The The Clinton campaign is already trying to cushion the blow of possible March 4 losses. Today's email to the press:
Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabled him to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.
[...] Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states [...] If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.
Everyone knows that these states are critical for keeping Clinton in the race, and she's been banking on March 4 success for all of February. This is clearly an attempt to downplay the relevance if Obama wins. But I'm not sure when it became a good idea to argue that your opponent is campaigning harder than you are, or that he's spending more money (which presumably means he has more to spend). Besides that, wouldn't one be wise to expend even more effort on those states if there isn't a "surge of momentum" propelling one forward?
--Kate Sheppard
