It is my opinion that the superdelegates will not, under any reasonable circumstances, overturn the pledged delegate lead. I don't see how it happens, and here's why.
Voting for the pledged delegate leader (Obama) is the "neutral" position. It is the simplest defensible direction to go, and the blowback from that safe decision would be far less.
What the Clinton supporters/defenders are asking is that superdelegates take the less defensible position, the decision far more likely to draw significant blowback from their constituencies, all on semantic arguments. Semantic arguments they would then have to try and explain, many of them in an election year.
The one main remaining hope among the Clinton camp is that somehow they can craft an argument that they've won the popular vote, and that that should outweigh a pledged delegate lead in the eyes of the superdelegates, but even that's not a clean presentation as it would likely require the inclusion of Florida and Michigan.
(Frankly, I don't even believe that winning the popular vote would be enough unless it's a huge gap. At best it's going to muddy the waters. We're still in a situation where you're asking superdelegates to go on the record, before their constituencies, to reject the candidate with the stronger argument, and I just don't see that happening.)
You have to understand that the Democratic party extends beyond Hillary Clinton. These superdelegates are tasked not only with picking a nominee, but also acting in the best interests of the broader party hopes. You're asking them not only to risk themselves, but to risk a party schism that could cost downticket elections, congressional seats, governor's seats, local races.
Do you really think that these "party elders" are going to step away from the "safe" decision, the "neutral" decision, just to help out Hillary Clinton? Are they going to risk squandering the likely Democratic advantages of this year just so she is the nominee? Is the difference between the two candidates so great as to justify all of that risk?
You can build whatever contorted electability arguments you want. You can write whatever ugly arguments you want in the comments,
And about the "they won't vote for the black guy" argument--it ain't pretty, but it has substantial basis in fact. Democrats who care about winning in November need to consider it....
But I believe that you're asking too much of them out of your own hopes and emotions. Short of a massive Obama scandal, the superdelegates are not going to overturn the pledged delegate lead.
This is where I am.