Now I just hope the SD's really do consider the electability question when they make their decision.

Well so do I. (Let's pause to bask in the warmth of a Hillary supporter and an Obama supporter finding a point of agreement ... okay, enough of that.)

But when they do, I hope they aren't fooled by simplistic arguments that try to extrapolate from primary results to results in the general election. That argument seems to assume that voters who preferred Clinton over Obama will prefer McCain over Obama (and it's only applied in that direction, never to argue that voters who preferred Obama over Clinton wouldn't vote for Clinton in the general).

That goes for hand-wavey demographic arguments, too, which again seem to assume that if some group preferred Clinton over Obama, they won't vote for Obama in an Obama vs. McCain race. Unless Hillary and McCain are interchangeable (and obviously they aren't) the argument simply doesn't make sense. Josh has had some detailed analysis of why it doesn't make sense recently. I think the remaining superdelegates will look at this question at least that critically.

I hope they'll look at primary and caucus results, and the popular vote breakdown in each state, and Obama-vs-McCain and Clinton-vs-McCain polls, and electoral college projections, and favorability numbers (on which, as I'm 'sure you know, Hillary's numbers are close to an all-time low for Gallup), fundraising ability, and all other relevant data.

I think what they'll conclude is that Obama could beat McCain, and Clinton could beat McCain, and it's hard to predict which makes that outcome more certain. They both have weaknesses and strengths. And McCain is a weak candidate in a year that's not shaping up too good for the GOP.

What I doubt will happen is that the 80% or so of the uncommitted superdelegates that Hillary is so much more electable than Obama that this decides their vote. Especially considering that another factor they'll have in mind will be the consequences of overruling the pledged delegates, a factor that at the very least will give Obama a bit of an edge if the electability arguments don't seem conclusive.

The way you put it below makes the point even more compelling:
The SDs were originally put there to protect the party from nominating unelectable candidates.

If they ask whether Hillary is "more electable" than Obama, even by some small and difficult to quantify amount, maybe they break 50/50. It depends enormously on what data they look at and how they weigh the various factors. And 50/50 on the uncommitted superdelegates gives the nomination to Obama in even the most optimistic projections for Hillary.

But if they look at whether there's a compelling argument that Obama is unelectable, that's a very different question. I doubt that even half, or anything close to half, would reach that conclusion.

And the more they know about the history of why the SD's were created, the less likely they are to reach that conclusion. The SD's were put there to protect the party from nominating the sort of fringe candidate who would have no chance at all, as could happen with a highly fractured field, and especially with large-scale GOP meddling. Obama isn't anywhere near that category.

That would be your criteria for electability. And some SDs might agree. But that is not what Dean is talking about - in face value. The SDs were originally put there to protect the party from nominating unelectable candidates.