Under the most arbitrary calculations of the raw national vote Clinton taken the lead. Obama still leads if you throw out the Michigan vote, where he was not on the ballot, but Hillary did win 55% of the vote there so even that exclusion is not a true picture. If Hillary can make inroads and convincingly win the popular vote count, as opposed to the delegate count, she may have the winning strategy for a superdelegate victory.
There's been a lot of commentary about subversing Democracy by Hillary staying in the race but if she takes the national vote, she has a compelling argument to make to the superdelegates on precisely those grounds. Presuming a million other things happen resulting with the delegate count at odds with the the raw vote count, it's going to be interesting see who breaks for who and what reasoning they use. Personally, I think that this is precisely the sort of scenario for a just use of the power afforded superdelegates - to separate the party BS from the will of the people, but then again, I back Hillary. The Obama folks would have a strong argument that the rules are the rules, but the presumption is that Obama hasn't clinched under the rules and from what I've heard all of my life, reinforced by many Obama supporters recently, is that the will of the people should trump all else, at least ideally. It won't be that simple, of course, hence my anticipation.