Oregon not important, says Clinton Campaign

Today came further confirmation that Oregon is not an important part of the Clinton campaign's strategy for victory.  From the Oregonian:

Wolfson and the Clinton's chief strategist Geoff Garin spent and hour Friday walking reporters through the argument for nominating Clinton. It basically boils down to this: Clinton has won the states that matter - battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida -- and Obama has not. Clinton, they say, has a better chance of winning those same states in November against McCain than does Obama.

The subtext, of course, is that the states Obama carried or is expected to carry, such as Oregon, aren't as important because any Democrat is likely to win them in the fall. Only Clinton is in a position to win the states that are likely to determine the election, they said.

Oregon is not important - the Clinton campaign could care less about ousting Gordon Smith and keeping this purple state transitioning toward blue.

Hillary's local operatives have said as much recently at BlueOregon.  But now we have express confirmation from the highest levels of the Clinton campaign.

Intricate as it is, the strategy does not depend on winning Oregon's May 20 primary, according to Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson.

Asked directly, ``Can your strategy work without winning Oregon?'' Wolfson dodged the question.

``It starts in West Virginia,'' he said, referring to that state's primary on Tuesday

"Intricate" is an interesting word for it.  "Spintricate" might be more accurate.

Wolfson also noted that the growing chorus for Clinton to withdraw by election watchers can also play in her favor.

``If voters, hearing that in West Virginia decide to affirm her candidacy ... that would say something significant about her ability to compete and win votes in a very tough environment,'' he said.

May I offer this, Mr. Wolfson?  By the same token, if voters, hearing that in Oregon decide to affirm Obama's candidacy...that would say something significant about his ability to compete and win votes...  See how it just kind of all just falls apart there, Howard?  

Unfortunately, we are all familiar with the Clinton campaign's constant "moving goalposts" , as well as the "Clinton Rules" of which states "matter" (only those states Hillary won!).

Why is the Clinton campaign still pushing these talking points - which they know are bogus - pretending there is no difference between a primary and a general election? Does Hillary think we are stupid?

I will ask it again - Why is the Clinton campaign still pushing these talking points - which they know are bogus - pretending there is no difference between a primary and a general election?

And once more to really drive it home - Why is the Clinton campaign still pushing these talking points - which they know are bogus - pretending there is no difference between a primary and a general election?

And then there is this:

They want the party to win and Clinton says she's the best candidate to achieve that. The Obama campaign, of course, strenuously disagrees, pointing to his large fundraising advantage and his ability to attract huge numbers of new voters.

Bottom line is, the Clinton campaign has come right out and said that Oregon is not a part of her plan for victory.  Even if that is true, WHY come out and say it when voting is in progress?

I thought every vote mattered, Hillary?  I thought you wanted to be the president for all of America, "north, south, east and west"?  If that is Hillary's goal, how can she now out of the other side of her mouth say that only the "important" states matter?  Does she expect us to not be infuriated by her craven hypocrisy?

That's fine, Hillary. Don't help us.  Don't build us up.  Don't help encourage and support our state party to do all the important work it needs to do to get Gordon Smith out of the Senate - a prime and critical pick-up opportunity.  

It's all about Hillary.