The problem seems to be that she and her campaign confuse “experience” with “inevitability.” In the summer, I had the opportunity to work on a non-Hillary project with some people closely connected to the HRC campaign. The confidence in her nomination was rather staggering. They really believed the race for the nomination was over (this is July 2007, btw). Obama was just an annoying speed bump.

All through the primary season, they confused her early ability to get institutional support (electeds, advocacy groups, etc.) with experience. Yet, here is a candidate with more experience in presidential elections than anyone — two as the candidate’s very involved spouse, and then her own campaign — whose campaign appears to implode into evermore fantastical spin the instant things don’t go her way. That hardly shows experience; it shows hubris, the consequence of inevitability.

I still think she would make a decent President, certainly superior to John McCain. If she pulls this out, she’d get my support. But if she and her campaign continue to ignore reality, that support is not certain. It’s not at all certain that I could support her if the story that she is hatching a plan to pressure committed Obama delegates to switch their allegiance is true. (This was reported on politico.com and talkingpointsmemo.com.)

We now witness the fourth consecutive primary that never happened.

One of the hardest things to do in this business is stand behind a friend who had to stand up, take their lumps, and thank their volunteers and staff for “a race well run but not won.” It is a moving emotional experience.

I’ve worked on more losing races than winning ones. It ain’t easy for the candidate who doesn’t get enough votes. But I’ve never worked for (and pray I never do work for) a candidate who did not have the balls to accept reality and face the music.

So tonight Wisconsin joins Virginia, Maryland and DC as one more place where there evidently just wasn’t a primary.

On top of the major incompetence, this latest childishness just screams volumes about one candidate’s basic character flaws and total lack of class.

Part of their incompetence is not their messaging, but their total lack thereof. From “experience” - to “change” - to “solutions,” they’ve never found a message.

Hillary herself keeps telling us not to listen to Obama’s speeches, but look at his actions. TELLING us. With her SPEECHES.

After yesterday’s mini-fiasco (created totally by Hillary herself and her campaign management team) over “plagiarism,” her supporters are now posting on other blogs:

“Don’t look at those actions (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?). PLEASE listen to her SPEECHES. She has so many good things to say.” Give me a break. Which message is the message?

And Hillary’s attempt to create an issue over borrowed phrases being “plagiarism” opens up the questions about her own speeches, the Coretta Scott King funeral (her husband’s prepared words) and of her New Hampshire tears. Were they real tears when Hillary began to cry while reciting the words John Edwards had just used the day before?

The Clinton message (or lack thereof) and the Clinton ground game (or lack thereof) is an embarrassment to anyone who has worked in this business. And an amazing misuse of over $100 million dollars.

Admitting that they didn’t know the delegate rules in Texas and couldn’t fill a slate of delegates in Pennsylvania while bragging those states were a part of their firewall? This would flunk them in a college Campaign101 course.