The Republicans will win in the fall not because either democrat is unacceptable to you for their corporate ties.  No room for conceit here; but instead because Republicans are not ashamed of corporate ties, and even revel in them.  They are unapologetic in their Ayn Rand approach to elitism and wealth and sociopathy.  For Republicans disenfranchisement is fair play.
Oddly, it is only McCain who has pushed for campaign finance reform.

I don’t trust anything I read from the Brookings Institue, Maani, and here you are offering us an article from that organization saying the superdelegate thing is all about party unity, and then, in your next post, telling us how it’s really all about money.  The Brookings article was smoke and propaganda designed to obscure the venality of both parties, but especially of the democrats.  Obama knows how to play the game.  He’s been bought, a charismatic uncle tom.

This “young” 63yo, spoiled, ex trucker, construction worker and now a farmer (yup, all gravy train jobs) isn’t aware that the Superdelegates ever really played a role in deciding a nomination before now.
I stand by my earlier criticism of the Superdelegates.
As for all the ones who won’t vote, check out what the Republican’s are saying about McCain.
It is difficult to make a good choice when you only have the lesser of two evils to choose between.
And the Supremes were right about the Parties being able to make any rule that they choose to make; don’t mean I gotta be happy about it.

It would seem to me that a rule allowing a simple majority could take the place of the Superdelegates.
We certainly don’t need any more elections.
Plus, seeing as how this applies to only the Democrats, how would the Republican’s decide if the situation were reversed?
One thing that would help would be a law (with meaningful penalties) banning contributions from anyone not eligible to vote for that candidate and then only a maximum of $2000. Most ‘ordinary’ American’s don’t have $2000 to give, let alone the $20k and up that special interests can ‘give’.
Most of us, Hillary excepted, can agree that too much ‘big money’ is involved in politics, making the system the mess that we have seen.
The MSM would be against this as it would hinder their ability to reap all the ad revenue. All the more reason to implement it.
That would allow a candidate who is not in the pocket of some special interest group(s) a chance at running for office.
In the case of Presidential Elections, anyone could donate, subject to the maximum limit.
Basically, I want to see the elections decided by the voter’s, not a Superdelegate nor an Electoral College.

FarmerTx
I think I understand your argument about the Superdelegates (at least many or most of them) not being ‘elected’ or otherwise appointed by the people –
For this purpose…(ie, selecting a nomination)
On the other hand, it would appear that this group was in fact created for that exact purpose, (as Maani has stated, and as the article below articulates as well). And, since this is not a ‘new’ sort of rule or procedure, like so many others have come about, one might have to agree with the validity of the group (and its purpose) based on that alone. (different from the deal in FL and MI, which is ‘new’ to this election).
So, it’s one of those times when again, we probably have to respect precedent. IOW, we can’t just decide that the group should be disbanded now, when it’s been an accepted and established part of the process for a very long time, just because we might not like the outcome.
That said, you might find a bit of hope (dependant on where you’re sitting on the candidates) in this article from the NYT. I was immediately drawn to it myself, because of the reference to John Lewis. He has been (and remains) one of my heroes from the days of the CRM, in his very brave NON-VIOLENT commitment to social justice and equality. He is of course an elder statesman, and I admit I’d been somewhat disappointed in his support of Mrs. Clinton.
However, he makes an important point here, that speaks to your own concerns. Specifically, he says this:
• “…a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.”

In short, he’ll follow the lead of his constituency.
(I’ve posted the first portion of the article below, with a link to the rest).

That said, I too disagree with the overall premise of the writer of this particular piece. Yes, there’s always patronage involved in politics. One of our own long-term Reps, Maxine Waters, is also supporting Mrs. Clinton, and we now discover that she has received monetary support from the Clinton campaign.  I wish that were not so, but apparently it is. I don’t know if she is a superdel, but as a rep she would be voting against the wishes of her particular constituency.

OTOH, Mr. Lewis is a good enough example, (and there are others) of those who DO choose, based on the wishes of their voters, and not patronage or back room deals.

Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.
“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he, too, would not go against the will of voters in his district.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinto n.html?ei=5088&en=85ac05fe6229f377&ex=1360731600&am p;adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=12030 50082-6eXQB0iSfn/oGHSEga0UcQ&pagewanted=print