Super Delegates isn't really a controversial issue, though it should be. Everyone in the news was talking about how winning a State could shift momentum and make someone win. Here is an article example of what the PERCEPTION OF WINNING can mean to momentum;
Washington Post: In South Carolina, will Clinton’s expected victory shift momentum?
In other words, simply winning ONE State can shift momentum. Imagine if the delegates were stacked in such a way Hillary always got the better of every or most contests? That's what Super Delegates do. They create an impression - a valid one - that the one with more delegates has more momentum, i.e. the one with MORE delegates is actually winning. The fact that some delegates were pledged to the political Establishment form the start doesn't matter when you crunch the numbers without changing the system. The media, more often then not, seems just to follow the talking points of the loudest person.
Video: Samantha Bee Answers All of Your Superdelegate Questions
Extract from a Mother Jones Article;
From now on, Democratic governors, members of Congress, and party movers and shakers get a say in the process. We shall call you 'ex-officio delegates'—that way, everyone who speaks Latin will know how you got this job. Normal people will call you 'superdelegates' and have no idea.
When you win a State and most of the Delegates go to someone else that's EXACTLY what is happening, i.e. the momentum shifts to the one who is winning cause people like winners. Samantha Bee just did an embarrassing stump for Hillary Clinton defending the Political Establishment's right to win elections by using the expectations created by the numbers of delegates to skew an election in the public's perception (proving that the Daily Show was right in not making her host... I understand Hillary has the genitals to qualify as a woman but I think it pretty much ends there, unless killing innocent women and children is considered to be OK if its a caring woman running for President).
What Samantha Bee did there at the end of the video is take Hillary's talking point as a fact and PROMOTE it. (Hillary is a woman so when she lies women automatically want to believe her... the way a Republican wants to believe a Republican and a Democrat wants to believe a Democrat... why do these parties have so much power anyways? It's unAmerican).
Obama was successful in getting Super Delegates to switch because he was brave enough to prove what Hillary Clinton is, i.e. like George Bush (THE GOP Establishment, pretty much). If it takes THAT much persuasion to gain an election advantage then CLEARLY the Super Delegate System is biased towards the Clinton's, who ARE the Democrat Establishment they way the Bush's ARE the GOP Establishment... and clearly, they are very similar. Here are related proofs;
HOWARD DEAN TALKS PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS APRIL 21, 2016 - Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean discusses his role as a superdelegate in the Democratic primary race and revisits his infamous "scream speech" from 2004. (5:19)
The following Democrat Establishment argument, bought wholesale by the media, is just plain hogwash as it leaves out how these can create moment for the establishment and what must be done to bring a Political Establishment person down;
This time the delegate stealing strategy to create momentum by showing how tough a person is to beat using fuzzy math... worked. Last time, with Obama, it didn't... but then, Obama actually exposed Hillary Clinton (then gave her so much power he practically stole the election for her highness Third Term Clinton here)
Some stuff Obama said about Hillary Clinton that worked to overcome the Super Delegate pressure on non-Establishment candidates for dealing with HIllary Clinton;