Is the Clinton camp dilusional or is it just arrogance?

The saying goes: pride comes before the fall. However, the fall of the Clinton campaign hasn't seemed to rid its leaders of their arrogance.

In the Fix - his blog on WashingtonPost.com - Chris Cillizza details the Clinton campaign's latest blueprint for victory. In a conference call, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, and Harold Ickes - a major portion of the Clinton braintrust - outlined the following "strategies" that will even things up between Clinton and Barack Obama.

1. Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

2. Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.

3. Debates Matter.

4. Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny.

5. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008.

6. Big States Matter More.

Hmmm, okay, where's the battle plan, is a single actual strategy in there? No! Instead it is a list of hopes for future events to occur that will somehow magically shift the race. Most likely this "strategy" was presented to keep Clinton supporters from jumping ship and to energize donors and volunteers going into last ditch effort to save the nomination in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

However, the lack of critical self-assessment and even remote change in direction should dishearten anyone thinking of giving their time, money, or support to this campaign. Essentially Clinton's campaign strategists are saying, "even though we've been losing, now that the primaries move to bigger states and Obama will face more media scrutiny, voters will realize we've been right all along."

It's too late in the game for a wholesale change in tactics. But, if I were a Clinton supporter, I would certainly appreciate an acknowledgment that the current campaign message isn't getting through and that change is coming.