By the end of the primary season, neither candidate will have enough ‘Pledged’ delegates to win the nomination. Obama is leading, but leading is not enough to win. The Super Delegates will decide the nomination.
Who will they go for? They will likely go for the ‘perceived’ winner.
As of now, the pledged delegate count and the popular vote are within ~1-2%, with Obama leading both.
If HRC wins Pennsylvania, she will still be behind in the delegate count, but she will likely take a popular vote lead. She will also have taken most of the big Electoral College states. She will also have officially taken two out of the three BIG problematic states for Dems: Ohio and Pennsylvania. Florida being the third. (She’ll argue that she won that also!) This may be enough for her to be the perceived winner.
If BHO wins Pennsylvania. He will have the delegate lead, the popular vote lead and one of the problematic states. That should be enough to be the perceived winner. But Florida may then come back into the equation. Each will have won one of the three big ones. The winner of the Florida delegates will make it 2 out of 3.

So it's not a cult of personality? Clear evidence that a significant percentage of Obama's supporters have no allegiance to the Democratic platform. They are not progressives. They will vote for the GOP rather than HRC. McCain would advance Democratic principles better than HRC? Right.
The question then arises, to whom does Obama owe allegiance? Do you dance with those that brought you?
Another question... if Obama gets beat up by the GOP, will these disenchanted supporters go home to roost with the GOP? McCain wins!

Hillary's campaign released an economic manifesto today http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=52032
and the blogs are silent. The blogs used to be full of analysis. Now from both sides there are screeds, taunts, preaching and gaming.
Are we to the point where indeed no one cares what our candidates actually propose to do? The fact is we don't.
Has the race boiled down to who looks good or bad , sounds good or bad? This started out looking like a 1960 election redux, now its looking more like 1980.

The consternation over the 'super' delegates is palpable. Obama supporters are worried that his candidacy will be hijacked by these delegates. There is a persuasive argument that they should follow the lead of the voters. To wit: Whoever wins the most voters should get the most super delegates.

There are some problems, however, with apportioning delegates. First, who would have the authority to order them to vote for one candidate or another? These are not just votes, they are actual people who have ranking in the Democratic party. They will not likely compelled to do anything.

The second issue revolvesaround which group of voters should be used to guide them. All voters? A dangerous precedent I should think. Many of the primaries and caucuses are open to anyone. Should Republicans be a guide as to who the delegates should select as the Democratic nominee? Even independents, especially those who have indicated McCain as their second choice behind Obama? Why should they be telling the delegates who to vote for? No, if the 'super' delegates are to be apportioned, it should be based upon the percentages of Democrats supporting each candidate.