(2) What's all this 'superdelegates should follow the will of the people' nonsense? I'm with Clinton on this one: it would defeat the whole purpose if they did not exercise their own judgment. (Why else have superdelegates at all?) Of course, they have most reason to favour Obama in any case...
(3) Stanley Fish bizarrely claims that the fact that Hillary Clinton would more likely lose the general election is somehow not a legitimate reason for thinking that she would not make the best Democratic nominee:
Electability (a concept invoked often) is a code word that masks the fact that the result of such reasoning is to cede the political power to the ranters.
Um, no. The political power of the right-wing ranters comes from their ability to vote (and advocate) in the general election. Given the fact that they have this power, we are faced with the question how best to deal with it. Burying one's head in the sand doesn't seem advisable. Assuming that it is of great importance that the Democrats win the general election, it is important that we do what we can to raise the probability of this vital outcome. That means: select a nominee who is more likely to win the general election. (That means: Obama.)
A surprising number of people declaim such reasoning on the grounds that it amounts to "blaming the victim". This assumes a strangely narcissistic conception of an election. The question is not who of Clinton or Obama we want to reward or 'deprive' of our votes. If you want to do something nice for Clinton, send her some chocolate. But the election is not for her. It's for the country. And electing Clinton as the Democratic nominee is not (ex hypothesi) what can be expected to do the most good for the country. End of story.