it's not a semantic point. i don't think the idea of superdelegates is undemocratic; it's actually really very jeffersonian, in the sense of it being a check on the process. i mean, let's say that somebody crazy like donald trump is leading going into the convention. then, the superdelegates are there to prevent that from actually happening, riots or not. democracy really requires some checks in the form of things like bills of rights, constitutions, procedural rules and, in this case, superdelegates. that's fine.
but, what it means is that when you have a tie like this, those votes should be up for persuasion - which is exactly what sanders is arguing.
so, i mean, he's right. i think anybody that sits down and thinks it through can see that. so, why heap it on him when it's obvious that he's right?
in a sense, she's right, too: the polls in may are not really predictive, yet. although we're getting there, too. more to the point is that they're volatile. if they were running in a straight line, you'd start to think things are locking into place. but there's quite a bit of movement right now.
but, he's also right in pointing out that he has much, much stronger fundamentals with swing voters, who couldn't vote in some of the more important states. he is the stronger candidate. and, if this process was functioning properly (rather than as a coronation), the party would walk into the convention with the outcome being a tie, weigh the evidence and make the right choice - which, many are suggesting, is sanders.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-anointment-democratic-party#comment-74782613