How can one explain Hillary Clinton’s repeatedly and gleefully giving an apparently well-thought-out story about ducking gunfire in Bosnia? There is a reluctance to use the L word. But to any reasonably intelligent person, the words “mistake” and “misspoke” don’t match that kind of discrepancy, especially given the proud manner in which she made those assertions. “Mistake” is not appropriate, however, if she deliberately not lied but deceived.

“Mistake” is an acceptable explanation, however, if the reason for the discrepancy between what happened and what she said she thought happened is that it is dementia or an inability to distinguish between, maybe, dreams and reality.

Ronald Reagan reportedly once mistakenly referenced something which he had done in one of his movies, as something that actually had happened.

But there is another possible explanation: Clinton really wants to get out of the presidential race but cannot do so either because of her unconquerable urge to be president and/or because of the unrelenting urging of her husband and her supporters. Her so-called “mistake” could actually be a call out to her supporters to vote for Obama in future elections and set her free.

That conclusion is supported by other things she has said and done.

Most of us, at one one time or another, have been in the company of friends or relatives who told racist jokes or made degrading religious comments with which we disagreed but did not consider the utterances sufficient reasons to discontinue friendships and associations with otherwise good people.

Clinton says had she been a member of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, she would have left the church after hearing his words recycled on television. She did not say, however, whether she would be leaving being a white member or being a black member. Rev. Wright did say that “Hillary Clinton ain’t never been called a n-----.” Maybe she’s not be as “black” as some black people think she is. Or maybe it all just politics. I think it is. Anyway, Obama also says he would have left had the words been spoken when he was present, and if the Rev. Wright had refused to respond favorably to his objections.

But other aspects of Clinton’s campaign are proving disappointing. Supporters like Bill Press, James Carville, Charles Schumer, people whose opinions were respected when they spoke for Democrats against Republicans, have brought into question both their judgment and the Democrats’ image as the “good guys” who always said what they thought was true, and would not deliberately mislead people to believe otherwise. Lawyers in defense of their clients, might do that to juries — so might some Republicans and conservative Democrats to voters — but not liberal Democrats.

These Democrats, for example, believe that even if superdelegates determine that the candidate they initially supported is not the best qualified, would not make the best president, and is not even electable, they should continue to support that candidate out of loyalty. That same blind loyalty causes them to believe that delegates “won” illegally in Michigan and Florida, should count — if Clinton thinks they should.

Rules related to elections can be challenged, changed or suspended, as may be appropriate, but before not after knowledge of the results, and certainly not in a manner specifically intended to benefit only the challenger. Can you imagine their position if Obama had received more votes in Michigan and Florida, or if Republican sought some such change favorable to themselves after the November election results are in?

Gov. Bill Richardson is being criticized, even Judasized, for allegedly promising five time — which he denies — to endorse Clinton before switching to Obama.

Superdelegates listen to debates and speeches just like regular voters. They read polls and interact with other superdelegates. Such interactions help both superdelegates and voters determine who should receive their support or for whom they should vote. Were it not for their potential to change minds, these interactions would be useless.

Suggesting that people should stick with their “first minds” represents a set-in-concrete kind of mentality which destroys credibility, makes flexibility about issues impossible and causes voters to lose confidence that even fellow Democrats can bring about necessary changes. They make the party appear Bush-like, expecting voters to buy any excuse and accept any explanation that furthers their cause. It’s a mentality that assumes voters “can’t handle the truth,” don’t really know right from wrong, and, if they do, would rather win than be right.

Superdelegates should not, however, feel obligated to vote as their states or districts voted. Their decision should not be based on race or gender. And the best way to guarantee and retain the integrity of the superdelegate concept, superdelegates should cast their votes secretly — at least if they choose.

The argument is often made that the voters of Pennsylvania — and the other remaining states — have a right to be heard. They do. And in terms of their support for Clinton, polls clearly show that she is the choice of Pennsylvania’s voters.