MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Senator Clinton, great to be with you.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much.

GARRETT: Thanks for your time. A couple of days ago you said, and I quote, “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Do you feel like you need to apologize for that?

CLINTON: Well, I was quoting from an AP article, and I certainly regret anybody putting any more meaning on it than that, because this has been an extraordinary campaign. Each of us has worked very hard. We both have nearly 17 million votes. We have attracted voters from all across our country.

And I believe that I have a broader coalition. I have won the swing states which we’re going to have to win in the fall, and I think that gives me a much stronger position to go into this nomination. But obviously we’re going to have to put together a unified Democratic Party and then try to persuade enough Americans to vote for our nominee so that we can win and take back the White House.

GARRETT: Can you understand how that phraseology might have sounded?

CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I regret deeply that, you know, rather than my referencing what was I thought an objective source talking about how this campaign has unfolded, anybody would attribute that to me.

GARRETT: Let’s talk about electability. The Obama campaign likes to point out that swing states are also Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, states that he won. And they believe that’s a very powerful argument for his electability.

Why is it not?

CLINTON: Well, I would argue that caucuses are much less of an indicator of electability than primaries just by the very nature of the numbers of people and the broader cross-section of people who traditionally participate. So the primaries that were won by both of us I think are a better indicator.

GARRETT: Let’s go to Missouri then. He won Missouri, though narrowly.

CLINTON: Right.

GARRETT: No Democrat has ever been elected, unlike West Virginia. You can go back to 1916. But no Democrat has ever won the White House without carrying Missouri.

The Obama campaign says why doesn’t that count in the electability equation that Hillary Clinton talks so much about?

CLINTON: Well, I think it counts for both of us, because it was essentially a tie. I mean, I won 110 out of 115 counties. He won five counties which were population centers.

Democrats have lost in 2000 and 2004 because we didn’t win in rural areas. And I think that is a really strong indicator, because I believe that a Democrat will win in the cities, whoever our Democrat is. We will win in the cities because cities often have more needs, they understand that Democrats are going to do better for them than a Republican will. And certainly the contrast with Senator McCain, who is not someone who has been particularly favorable toward helping cities, will be a big help to us.

Our real electoral challenge is outside of the cities. And so look at Missouri. Take Missouri as a perfect example.

I won 100 out of 115 counties. I won in places that Democrats have to win if we’re going to be successful in the fall.

I won Arkansas, which is a state that would be great to add. I won Tennessee. I won West Virginia. I think if you look at the big states that I also won that provide the anchors for electoral map, I believe my case is stronger.

GARRETT: Let’s talk about West Virginia. Two out of 10 of those who responded in the exit polling surveys said race was important to them. Eight of 10 voted for you.

How proud are you to have the votes of people who appear to be race conscious as they select a potential nominee?

CLINTON: Well, I think the vast majority of people in West Virginia, not, you know, 80 percent of 20 percent, but the remaining very large percentage that voted, didn’t say that that had anything to do with their vote. And I think that is exactly the way it should be. It shouldn’t have anything to do with their vote.

I would hope gender has nothing to do with anyone’s vote. The fact is that I believe people voted for me in West Virginia because they need a fighter in the White House. They need somebody who is going to stand up, take on the oil companies, take on the insurance companies, take on the drug companies, not just in a campaign season, but has a history of doing that. And they need somebody who’s going to help solve their problems.

So, they really made what was a very careful consideration and determined that I am more in line with what they think they need in their next president. (more…)

CHARLESTON, W. Va - No headline speaks louder about Hillary Clinton’s intentions now and for the remainder of the hard-fought, up-and-down battle for the Democratic nomination.

Clinton also declared herself the best nominee for the party and said she wants Michigan and Florida delegates seated and left no doubt that the Clinton threshold for the nomination is 2,209, the number that includes Michigan and Florida.

Clinton declared that “swing states elect presidents and we win the swing states.”

“You know I never give up and I’ll keep coming back,” Clinton said with a timbre and gusto that drew lusty cheers here at the Charleston Civic Center.

No one knows that Clinton will “keep coming back” better than Obama’s top strategists in Chicago.
Obama’s tactical move to leave West Virginia to surrogates (Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nick Rahall) blew up in his face.

As the putative nominee with an earned media deluge of “he’s the nominee,” Obama nevertheless saw Clinton roll up huge margins in West Virginia and give Clinton not a comeback but a credible argument to continue (and that’s the best outcome she could have achieved).

West Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin told me Clinton’s end-to-end trek across the state earned her valuable respect and Obama’s forfeit treatment may have backfired.

Manchin said the shattering turnout here - possibly more than 400,000 - is not only historic but indicative of a campaign that’s motivated, energized and rallied voters to the Democratic cause.

Manchin said he will remain neutral in this race and announce his endorsement after all the contests conclude on June 3.

As for Clinton, Manchin said, “She’s earned the right to stay in this race.”

Manchin said he disagrees with Democratic strategists who believe the length of the campaign has hurt the party.

“We had three times the early vote (absentee) turnout and we know a lot of the new voters we saw today asked for Democratic ballots.”

Clinton made a point of thanking Manchin for his hospitality in the Mountain State and reminded all in attendance they were together in Manchin’s hometown of Fairmont (just in case anyone forgot).

Before the confetti cannons showered the happy hundreds below (unlike Indiana where after a dreary night of nail-biting the Indianapolis confetti cannons flopped), Clinton told the story of Florence Steen, 88, who lives in South Dakota and requested an absentee ballot to cast in the upcoming June 3rd South Dakota primary. The request came from Steen’s hospice, where her daughter delivered the ballot that Steen filled out to vote for Clinton as an answer to the memory of being alive when women could not vote.

Clinton announced that Steen passed away recently but that her vote would count and her voice would be heard.

For anyone searching for motivation in Hillaryland, this story is a window into her perspective on the history-making dimensions of this race. Florence Steen doesn’t explain everything and her vote can’t alter the seemingly irreversible math behind Obama’s equally historic quest for the presidency. But for a candidate given one hundred reasons to quit, Steen’s vote - freighted with history - keeps Clinton’s wheels turning and this campaign churning.

From traveling Hillaries (my nickname for her road press shop)

Pushing back against political punditry, more than six in 10 Democrats say there’s no rush for Hillary Clinton to leave the presidential race – even as Barack Obama consolidates his support for the nomination and scores solidly in general-election tests.

Despite Obama’s advantage in delegates and popular vote, 64 percent of Democrats in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say Clinton should remain in the race. Even among Obama’s supporters, 42 percent say so.

See the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll at http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4837828&page=1

The Clinton campaign is strategizing ways to persuade undecided superdelegates to back the former first lady for the Democratic presidential nomination and is laying the ground work for a public campaign to woo them to her side.

Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe denied any public effort to lobby undecided superdelegates is currently contemplated. But numerous sources inside the campaign and sympathetic to it told FOX News that a battle plan is being put together to use any and all possible resources to lobby superdelegates.

Among the ideas under regular discussion is to carry out public rallies, use direct mail and television spots in order to generate broader public support for undecided superdelegates to side with Clinton.

Part of the argument the Clinton campaign will use in this and every other outreach to superdelegates will be that the race is very close in terms of delegates and popular votes.

Clinton touched on this theme Tuesday night, citing the closeness of the race and the “he wins one, she wins one” nature of the campaign.

The other big selling point, also hit by Clinton tonight, is “to count all the votes.”

This is a reference to Michigan and Florida, which Clinton said shouldn’t be left out of delegate calculations, as they are now due to Democratic National Committee sanctions. Clinton said the nominee shouldn’t be chosen “by 48 states.”

After Barack Obama’s speech in San Antonio (after he lost Ohio but before he knew he lost the primary in Texas), his chief strategist David Axelrod spoke briefly to The Bourbon Room about the outcome of Super Tuesday Part II and the campaign ahead.

Here is the transcript:

First The Bourbon Room asked how Obama’s camp would deal with the perception that Clinton has slowed Obama’s momentum and fought herself back into the race:

“Well, that’s a perception that they’re spinning, but they set their own test. It’s not our delegate riff, they started the delegate riff. Their delegate riff was that “We are going to wipe out the delegate lead on March 4.” The fact is they haven’t changed their situation at all. They may have changed perceptions a little bit. We don’t know what’s happening here in Texas, we’ll see what happens in Texas, but we’re probably going to win the delegate fight here in Texas. Ultimately, this is a race for delegates. We’ve got a substantial lead. We’ve won 28 contests to their 13. We’ve won more popular votes. We’ve won in every part of the country. We’ve put together a coalition of independents, Democrats and Republicans. We’ve energized young people in a way they haven’t been in a generation. And we’ve shown the ability to put together a coaltion that is going to take on John McCain and beat John McCain and that’s why we’re doing so much better than she in so many polls against McCain. I don’t think this materially changes anything. It may extend the race, but I don’t think it’s going to change the outcome.”

The Bourbon Room then asked: “They hit you hard, are you going to hit hard back?”

Axelrod: “I think we’re willing to join the debate. If they want to define the debate in terms of the issues they’ve laid out in the past week, if they want to throw the kitchen sink, they’re going to engender a response. If they want to have a discussion about ethics, then we’ll have a discussion about ethics. If they want to have a discussion about who is prepared to be commander in chief, then we’re going to ask the hard questions about the decisions that’s she’s made. If she wants to say she’s going to be a steward of the economy, and talk about her accomplishments in public life, then we’re going to talk about that. It isn’t going to be a one-way debate. “

It will be very interesting to see how far Obama’s campaign goes with its response/reaction to Clinton now. If Axelrod follows through on discussing Clinton’s ethics, commander-in-chief qualifications and capability to run the economy in the context of hard, negative ads against Clinton, the campaign will cross yet another Rubicon. Hillary Clinton crossed one with the “3 a.m.” ad and the risk paid off. The Clinton camp knew there could be a backlash among Democrats who resent using terror fears to make a political point. The gamble paid off as exit polling data shows the “3 a.m.” ad helped Clinton reverse the slide and eke out a victory in Texas. Obama would run the risk, if he ran negative ads, of abandoning his “new brand of politics,” but it might also prove his grit and determination to win — something Democrats in and out of the trenches now question.

We’ll see if Axelrod was venting or plotting. And we’ll see soon enough.

The race wil turn again today. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will emerge from Super Tuesday Part II as co-front-runners. That’s the consensus of more and more Democrats watching this race from the trenches and from afar.

The most likely scenario tonight, according to top officials in both campaigns, is Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island comfortably and fights Obama to a tie or ekes out a victory in Texas in the popular vote. The only safe state in the Obama column this morning, by mutual agreement of both camps, is Vermont.

The question in Texas is who wins the pledged delegates alloted from the primary and subsequent caucuses. Obama could win the delegate hunt while still losing the popular vote because of the weighting of delegates in African-America state senate districts and those allocated through the caucus process where Obama’s grassroots organization may out-perform Clinton’s.

Obama’s Texas operatives have grown more nervous about Obama’s prospects in Texas since Friday. They readily concede the “3 a.m.” ad from Clinton changed the dynamic and undecided voters began to move toward Clinton over the weekend.

Clinton’s lead in Ohio, according to Clinton field organizers, sits at about 6 points but there is a sense that late-breaking voters — as they have in the past — are moving toward Clinton and her margin of victory could exceed 6 points there.

Already, the Obama camp is out with a Super Tuesday Part II pre-buttal. Chief spokesman Bill Burton sent the following e-mail to campaign reporters at 9 a.m. EST:

“The Clinton campaign said this race was all about delegates and that they would be tied or ahead by morning. But despite the 20-point lead in Ohio and Texas that Senator Clinton had just two weeks ago, we will still be well ahead in delegates tonight and they will have failed at achieving their plainly stated goals. They have floated proposal after proposal to try to subvert the will of Democratic voters and retrospectively change the rules of the nominating process, but the bottom line is that it will still be virtually impossible for them to catch up in delegates after tonight.”

To this, Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, had this direct response to The Bourbon Room placing that Burton quote before him on a conference call with reporters at 11:30 a.m EST:

“First, I would invite anyone on this call to judge, based on those remarks, who thinks there in a better position in Ohio and Texas. Two, here’s the bottom line: this party is not going to nominate someone against John McCain who can’t pass the commander in chief test and can’t pass the steward of the economy test. And I think we’re going to see tonight voters saying Sen. Obama has not passed that test. I think it is that simple. We are simply not going to nominate someone who voters have doubts about as commander in chief and steward of the economy.”

Since Clinton, as The Bourbon Room noted Sunday, framed Texas as the place for the debate on national security and Ohio as the place for the debate on stewardship of the economy, that was Wolfson’s way of predicting victories in Texas and Ohio — without actually saying so.

The results tonight will raise significant questions about Obama’s campaign, some of which are already being asked in Democratic circles.

Why wasn’t his campaign able to win these four contests and definitively end the fight for the nomination, especially after having a massive financial advantage that blanketed the airwaves in Texas and Ohio with ads that ran four and five times more frequently than Clinton’s (last Thursday night in Houston, The Bourbon Room saw 10 Obama ads in the space of an hour without seeing one Clinton ad). The true party experts will also ponder, if Obama fails to win Ohio and Texas, how the grassroots and TV and radio ad efforts of the Service Employees International Union and United Food and Commerical Workers. These endorsements were supposed to cement Obama’s hold on both states and give him the added organizational power and media message to put both big states away. Increasingly, it appears these organizational and media advantages will have been squandered.

This could raise new questions in the mind of Superdelegates as to Obama’s staying power and political prowess. The Obama camp will argue that it trailed badly to Clinton in both states, fought hard and lost but still leads in pledged delegates and the race is still, basically, over. That’s the core of Burton’s argument above. They will further argue that Superdelegates should move to Obama to avoid a nasty seven-week campaign in Pennsylvania where Obama is going to be bloodied by Clinton and weakened for the upcoming contest with McCain.

The Clinton camp will argue that where it has fought Obama and fought him hard, it has won and that MUST matter. The Clinton camp has stalled defections of Superdelegates by privately making — in so many words — the following argument: don’t defect to Obama, not until March 4. Let us fight until March 4 and if we win, stay neutral or re-evaluate Hillary as a potential nominee.

Many Superdelegates have accepted this wait-and-see approach. The ones — about 40 — who have gone to Obama were not willing to wait and feared that even if Clinton lost Ohio or Texas she wouldn’t drop out.

Clinton will clearly not drop out. She’s heading straight to Pennsylvania after her victory celebration and, as The Bourbon Room predicted on Sunday, we are now heading to Super Tuesday Part III.

For those of you Bourbon Room loyalists, you well remember — or may have been trying to forget — my near-rhapsodic take on the Los Angeles debate, the first Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama tilt of the campaign.

No need to rhapsodize tonight. Instead of my thoughts, tonight I will pose a series of questions that may help us decide what mattered most and how the debate did or did not change the arc of this fascinating and historic Democratic pursuit of the presidency.

Note: Some questions I will answer for you. Have no fear, the answers will lead to other questions The Bourbon Room promises not to answer.

Here we go.

1. What does camp Clinton consider THE most important moment of the debate?

The lengthy and “passionate” exchange over universal health care?

No.

The debate over whether or not to impose a five-year moratorium on adjustable rate mortgages, as Clinton proposes and Obama opposes?

No.

The debate over how Clinton would restore “fiscal discipline” by ending Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and ending the Iraq war to invest in new infrastructure and start new “clean green jobs”?

No.

The answer came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson in the form of an e-mail sent to reporters at 9:57 p.m. EST, mere moments after the debate ended. The full contents of the Wolfson e-mail are reprinted here:

“What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. Her strength, her experience, her compassion. She’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.”

Question: Do you agree and do you see anything relevant at all in the near-instantaneous framing of the “moment” by Sen. Clinton’s campaign?

Question: Does the following e-mail sent to reporters at 10:15 p.m. EST by Bill Burton, national spokesman for Barack Obama’s campaign, carry any weight with you?

“Clinton tonight: You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about.”

The Burton e-mail then includes this quote from John Edwards: “What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.” The quote comes from a Democratic candidate debate on Dec. 13, 2007.

UPDATE from the Obama campaign at 11:35 p.m. EST:

Burton sent this e-mail: Yet another line lifted for what was her “best moment.”

Clinton tonight: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I’d been blessed and that I was called upon by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.”

President Clinton: “When the history of this campaign is written, they may say, well, Bill Clinton took a lot of hits in this campaign. The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that people in this state and country are taking every day of their lives under this administration (Aug. 14, 2000).

Question: Does this second Obama e-mail on the Clinton “moment” matter to you or suggest anything to you about the degree of concern camp Obama has about the “moment”?

Which leads to a related question. Did you consider Clinton’s line against Obama on the question of lifting lines (or trading them) from/with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick memorable? To jog your memory Clinton said: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.”

Next question. Do you remember Clinton saying more frequently she agreed with Obama or Obama saying more frequently that he agreed with Clinton? Your answer, based on your recollection of the debate is more important than the actual answer (which, to be honest, The Bourbon Room doesn’t have).

The related question is this: Generally, considering the current context of the race and Obama’s 11 straight victories (Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary today), does Clinton agreement with Obama on issues do more for Obama than his agreement with her on issues?

Question: Does it matter to you that in a 2003 questionnaire, Obama said he favored normalizing relations with Cuba (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html), but tonight said he would not normalize relations with Cuba unless it pursues human rights and democratic reforms.

Question: Do you think the gap between Clinton and Obama narrowed or expanded on whether the next president should negotiate directly with U.S. enemies such Cuba, Iran and North Korea?

Question: Can you remember a significant difference that emerged in nearly 10 minutes of debate over how to revive the U.S. economy?

Question: Do you understand the difference between Clinton and Obama on the pursuit of universal health care coverage? Does it strike you as an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin difference or a crucial philosophical divide?

Question: Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s assertion the Iraq troop surge represents a “tactical victory” that is hopelessly ensnared in major “strategic blunder”?

Question: Do you believe Obama’s surge answer, if he’s the Democratic nominee, will be viewed as one of strength in the inevitable Iraq debates with Sen. John McCain?

Question: Which is the logical sequence in a republic as politically complex as ours: change then solutions, or solutions then change?

Question: Did Obama look to you more or less presidential than in the previous 18 debates?

Question: Did you think Clinton faced the hardest debate of this campaign in light of her poor post-Super Tuesday performances and, as such, deserves higher marks for pluck, poise and determination?

Question: Did either Obama or Clinton answer the final “crisis” question and does that matter to you?

The answers are yours. The election is yours, especially in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on March 4 (remember Texans, early voting is occurring NOW).

The Clinton campaign denied Tuesday it would make any effort to coax pledged Barack Obama delegates to switch to Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

“We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. We think Sen. Obama’s campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates.”

The Clinton camp is sensitive to this topic because it wants to avoid any appearance of pursuing a win-at-all-costs strategy, something the Obama camp has accused it of as debate has intensified over the role superdelegates should play in the pitched nomination fight.

Clinton’s camp argues the 795 superdelegates should support the candidate they believe would be the best nominee, not necessarily the candidate who has won the most contests, votes or pledged delegates. The Obama camp believes just the opposite and has said Clinton can’t hope to narrow the 136-delegate lead it says it has amassed in pledged delegates.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton told FOX News, “Of course we won’t do that.”

Burton said the real question is why the Clinton camp “didn’t deny” they had a pledged delegate strategy.

The Politico.com reported Tuesday that an unnamed senior Clinton official said the campaign would try to persuade pledged delegates committed to Obama to switch to Clinton. Under party rules, pledged delegates - despite their title - can change their allegiance even before the first balllot is cast.

Generally, pledged delegates stick with the candidate they are pledged to as results are tallied in primaries and caucuses.

Any attempt to fight over pledged delegates could generate micro-political wars on the convention floor and introduce a degree of chaos not seen in party conventions in a generation.

In a conference call today, Harold Ickes, party operative for 40 years and former White House deputy chief to President Clinton, boldly predicted Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and do so soon after the last party primary on June 7 in Puerto Rico.

“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”

Ickes predicted Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will run “neck-and-neck” in the 18 remaining state and territorial primaries and caucuses and that there will be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates and that so-called Super Delegates will determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.

Ickes denounced the term Super Delegates and said the Clinton camp henceforth will refer to them as “automatic delegates.”

“The Fourth Estate created the term Super Delegate,” Ickes said, even though Democrats have used the Super Delegate term widely in the roiling debate of their allegiances and responsibilities in the increasingly competitive and high-stakes battle for Democratic presidential nomination. “They don’t have super powers,” Ickes said of the Super Delegates. “It’s one-person, one-vote. They have no more power than any other delegate. But they do have a sense of what it takes to get elected.”

He said Super Delegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.

“They are closely in touch with the issues and ideas of the jurisdiction they represent and they are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns.”

In essence, Ickes argued the party 795 Super Delegates (Connecticut Independent-Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman was stripped of his Super Delegate status recently), were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates won through elections in either primaries or caucuses.

Many top Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said Super Delegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses and not trump those votes.

Ickes said Super Delegates were created to augment the elections process and those delegates are duty-bound by rule and precedent to weigh all considerations - not just votes taken in primaries or caucuses before rendering a judgment.

Obama currently leads Clinton by 136 in pledged delegates but trails by 95 in Super Delegates, according to calculations given by both campaigns.

“Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates than Obama,” Ickes said. The number of elections won by Obama is “irrelevant to the obligations of automatic delegates.”

Ickes said he was “too dim of mind” to understand how some might wonder if the Clinton campaign might lure Super Delegates with promises of political favors. “I don’t even understand what that is referring to,” Ickes said, declining to guarantee the campaign will use no promises of tangible benefits to Super Delegates to win them to Clinton’s campaign.

Ickes also quoted top Obama adviser David Axelrod as saying Super Delegates “should vote for what’s best for party and country.”

Axelrod meant Super Delegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses, but the Clinton campaign interprets it to mean exercise broader judgment linked to larger political aims - specifically choosing Clinton over Obama as the more battle-hardened Democrat capable of winning in November.

“Deciding who you should support, these are not easy judgments. The question is who can make a good and possibly great president. This is a political process.”

I just returned from Ohio on Hillary Clinton’s plane and wanted to offer some broad observations about the weekend before the Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries.

First, no one besides Chelsea is campaigning in Hawaii (revealing if nothing else Chelsea’s brilliant ability to manipulate the Clinton schedulers. Think about it, Chelsea’s in Hawaii and the former leader of the free world is in Texarkana and Nacogdoches).

But I digress. After several interviews with senior Clinton aides this must should be known about Wisconsin — they don’t expect to win it and they don’t expect it be particularly close. Sen. Clinton will step foot for the first time in Wisconsin tomorrow night for the Founder’s Dinner (a party dinner and “big” event). Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama will both speak, marking the closest thing Wisconsin Democrats will see to a one-on-one debate (meaning not very close at all).

Clinton ran a second attack ad today on Obama. Outwardly, it would appear the ad buys are designed to demonstrate a serious effort in Wisconsin. They do not. The ads are designed to push up Obama’s negatives in Wisconsin and Ohio and Texas (how, you might reasonably ask?). The national media (your faithful correspondent included) have dutifully reported on the ads as have interested Ohio and Texas reporters. Thus the Wisconsin ads have echoed a bit in Hillary’s big March 4 states and at a relatively cheap price of Wisconsin media (much cheaper than Houston, Dallas, or Cleveland).

Obama can and has reasonably asked what gives Clinton the right to attack him in Wisconsin when she hasn’t even campaigned there. Obama’s working the state hard and seeks first and foremost to win blue-collar Democrats in and around Janesville, Milwaukee, Kenosha and elsewhere to prove to blue-collar Ohio Democrats that his message resonates in Wisconsin.

In this way, Obama wants what happens in Wisconsin Tuesday to reverberate in Ohio — in a way more memorably than Clinton’s attack ads. Obama’s methodical approach is first about victories and second about boosting the size of those victories. Consider this: since Super Tuesday the smallest Obama margin of victory was 19 points in the Feb. 10 Maine caucuses.

Running up the score garners delegates, momentum, slack-jawed media coverage (my jaw excluded), and believers. That’s what Obama wants from Wisconsin and Hawaii - a big vote differential and as many pledged delegates as he can collect. Remember, Obama expects a Clinton fight over Superdelegates and the Obama camp wants a three-pronged counter argument: he’s won more contests, more votes, and more pledged delegates. That’s why running up the score in Wisconsin and Hawaii matters and why Clinton’s visits from Saturday through Monday and the ad buys are designed to minimize the damage — hold back the rout, in other words.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton will be in Ohio Sunday and since he, like Hillary, has picked up the pace of attacks on Obama, it’s worth keeping an ear peeled for Bill. The former president’s attacks have not been well-received, generally and in Ohio he brings one notable albatross — NAFTA.

Blue collar Ohio Democrats see NAFTA as the cause of tens of thousands of manufacturing job loses throughout the state. Permanent trade status with China is a bird of a similar feather and equally loathed. Bill Clinton had war rooms built to pass both and both are inextricably linked to his economic legacy, a legacy Hillary increasingly leans on to differentiate her experience and record from Obama’s. NAFTA and permanent trade with China maker Clinton appearances in Ohio on Hillary’s behalf a bit cumbersome - especially as Hillary tries to downplay any previous enthusiasm she displayed about free trade.