Obama seems to think that it's not such a straight-forward issue:

In his third press availability in three days, Obama would not commit to a position he had put forward previously that superdelegates should vote the way their states did -- should the Democratic nomination come down to their votes.

"I think those superdelegates and elected officials and party insiders would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination if the people they represent have said that Obama is our guy," Obama said the morning after the February 5th primaries.

Asked today if superdelegates should vote the way their states votes, Obama hedged. "We haven't had a lengthy discussion with all of our superdelegates -- our super delegates they should vote for me," Obama said.

He added: "The question for those not yet committed and the superdelegates that are still out there ... trying to make up their minds -- my strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the county that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. And you know, I think that should be the guiding approach to determine who would be the nominee. I think it's also important for the superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest to beat John McCain in November and who will be the strongest to make sure that we are broadening the base, bring people who historically have not involved in politics into the fold."

It sounds like Obama is arguing that Super Delegates who are already in his corner should stay there. And that undecided Super Delegates should take a number of factors into consideration, including who leads in pledged delegates, who would be the strongest against McCain, and who would broaden the base of the party.

It's not surprising that Obama wants to leave his options open. After all, he and Hillary have been actively courting the Super Delegates. Winning Super Delegate support has been a part of the campaign:

"We have all been bombarded with e-mails from everybody and their mamas," said Donna Brazile, a senior member of the Democratic National Committee. "Like, `Auntie Donna, you're a superdelegate!' My niece called me today to lobby me. I didn't know what to say."

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and Mrs. Clinton, of New York, are setting aside hours each week to call superdelegates, and their campaigns have set up boiler rooms to pursue likely targets...

Mr. Obama has enlisted Tom Daschle, the popular former Senate majority leader, as well as Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's 2004 presidential nominee.

Senator Obama certainly isn't acting as if Super Delegates should be some kind of council of purity, rising above the process to reinforce the will of the voters.

And just how is the "will of the voters" determined? Kevin Drum asks:

...who decides what the popular will is anyway? Is it number of pledged delegates from the state contests? Total popular vote? Total number of states won? What about uncommitted delegates from primary states? Or caucus states, in which there's no popular vote to consult and delegates are selected in a decidedly nondemocratic fashion to begin with? And what about all the independent and crossover voters? Personally, I'd just as soon they didn't have a say in selecting the nominee of my party at all, but the rules say otherwise. If I'm a superdelegate, do I count their votes, or do I pore over exit polls to try to tease out how Democratic Party voters voted?

Digby adds:

And then there is that fact that some pledge delegates are more heavily weighted depending on their past loyalty to the party or that they represent rural districts (as in Nevada), which results in more delegates being awarded for the same number of votes in some cases. Do you want the super-delegates to count them more or less?

...I am all for insisting that the decision be based upon the will of the people. But the system is so weird that I don't think anyone can tell what that really will be if the party remains polarized.

...Certainly the candidates are both hedging bets with this, which is perfectly understandable. This is shaping up to be trench warfare.

There is simply not an easy answer to this situation. Many aspects of the nomination process, of our political process itself, are undemocratic. But let's not kid ourselves. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will fight hard for this nomination. Neither candidate is above the process. Neither is staking out a position of purity. For now, both canditates will continued to hedge. That's what politicians do.

And what about the Edwards delegates? If John Edwards endorses and gives his delegates to one of the candidates, is that democratic? Will it reflect the will of the voters?

Cross-posted at Daily Kos