I'm confused.

My wife and friends will volunteer, a little too eagerly, that this is not unusual.

However, help me out here.

I'm seeing three (at least) general themes emerging now about the Clinton campaign strategy. It can't be all three at once.

One, which can fairly be described as the Clinton's most positive argument (CMPA), is that there is still a good chance that the super delegates will swing over and support her, and that in the end the party will unite behind her as the nominee and all this unpleasantness will be forgotten.

The second theme, most prominently proposed by Maureen Dowd on Wednesday, is that Hillary and Bill are setting out to damage Obama as much as possible so that he will lose against McCain and she'll have a clear shot in four years to run again. Hence the repetitive negative attacks (Rev. Wright, he's just a 'black' candidate, etc.) (Scorched Earth)

The third, which I saw floated on Andrew Sullivan's site this morning, (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/dissent-of-th-9.html)  is the idea that we're witnessing delusion and madness of epic proportions, namely "a woman who’s incredulous at finding herself in the losing position and
who hasn’t shaken the assumption that the nomination is her destiny,
reality and consequences be damned." (The Madness of Queen Hillary)

Personally, I believe it's a combination of "Scorched..." and "Madness," with a fair amount of the sense of entitlement clouding their otherwise excellent political judgment, making them believe that imitating Sherman's March to the Sea is somehow OK, and missing the backlash against any future plans that's rising rapidly.

What say you all?