Reply #143: so your position is that a serious presidential campaign is going

[grantcart]

to base the nomination for president of the united states on a single state, and that part of the justification was in fact based on a successful baseball season in 1988? By the way the first time somebody asked me if in fact I wrote I admitted I did.

The ethical issue at stake here is a national campaign for president that has lost its entire logic for continuing, except that now they are raising huge amounts of money and may be hoarding it for future political campaigns. Despite having raised over 35 million they are in fact spending only 5 million in ad buys.

Shortly after the faux release CNN reports Clinton campaign: Obama needs to sweep March 4
Posted: 11:00 AM ET

The Clinton campaign says Obama needs to win big on March 4, or else he has a problem.
(CNN) – Seeking to raise the expectations for its rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign said Friday that Sen. Barack Obama needs to sweep the
The Illinois senator should win all four states — Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont — decisively, given the amount of money and resources he has devoted to them, the Clinton campaign said in a memo circulated to reporters.

So the absurdity is that having won 15 in a row Obama's victory would be devoid of meaning if he had not won Rhode Island.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-campaign-obama-needs-to-sweep-march-4/

So absurd that eventually someone in the media made note of it calling the conference call 'amazing'. to the 'utter amazement' but not 'delusional'. And the reason that it is not delusional is because they are backing of from "Texas and Ohio are must wins" to now its all meaningless if Obama doesn't win Rhode Island, so they can continue to hoard money into a war chest for future political endeavors (?).


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_planning_for_life_afte.html

Amazingly, Hillary Clinton's top aides -- Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes -- are now behaving as if those calculations never existed. The first sign of the shift came last week, when Ickes declared that Clinton would have to reassess her plans only if she lost BOTH Texas and Ohio. Then came a Friday conference call in which Wolfson -- to the utter amazement of reporters listening in -- said the "onus" was on Obama to win all four March 4th states.

Most in the campaign still think she can eke out a win but Wolfson’s comments were clearly a signal that the former first lady intends to keep fighting if she loses the Alamo.

Wolfson is not being delusional. If the campaign doesn't yet have a compelling electoral rationale to survive a loss in Texas it has a financial one -- $35 million in February fundraising from a new base of online donors eager to keep the First-Woman-President dream alive no matter how many contests she loses.