record to go back to?

Unfortunately, this argument has become a technicality -- and the SD's (like Obama supporters) seem to have their fingers thrust firmly into their ears and are loudly chanting blah-blah-blah-blah.. as they march us all toward the Nov. precipice.

All of the "unity" candidate supporters seem to be ignoring this. They take the attitude of the Republican Party after 2000: We won. You lost. Suck it up. That attitude works if you have undisputed power, but not when you need the support of the "losers" to achieve further goals. I would seriously wonder if all of the people whining about Clinton supporter's weren't Republicans trying to undermine the Democratic Party... except that many of them have been prominent progressives for years.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who endorsed Mr. Obama nearly two months ago, recently called Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, who has yet to endorse a candidate. "Hey, Ritter!" Mr. Richardson said. "After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he'll remember you."

On the other end of the line, Mr. Ritter demurred, saying he had pledged to remain neutral until the primary season ends.

OK for a Gov, but a party apparatchik? And even for the Gov, for how long?

For the present it won't likely look too good. Yet we all know lot can happen between now and the convention. According to the U.K. Telegraph, the Obama campaign is going to try to take her completely out of contention:

Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

I dont mind rewriting some parts of the constitution but that cant be done now

If I was a non-partisan and undecided Superdelegate who wanted to use the national popular vote as my #1 factor in deciding who to support, in the absence of an official count, I would need to uses estimates on caucus states that don't release their tallies and estimates for Obama's actual popular support in Michigan at the time of the primary.

Since the "national popular vote count" is not an official tally, why wouldn't a non-partisan superdelegate want to be as inclusive as possible in trying to assess the votes of all of those voters who came out to vote in the primaries?

In my opinion, a stronger argument for Hillary is her electibility and the fact that since March 1 she has won the majority of the primaries by over 500K.

I don't think that the "national popular vote" argument that estimates 0 support for Obama in Michigan will hold water with any superdelegate who isn't already in Hillary Clinton's camp, in other words, not an "undecided superdelegate."