How redundant are the terms DLC and superdelegate?

[HereSince1628]

There is a fair amount of angst on DU about "politics by the bosses/insiders" and the need for "grassroots movement." This sometimes, per chance often, gets expressed in terms of dislike for the DLC.

I saw another one of these posts this morning, just after reading about distribution of delegates and (pledged) superdelegates. This caused the spark between my several remaining neurons and led me to wonder about how the DLC and Superdelegates are really related and what does that mean for "grassroots movements" regarding change in the party.

I recognize that some superdelegates choose not to be DLC, and that some "community leaders" in the DLC may not have achieved superdelegate status. Nonetheless, it seems like every superdelegate would get the invitation to join the DCL.

Does anyone out there know what percentage of the superdelegates actually are DLC?

The philosophy that justifies the existence of one seems to also justify the other - - if you've proven you can get elected, hold influence (raise money?) then you deserve to have more importance in conventions and the party organization than someone who is just a common party member.

So what, you ask? Well, New Hampshire's primary divided up 20 some delegates, based on 225,000-ish votes cast. Which makes one superdelegate worth the equivalent of about 10,000 voters. I struggle, and fail, to reconcile the concept of "grassroots movements" with the reality that a congressman's "vote" is 10,000 more powerful in the party convention than a common democratic voter.
It certainly isn't an indication of progress toward egalitarian democracy within the democratic party.

There are 715 superdelegates, 16-17% of the total delegate count at the convention, or about 1 in every 6 delegates, and roughly 1/3 the number needed to win the nomination (assuming that they all voted for the same candidate which they might not do on a first ballot).

Now, I am not suggesting that superdelegates are a monolithic group. But, taken as a whole, they would seem to be a rather unlikely block of folks to really take interest in "grassroots movements." At the party level, empowering the "base" has the potential of threatening their priviledged status and influence.

The superdelegates (mostly currently active professional politicians) represent a block of delegates the size of 30-ish New Hampshires. They certainly have the capacity to significantly bias the importance of the pragmatic interests of profession politicians (priority one = remaining elected) compared to progressive/ideological interests of those common democrats that just get to throw votes around in caucuses and elections. If superdelegates were shaped into an organization whose members all spoke around common talking points this would be even more likely.

Is the DLC such an organization of superdelegates?

Are grassroots movements within the party doomed in the face of an empowered and organized leadership class represented by the DLC superdelegates?