It is absurd, aides say, to think that Clinton can overcome Obama's built-in advantages there, and it sets unfair expectations on her when the possibility of a Clinton victory is broached. It's a fair point, but possibly irrelevant. It may well be that an upset victory is the only way to unblinker the superdelegates. It might not serve the principles of justice, but it is what it is.
It's absurd to suggest that Clinton must show strength in a state in which the demographics don't favor her, but not absurd to claim that Obama is unelectable because he can't win states in which the demographics don't favor him?
That sounds like a double standard. But in the Clinton world, it is she that is the victim.
CLINTON ADVISERS think their candidate is being held to an unreasonable standard. Why should she have to consistently demonstrate her capacity to win in major states?
Um ... perhaps because she has already lost the delegate count and the number of states won, and will also lose the popular vote count. So if she wants a coup by superdelegate, she better show that Obama is no longer viable.
If we're going to hear about how Obama can't win downscale whites (which is a real problem east of the Mississippi), we better hear about how Clinton loses big among African Americans, educated whites, and independents (which she has lost in every state except Arkansas, Oklahoma, Massachusetts and Rhode Island).