THE SUPERDELEGATES— any of you who have been closely watching the rollercoaster of a Democratic Party primary elections have surely heard about them already. I for one hasn’t had heard of them except for now; despite that I have had great interest in U.S. pre-election contests for many years now.

Of course — contrary to the way they are termed — they aren’t newly-invented superheroes with flowing capes and glinting gloves fitted to their hands, but real people who are designated to hold distinguished positions in the Democratic Party organizations and has superior voting preferences in the primaries, that in the Democratic Party convention this coming August, they might just be the ones to put finality as to the person of the party standard bearer, whether Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton.

As of now, Sen. Obama had gained more pledge votes by performing well in a number of primaries and caucuses held earlier in the year, more than what Sen. Clinton had gained that right now, Sen. Obama merely needs 176 pledged votes in the remaining primaries for him to finally clinch the nomination.

But as of now, and despite the magic number 176 of Obama, the contest is still seen by many as tight and could still run wide open as the next state to vote, which is West Virginia, is expected to go largely in favor of Sen. Clinton.

The latest news is that Sen. Obama had finally overtaken Sen. Clinton in the number of superdelegates that are expected to vote in August. Observers have suggested that in order for Sen. Clinton to overturn the overall lead of Sen. Obama throughout the primaries, she needs to win big among the superdelegates in August. A slight margin of win for her among the superdelegates would not matter as much.

There were some early criticisms in fact about how the Democratic Party nomination system could become undemocratic in a certain way, where the superdelegates could decide to set aside the results of the primaries, after hundreds of thousands of Democratic Party members throughout America from East Coast to West Coast, have exerted efforts to voice out their nomination choices, only to be overturned by the superdelegates, who are party stalwarts designated to their position or stature merely because they are party officials and elected officials. They are called PLEO’s.

There is no stopping the superdelegates from going against the will of the majority or results of the numerous primaries; they could vote irrespective of the primary results, especially in a very tight contest like this. That, even if Sen. Obama garnered the most votes in the primaries, the superdelegates could still overturn this and push Sen. Clinton as the party standard bearer by largely voting for her. “So much for democracy”, I have heard one party member quipped over CNN.

So the race they say between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton would most possibly go down the wire, even towards August during the party convention where the superdelegates would finally vote, and this despite many observers had already advised Sen. Clinton to withdraw from the race as the lead of Sen. Obama in the primaries is nearly insurmountable, merely a mathematical possibility.

But because superdelegates could still matter in August, Sen. Clinton is pushing on.

It was a major news event on BBC last night when the three remaining U.S. presidential election hopefuls attended and participated in the Senate Committee Foreign Relations hearing on the war in Iraq, centering on the progress and status of the military campaign being waged by America over there.

Senator John McCain, the Republican’s official nominee courageously contended against any form of troops withdrawal, citing extreme sectarian tensions that could boil over towards a bloody civil war if America lets go of control over Iraq. A ‘precipitous withdrawal’, as they term it nowadays, by U.S. troops would endanger not only the Iraqis but also open up hazards for America.

Both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party maintained their call for gradual troops withdrawal despite the plea of Gen. David Petraius, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, to have a moratorium in troops withdrawal at the soonest time possible.

Senator Obama is batting for a form or level of “success” in the U.S. campaign in Iraq where troops withdrawal could be well justified but he and General Petraeus could not seem to agree on this.

Senator Clinton’s approval of the war in Iraq, when it was put for affirmation by U.S. President George W, Bush years ago, had become once ominous, thanks to Senator Obama’s rhetoric, and for that, she could possibly take a middle ground as to whether or not there should be troops reduction in the soonest possible time.

Of major note is the so-called recent “surge” in U.S. military operations where it is shown through recent data that the military campaign in Iraq had gained some progress as violence have abated somehow, as compared to last year. This is the “surge” that General Petraeus wants to sustain that he now calls for a temporary stop in troops withdrawal for the moment.

To be sure, if either of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton wins this November, he or she would be in direct confrontation with the present military officials handling Iraq where a McCain presidency would be in the opposite direction.

This now becomes a very grave concern for the U.S. electorate. A lot of Americans want the war in Iraq to end. But the generals want to pursue it to the very end, even if the end means 20 years or 50 years from now, even if everyone agrees that U.S. military resource, as well as the economic whole, is “finite” and not “infinite”. And somehow, John McCain makes sense when he says that a pullout now would throw Iraq into bloody disarray. And to complicate the matter, the Democrats may actually win the presidency.

To stay the course or not to stay the course?

This is one of the main questions that the American people have to consider in their decision as to the next president of America this coming November.

On the ballot sheet, it would be the simple question of whether to choose the Republican way or the Democratic way. But in the whole of things, the fate of the Iraq War as well as that of the Iraqi people (and global stability for that matter), becomes a very complicated question that no amount of hearings could resolve.