What exactly was the point of the DNC rule change for superdelegates?

[pnwmom]

235. All of the caucuses were elitist and non-diverse. Which one do you know of that

had a large fraction of minority voters? And they all are limited to people who can drive whatever distance it is to get to their caucus (often hours away if you're in a rural part of the state); and someone who isn't working or in school that day, for a period of several hours.

In my state, we almost broke the record for turnout -- with 4.5% of voters participating. I had to drag my husband there, because he did it once and that was enough to last a lifetime, if you're not a very political person -- which most people aren't. The whole ordeal takes at least four hours and requires sitting in a room and talking politics and sitting through interminable votes with volunteers who half the time don't know what they're doing and are reading the manual to figure out what the next step is.

THEN, at the end, they have to pick two volunteers (one, an alternate) from the precinct to agree to the next step -- going to an ALL DAY state conference. Oh, goody! Years ago, when we went to our first caucus, NO ONE volunteered for this next step -- so we roped someone in who WAS willing to be a delegate: someone who had been supporting a DIFFERENT candidate.

Caucuses are nothing more than the old "smoke-filled rooms" that primaries were supposed to replace, except without the smoke. And the whole reason we have them in WA -- even though the state voters voted to replace them with primaries -- is because the party insiders refused to let go of the reins of power, and sued the state to keep their caucuses.