After losing 7 of the last 8 contests (including Democrats Abroad), Clinton's got a big problem.
It's not a problem that she's somehow likely to lose the whole thing; it would still take a minor miracle for Bernie Sanders to pull off the come-from-behind victory this late in the primary season.
The problem is all about damage control, unity, and general election prospects of going home the winner.
She has to campaign to win, but also do it in a manner that doesn't embitter the entire following of Sanders.
So 'going negative' is most likely not going to work for her, though she may be tempted just because it's the 'political' thing to do in this scenario.
As a Democrat, you simply never gain much in campaigning by 'going negative.'
But how much further toward Sanders' progressive platform can Clinton move without really making herself look like a spots-changing leopard?
Sanders has already taken significant jabs at her reversals on issues, including her new found support of the $15/hr minimum wage.
The problem is, Clinton's traditional Democratic platform isn't ringing true with voters across key demographics. The younger Democrats have fully embraced this new Progressive movement, and have no intention of backing down.
Clinton's campaign message must evolve into a unity message. Win or lose, she has to stay focused on the unity of the party above all else.
With some concluding that a convention slug-fest is inevitable within the Republican Party, the Democrats need to employ a unity strategy to ensure victory -- let the Republicans crumble and fragment, a unified Democratic Party would pick up an easy win.
A large part of this unity message must be about SCOTUS nominations, keeping pressure on the failed Republican tax experiments in Kansas and Louisiana, and increasing the pressure on the Republican contenders -- all while handling these late campaign losses against Sanders with poise and perhaps even a degree of planned indolence.
In the hearts-and-minds battle of the Democratic primary, it's all about how well she can promise to improve lives, protect them from both foreign and domestic (including political) threats, and whether or not she can actually be the one to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
That's a hard task to fill--and is definitely why 'going negative' would be the easier route.
Photo Source: AP