This has been a fascinating thread. I don't tend to subscribe to the idea that any character should have a single, definitive take - new perspectives are what help to refresh these characters and keep them interesting, after all - so it's been interesting to read so many different views on Superman and how he works best.
I think the 'love triangle' idea is an intriguing one, but for me it raises a big question: What is the cost of Superman's 'love' of Clark Kent?
If Clark is just a construct, a glorious work of art that Superman loves to perpetuate, then what is the cost to humanity of Superman spending so much time as Clark, rather than spending it doing good as Superman?
While Clark is bumbling around Lois and tripping over his shoelaces, are there criminals getting away with murder because Superman isn't on duty? When Clark is stammering his way through a Daily Planet editorial meeting, are there people dying in natural disasters that Superman could have saved? How does Superman justify that 'downtime' as Clark to himself, given the good that he could be doing instead?
Or is it perhaps that Clark serves the important secondary purpose of keeping Superman tethered to humanity? Without his time as Clark, would Superman find it difficult to empathise with us; to understand us; ultimately, to care about us? And if that's the case, then isn't Clark really an important, genuine part of Superman's personality after all?