Expectations setting are a normal part of political campaigns, but the latest memo from Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign suggests that unless Sen. Barack Obama wins all four races next Tuesday -- Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont -- he loses.

The memo says that an Obama loss in any one of the states would mean Democrats "are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer." It doesn't mention that she's already lost 11 states in a row.

Now that's spin.

News this morning that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is challenging the delegate selection rules in Texas marks the fourth time during the campaign that they have done this. The other states that have been disputed: Nevada, Michigan and Florida.

There is little argument that some of the rules governing the Democratic primaries and caucuses make little sense. But they have been in place for months now. Last minute objections look petty. Doesn't Clinton risk more politically in challenging the rules than just accepting them and trying to win?

Ben Smith sums it up nicely: "Moments like this always have two sides: The substantive, legal one; and the political side. And whatever the substance, you can be sure the reported litigation threat will be an Obama talking point in the run-up to the election."

According to the Chicago Sun Times, Sen. Barack Obama told reporters on his campaign plane this afternoon that he doesn't read blogs. 

Yesterday, we speculated about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's political future as Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.

Josh Greenman develops the idea and makes a pretty good case: "Between McCain's resurgence and Obama's rise, the stars failed to align for a Bloomberg third-party run, as he himself said last night. But 2008 could still deliver an election that breaks all molds. That's because Bloomberg is uniquely positioned to complement Obama's strengths and compensate for his weaknesses."

However, Bloomberg himself doesn't think it will happen. As he told NY1 earlier today, "Nobody's going to ask me to run for vice president."

Less than a week after announcing his third independent presidential bid, Ralph Nader held a press conference today at the National Press Club to introduce his running mate, San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez. More than a dozen television cameras showed up.

Since Nader is unlikely to be invited to any presidential debates during the general election, this might be the last bit of news that ever comes out of his campaign. As NBC News notes, "After today, will Nader -- making yet another White House bid -- be able to draw TV cameras and reporters to any other event?"

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's written declaration that he will not run for president isn't likely to close the door on speculation about his political future. His message of reaching beyond partisan politics for "practical solutions" sounds eerily similar to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign theme.

So let me be the first to ask the question: Would Bloomberg agree to be Obama's running mate?

When Texans vote next Tuesday, we could have a result fitting of this already strange campaign season: Both Democratic candidates could declare victory.

The reason: No delegates are awarded for winning the Texas popular vote. All 127 delegates at stake are allocated by state senate district proportionally. Further complicating the math is that each of the 31 senate districts gets a different number of delegates based on the Democratic vote in the 2006 governor's race and the 2004 presidential race. This will make it very difficult for the television networks to predict the correlation between popular vote and delegates. They may actually need to wait for the actual votes to come in.

While recent polls show the race very close, the ultimate winner of the popular vote could actually come away with fewer delegates. It all depends on who wins what district.

Last night’s Democratic debate in Ohio was a tense affair and most analysts declared it a draw, but some important observations should be made.

Once again, Sen. Hillary Clinton was more prepared than her rival. Her grasp of public policy is as good as any candidate running for president in recent memory. She was also relentless in trying to open new lines of attack. However, Sen. Barack Obama survived both her volleys and those of the two moderators very well. For a frontrunner nearing the end of a campaign, survival is the goal. He can afford to give up points as long as he doesn’t get knocked down.

While many find Obama’s previous debate performances somewhat flat, it’s clear he’s gotten much better after twenty encounters. Obama has a remarkable ability to defuse attacks with his calm and collected tone. He even concedes points to his rival – something that is not usually seen among politicians at this level but is very disarming. It also makes him more likable to voters watching at home.

Note to Republicans, if Obama is the Democratic nominee: His best debate format is seated at a table with open ended questions.