For one, there is no indication for now that this contest could be close enough that superdelegates make a difference. Obama is leading by 131 pledged delegates according to Campaign Diaries's count, and that margin keeps growing. Considering that Democrats really seem to have divided loyalties in this election, it is highly unlikely that superdelegates break enough in one candidate's way to make up that sort of margin.

Many states still have to hold their nominating contest - including places like Texas, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Is no one recognizing the absurdity of asking superdelegates to respect the will of voters (which is already leading many to change ships from Clinton to Obama) more than 3 months before the final states weigh in? Many supers are now committing to Obama before Ohio and Texas vote and even before the Wisconsin primary. If Clinton makes up the margin in those states and caps it in Puerto Rico, what will those superdelegates do, and will they switch back? If anything, superdelegates at this point look more likely to break the nomination fight Obama's way than Clinton's.

Why not wait three more weeks to make a decision if there are six more months to the convention?

The irony of the situation is apparently escaping superdelegates and most members of the media, who are relaying the fear of a hijacked convention. The New York Times account from this morning, while full of interesting information (Al Gore getting involved) is stunningly contradictory:

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal.

Let me get this straight: Al Gore and party leaders are now engaged in backroom deals ("private talks"?!) about how to avoid backroom deals. What is happening now is that superdelegates have stepped in the process to an unprecedented extent because of this debate of "how they should stay out," and they are getting involved months before they have to.

And in the process they are clearly favoring a momentum movement towards Barack Obama by keeping up the storyline of the Clinton campaign trying to steal the nomination from Obama. What is the Clinton campaign supposed to do? How can they give up on trying to court superdelegates when the Obama camp is talking to them as well? After all, both candidates cannot get a majority of delegates without the support of superdelegates at this point.

The best way to respect the pledged delegate wishes would be for the superdelegates to just shut up right now and stop talking about switching votes, about the need to "avoid" backroom deals or respecting the wishes of voters. Last time I checked, the wish of voters is still not known.

The confusion has now become caricatural. Nancy Pelosi joined the chorus yesterday by saying that superdelegates should respect the wishes of voters. But what does that mean: The wishes of their district? Of their state? Or of the overall pledged delegate leader? Does that mean Lewis has to change his vote but not John Kerry and Ted Kennedy?

And then there is John Lewis around who dozens of questions are swirling ever since it was first reported that he was switching his vote from Obama to Clinton. Is he supporting Clinton or Obama? Who is he casting his vote for? And does he see a difference between endorsement and superdelegates? We don't know, because Lewis is now avoiding talking to the press (!), making his position completely unclear.

This post is cross-posted on my blog, at Campaign Diaries.