The uncommitted superdelegates will not go against the will of the voters; they will vote for the candidate who won the most pledged delegages (i.e., Obama).

Let's take a look at that bit of conventional wisdom.  Does it hold up?  Not necessarily. 

We do know that: (1) there will be no revotes in Michgan and Florida; (2) therefore, Obama is virtually certain to win the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes; and (3) a drawn-out, bitter primary fight damages the party and the eventual nominee's chances against McCain. 

Given these factors, why are the uncommitted supers not lining up behind Obama, the candidate who has already won the mantle of "the will of the voters"?  If the supers are going to follow the will of the voters, why aren't they following already?  Let's consider the possibilities.

1.  The supers are afraid that declaring "The people have spoken, and they chose Obama" would piss off voters in the states which have not yet voted.  Although the supers know the pledged-delegate and popular-vote contests are over, the public (thanks to the MSM) sees the race as neck-and-neck.  The supers do not want to be seen as the undemocratic overlords who decided the race prematurely, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.

2.  The supers do not want to piss off Hillary if there is even a 2% chance she can win the nomination.  The supers do not want to be on the bad side of a President Clinton, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.

3.  The supers want to move as a group at the convention to ensure that they are all on the winning side.  They are unwilling to step forward now, individually, because there is still the theoretical chance that the bulk of supers could move in the other direction.  They do not want to risk being on the wrong side of history, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.

4.  The supers accept the possibility that Obama might have a fatal weakness in his electability.  They do not want to endorse Obama and then have Hillary expose a fatal weakness, causing the other supers to break for her.  The supers do not want to embrace a candidate who then collapses, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves.
 
5.  The supers have decided, but they do not want to publicly commit to (a) Hillary, who will probably lose the primary, or (b) Obama, who can still theoretically lose the primary.  The supers do not want to endorse a candidate who then loses, and they are willing to accept a drawn-out, bitter primary to avoid this bad outcome for themselves. 

Let's face it, folks: however you slice it, the uncommitted superdelegates, by remaning uncommitted, are looking out for themselves, putting their own interests above those of the Democratic party.  Therefore, we can expect their eventual vote to be guided by their own self-interests -- not by "the will of the voters." 

Now as it happens, their self-interest will probably dictate that they vote for the pledged-delegate winner.  If they don't, they risk being seen as the people who tore the party apart -- never good for your image. 

But we must also recognize the possibility that their self-interest could dictate that they go against the pledged-delegate winner.  Hillary may make a convincing argument that the superdelegates would be seen as greater villains by denying her the nomination.  (She's got the momentum, she's more electible, dreams of American women, etc.) Maybe she will offer all the supers ambassadorships.  Maybe Hillary's supers will make a strong early case and the herd mentality will kick in.  Who knows.  But make no mistake: at the convention, the question foremost on the minds of the uncommitted supers will not be, "What do the voters want?" but "What is the best for me?"  If they were looking out for Democrats, they wouldn't still be uncommitted.