It still amazes me sometimes how arrogant and out-of-touch these people are.
The superdelegates continue to wail and moan today, while their supporters are writing concern troll articles.
It's almost enough to bring a tear to my one good eye.

Curses! Superdelegate is vanquished!

I’ve had my wings clipped, my cape ripped, and my super powers stripped. My irresistible Kung Fu grip on the Democratic Party is being pried loose by well-meaning citizens who may yet endanger the very fountainhead of their freedom.

You see, since time immemorial, we superdelegates have stood as the guardians and protectors of the secret machinations of the Democratic Party, keeping it safe from outsiders and agitators. We were ever watchful, always ready to spring into action should unorthodoxy raise its ugly head.

Translation: outsiders and agitators = voters who don't vote the way they are told.

So, we superdelegates are now what? Merely the mechanism you default to in case of a tie? Great. I’ve fought for the Democratic Party my entire life, and now I’m one notch above a coin toss.

...like a common peasant!

“Now that POC, women, and LGBTQ+ leaders have a significant say in the nomination process suddenly the rules need to be changed, effectively eliminating their participation. Funny how that happens. Lucy moves the football again,” my dear friend and co-author Leah Daughtry tweeted this week. Amen.

Translation: effectively eliminating their participation = only able to vote like everyone else.
Can you guess who wrote this? Donna Brazile

Let's not forget what Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond had to say.

In a letter to DNC Chairman Tom Perez, Richmond (D-La.) said the proposal would “disenfranchise elected officials” who serve as superdelegates.

Richmond needs to look up the definition of "disenfranchise", because he's using it wrong.

“There should be enough room in the process to include the perspective of local party activists and officials, and Members of Congress,” Richmond wrote. “One group should not be harmed at the expense of the other.”

He added, “to add insult to injury, it appears that this is a solution in search of a problem. Unelected delegates have never gone against the will of primary voters in picking Democratic presidential nominees.”

If he thinks there isn't a problem then I suggest he go on a listening tour of voters, not donors.

And then there are the concern trolls, like Esquire.

However, I am sympathetic to the arguments of the Congressional Black Caucus—many, if not most of whom, worked long and hard to become members of Congress (and therefore, superdelegates) only to have their influence at the national conventions minimized in favor of white progressives who are, by comparison, a little wet behind the ears. They waited for decades for their place in line and now they're being told there is no line.

No, not white progressive voters. They're the worst! Even the GOP doesn't want them.
And to think, reducing the power of a couple hundred political insiders for the benefit of tens of millions of white progressive voters! Who in their right minds would do such a thing?
Democrats don't need them.
That's what we learned from the 2016 election. That's why the Democrats are in power at every level of government and the GOP is a distant memory.

Then there is this gem from FiveThirtyEight titled: Are Democrats Courting Chaos In 2020 By Limiting The Power Of Superdelegates?

natesilver: I’m saying that requiring an outright majority on the first ballot — no superdelegates to push a candidate who’s close to a majority over the top — coupled with Democrats’ extremely proportional delegate allocations — is a recipe for chaos

Chaos! Fire from the sky! Dogs and cats sleeping together!

Note that one of the subcategories of superdelegates is “distinguished party leaders.”