"Elected delegates" aren't more Super than "Super delegates"

Over at mydd, I explain how the media and Obama campaign are misleading voters about delegates:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ delegate-allocation-wont-match-vote.html
This whole topic gets complicated and is hard to explain in a simple way, but let's be clear
ALL DELEGATES ARE EQUAL
The media and the Obama campaign are trying to assert the "elected delegates" as being representative of the will of the Democratic voters, and therefore more legitimate the Super-delegates who are "back room brokers" and power party officials.
HERE'S THE TRUTH.
Many of the "elected delegates" WEREN'T ELECTED!!!
OTHERS ABSOLUTELY DON'T REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!
They will be selected and allocated based on each states' system.
For example:Many congressional districts had an even number of delegates up for grabs. A candidate had to get over 62.5% to win 3. Otherwise, a vote of 59% to 41 would net 2 delegates each.
In other similar districts, the a candidate winning 51-49 would get a 3 to 2 split.
Also, delegates in some states like Nevada were awarded based on voting patterns in 2004, with certain areas getting more delegates. This is how Hillary won Nevada and Obama got more delegates.
Lastly, almost every state awards EXTRA delegates for winning the state overall. Therefore they aren't representing any voters in particular.
So the real picture shows that this process wasn't set-up to distinguish between "elected"and "super". There are "super" delegates awarded based on winning states and CERTAIN DISTRICTS.
If you want to argue that a "super delegate" shouldn't decide this election, neither should say a delegate from a DISTRICT OBAMA OR CLINTON LOSS BY UP TO 20 POINTS BUT WAS AWARDED TO THEM BASED ON AN ARBRITARY FORMULA. They don't represent the people in that district.
btw. If the "superdelegates" should verify the voters' will, Where's the media demanding Kerry, Kennedy, and Patrick of Mass. support Clinton?