It all depends; are we talking about America or Texas?

It seems that one's view of the the proper role of superdelegates may depend on geography -- put another way, exactly where are we talking about, the country as a whole of the State of Texas.

If we are talking about the USofA, then according to remarks this past Saturday by one of the top strategists in the Clinton camp Harold Ickes in countering the recent claims of some prominent Democrats that party elders would be wrong to override the will of their constituents in their choice for the Democratic presidential nominee, superdelegates who could decide the party’s White House nominee were as much or “potentially more in touch” with the issues important to voters than the delegates amassed by the candidates through state primaries and caucuses. (See The Hill.)

On the other hand, if we are talking about Texas, that is a different story. The Washington Post notes the following:

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that . . . "[Hillary] could win the popular vote [in Texas] and still lose the race for delegates. This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem," said one of Hillary's Texas supporters.