NYT: "Superdelegates unswayed by Clinton's attacks"

I think I finally figured out what's going on with the SuperDelegates. Why half of them are refusing to makeup their minds. First check out this quote from today's NYT:

[D]espite giving it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates — members of Congress, elected officials and party leaders — showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.

Then read this, the paragraph that I think explains everything:

John W. Olsen, an uncommitted superdelegate from Connecticut and president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. there. “I also want to wait and hear from all of the Democrats in the primaries and caucuses who haven’t had a chance to choose and vote yet.”

Here's what's going on. The SuperDs are scared of Hillary and Bill, and their supporters, and while they plan on voting for Obama, they want "cover." And their "cover" is going to be waiting until almost every primary is done - at least the big primary in PA - so they can THEN say "gosh, Obama got the majority of the public and the majority of the delegates - who knew?! - I guess I'll have to support him now." Obviously, that same argument applies now - there is no mathematical way that Hillary can win the popular vote or the delegate count from the primaries and caucuses - but the SuperDs are scared of picking sides. So they want a clearer fait accompli, one they think they'll have after Pennsylvania votes.

It's a bit immature. But there you have it. They're going to vote for Obama, they're just waiting until it's "safe." Whatever.