If anything is clear about the superdelegate system, it's that party leaders are not in unison about the system.  Watching reality move around on this subject is like being a juror for a trial in which the witnesses were under the influence at the time when the crime was committed: who the hell knows if the drunken vision has merit?

To hear Howard Dean tell it, for example, is not fundamentally the same as what you thought you might have heard when listening to the New York Times reporter's version of what he apparently thought he heard from John Lewis.  Then there's the ubiquitous twenty-one year old superdelegate, the activist for all time, the veritable sage.

Here's the point: people keep hearing different stories.  Some of these superdelegates jumped the gun when they heard that Senator Clinton was inevitable but they hadn't actually heard from voters yet. 

So now you have a witch's brew of renditions and agendas to choose from until you hear from more voters in more states.  Should the superdelegates go along with the will of the people? If you've heard that they should not, then it might be an idea to question the point of having an election in the first place: three hours and more of caucusing, of standing around in a damned gymnasium, to what end?

If Democrats care one iota about winning in November, then Pelosi easily has the best plan.  Why? It requires almost no explanation.  The candidate who has the lead gets the nod.  It has to do with having support from the voters, the pesky people the party will need against McCain. 

The other path is a drunken drive on a dark night with a busload of versions, a juror's nightmare.