Look! In the caucuses, in the primaries, it's a bird-

-no it's a superdelegate.

If that word sounds like the protagonist in the least interesting comic book ever, you might want to check out CNN's site explaining "Why delegates matter"

It does a nice rundown of a process most people (myself included) are only dimly aware of.

With Clinton claiming a victory based on percentages of caucus goers - and Obama claiming victory based on numbers of delegates won, you can see why these terms will start to matter.

This thing goes to the wire, we all may get to see more than we care to about how this particular presidential sausage gets made.

The definition that kind of reaches out and grabs you is the Superdelegate:

Superdelegates comprise 796* out of the total 4,049* delegates. Superdelegates are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, national committee members or party leaders (such as former presidents and vice presidents). They are not required to indicate a preference for a candidate, nor do they compete for the privilege like pledged delegates.

Essentially, these are the well connected people within the Democratic party (the asterisks on the totals are there because the number can drop if people cannot make it to the convention, are deleted by the winning candidate and a host of other bizarre reasons).

Pledged delegates are selected with the understanding that they will vote for a given candidate at the convention. Superdelegates are not elected and, in perhaps my favorite understatement on the site-(emphasis added)

There is no official process to win superdelegates because they can vote for whomever they choose. But a candidate can use whatever powers of persuasion they have at their disposal to win the support of a superdelegate.

I'm sure they can, and I'm sure they will.

Given that the magic number to win the nomination is 2,025 - it's rather jarring to think that almost 800 people in the delegate pool are independent from the will of the electorate.

If Obama takes South Carolina and Super Tuesday doesn't result in a crushing win for somebody - this could be a veeeEery interesting group of people to watch.

The political animals on cable are already rubbing their hands in the hope that there might actually be a national convention that chose a candidate instead of just another pep-rally.

Part of me would really love that to happen - but I have to say, it's really an ointment or suppository kind of choice:

A primary system that anoints a favorite based on a few states (disenfranchising the bulk of the party faithful), or a convention where the preferences of the electorate are traded as commodities - and where a small group of partisans can overrule popular will.

Not exactly the kind of process that inspires monuments and statues, eh?