The Weekly Standard blog points us to this McClatchy report on how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have sought to cement the loyalty of superdelegates to their campaign; a little old fashioned bribery:

[A] study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take.

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.