Who wins a protracted primary battle?

A few days ago, I left a comment on TCR that I thought a protracted primary election would help, not hurt, the Democrats in the general election. My logic is that the media will continue to give lots of air time to the Democratic candidates, that the supporters of said candidates will continue to be energized and enthused, and that the GOP attack machine(s) will have a more difficult time honing in on two targets.

After reading this analysis of what a long primary could mean, I still feel the same way:

The record of the party is mixed in binding up its wounds. President Jimmy Carter was hurt by Ted Kennedy's primary challenge in 1980, and lost to Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton overcame a series of contentious primaries in 1992 with Jerry Brown.

Democrats have a reason for concern, said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian. With Mitt Romney out of the race and Mike Huckabee not a real threat, McCain has the time to hone his themes, criticize the Democrats, raise money for the general election, bone up on the economy and begin the process of choosing a running mate.

"His differences with some conservatives are important, but now he has time to repair them," Zelizer said. "Choosing someone more conservative would be one thing."
...
Rosenberg, who is neutral in the race, said that Obama or Clinton will likely emerge as the front-runner by mid-March, and that would blunt any head start McCain has on the general election campaign.

In any case, Wayne, a Georgetown University historian, predicted that Democratic leaders and office-holders - the so-called superdelegates - will want to resolve the contest soon, and will gravitate to the front-runner.

"They're politicians," Wayne said. "They will go whichever way the winds blow."

I simply don't think that people will be satisfied with a primary decided by superdelegates on either side. I would be pissed for either Barack or Sen. Clinton if the person who won the most votes/pledged delegates lost the primary because of backroom pandering. I mean that: whichever Democratic candidate wins the most pledges and votes ought to be the next POTUS. And I'll stand by those words no matter whose name it applies to, come March, April or August.

While I think a long primary could be a boon for the Dems, of course, a protracted legal battle would be very ugly, should legal recourse be sought in a scenario like the one outlined above: one candidate wins the most votes & pledged delegates but loses because of superdelegates. Would the candidates engage in litigation, or would they defer to the will of the DNC under the auspices of "for the sake of the party" (cue Romney's twisted illogic). One of Bush's hack 2000 election lawyers writes:

As the convention nears, with Sen. Clinton trailing slightly in the delegate count, the next step might well be a suit in the Florida courts challenging her party's refusal to seat Florida's delegation at the convention. And the Florida courts, as they did twice in 2000, might find some ostensible legal basis for overturning the pre-election rules and order the party to recognize the Clinton Florida delegates. That might tip the balance to Sen. Clinton.

We all know full well what could happen next. The array of battle-tested Democratic lawyers who fought for recounts, changes in ballot counting procedures, and even re-votes in Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 would separate into two camps. Half of them would be relying on the suddenly-respectable Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision that overturned the Florida courts' post-hoc election rules changes. The other half would be preaching a new-found respect for "federalism" and demanding that the high court leave the Florida court decisions alone.

Let's all hope it doesn't come down to that.