Examining the Logical Consistency of the Latest Clinton Rationale

I admit, my head is spinning a bit with all the 'angles' that the Clinton campaign is throwing out there as a diversion from the cold, hard numbers that show her campaign is near death.

This latest comment from Bill Clinton is another example of how what's logical in 1992 is no longer logical in 2008:

Hillary Clinton in her memo to the superdelegates (May 28, 2008):

"Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that
have been critical to victory in the past two elections," Clinton writes in a
letter to these superdelegates. "From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia
and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I
have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take
back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio."

So, according to Senator Clinton, being ahead in late May in the national tracking polls and in the electoral college against the Republican presumptive nominee is virtually immutable and shows who will win in November.

However, earlier in the campaign, references to the 1992 Democratic Primary were brought up many times by the Clinton campaign in response to complaints that a long drawn-out primary season would weaken the Democrats' ability to win in November.

Senator Clinton referenced the fact that her husband was behind both George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot in April/May of 1992, yet found a way to win in November of the same year despite this horrible starting position.

From her interview with Time Magazine on March 26, 2008:

I think the elections that are yet to come deserve to be held because the people
from Pennsylvania to Puerto Rico to all the others that are waiting in line
deserve to be heard. And I think that's part of the good. You know, I remind a
lot of people that my husband didn't formally wrap up the nomination until June and when he did he was behind both President Bush and Ross Perot. You know as well as anyone how dynamic elections are and how fluid they are, and I think that we're going to win in November and once we get our nominee chosen we're going to have a very vigorous campaign to make sure that happens.

The obvious implication?

Don't worry about Democratic Party unity or prospects in November in the face of such a grueling, drawn-out primary campaign season. It's ok that Senator Clinton continue her abrasive fight for the nomination despite the daunting delegate math that has given her the smallest of hope that she can overcome Obama. We'll all come together in the end and we can still win in November.

So, in the first instance, the relative poll positions in May for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in relation to Senator McCain should be a top priority for Democratic leaders to consider when selecting the nominee.

However, in the second instance, Democratic leaders should ignore relative poll positions in May because those don't matter in the long run, because the Democrats will all come together and overtake the Republican nominee.

In the first instance, the current state of the 2008 race in May is static and will play out as such until November.

In the second instance, the state of the race in June 1992 for her husband was so fluid that being third in the polls was a minor trifle and inconsequential.

Which is it? Logical inconsistency at its best.