There is a narrative that has developed among the mainstream press that suggests Hillary cannot possibly capture the nomination because she trails in pledged delegates. The reasoning is that due to the party's proportional allocation rules, her quest to overtake Obama in this regard is a mathematical impossibility. True, but the question left unanswered is what is the proper and intended role of the super-delegates in the nominating process?

Some brief history: After the drubbing George McGovern received in 1972, by losing 48 out of 50 states, the wise men of the party, in an attempt to insure that Democrats didn't repeat their mistake by nominating another extreme candidate, established a mechanism that would work to help prevent the party from engaging in further acts of self-immolation.

Thus, by definition, the anti-democratic super-delegate concept was clearly intended to supersede the "will of the people" in cases where electoral disaster loomed. The  problem faced by the Democratic Party in the current nomination context is that the wisdom and prudence embodied in the super-delegate concept has clashed with the philosophy of identity and diversity politics that has increasingly come to define the core philosophy of the party. The Democratic Party cannot win any general election without the near monolithic participation of its most reliable constituency, the African-American voting bloc. It is interesting to note that, until Obama became a viable candidate, no one complained or cared one whit about the existence of super-delegates and their potential ability, or, even duty, to override the wishes of primary voters.

The position of many of his African-American supporters is that if Obama leads in pledged delegates, he should be guaranteed the nomination. This view is based on their presumption that super-delegates must not overturn the "will of the people." But this begs the question. Namely, if we accept the view of Obama supporters, a view shared by his favorite constituency, the mainstream press, then what is the purpose of super-delegates? George McGovern led in pledged delegates yet was ignominious defeated in a landslide. The unpleasant truth is that the intended role of super-delegates is to help insure victory in the general election and this goal is not always synonymous with the proposition that the "will of the people" should always be honored. Indeed, the primary function is to prevent "extreme" candidates from capturing the nomination.

The contentious role of the super-delegates illustrates the fact that some in the party want selective enforcement of the rules. Many loudly declaim the unfairness to Obama of seating the Michigan and Florida delegations, yet in the same breath, are dismissive of the supra-democratic role of the super-delegates. Indeed, Al Sharpton has put the party on notice that the election will have been "stolen" if Obama leads in pledged delegates but Hillary is awarded the nomination as the more electable candidate. How ironic that the singular event that gave rise to Bush Derangement Syndrome will now be played out amongst the Democratic Party at its convention in Denver.

Given the reality of both Hillary and Obama's limitations, the party seems to be facing an inexorable decision in Denver: which of the two is the least unfavorable candidate?