Why doesn't Howard Dean and the DNC just name another five hundred superdelegates, then eliminate Democratic primary voting by the public altogether?

Seems that would make Howard Dean and the DNC's job all that much easier.

Turn everything over to BIG federal government and eliminate the Democratic Party's voters completely.

So much simpler. So fewer headaches.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:05 AM ET | 03-07-2008

Legal action? To do what -- ensure that she barely won the popular vote, or stop Obama from getting delegates the way it's always been done in Texas?

Sent by KC in Lubbock | 9:29 AM ET | 03-07-2008

This is terrific news blunder. Before the voting on Tuesday, just about every pundit, including Hillary's husband, had framed the day so that if she didn't win both Texas and Ohio she likely couldn't win - that she'd probably have to quit. Most all of us absorbed this frame. By falsely claiming she won Texas, mainstream news once again has egg on its face. But in so doing, they have allowed the entire campaign to shift. Now she has momentum. Now she can stay in. Barack is on his heels. And the perception becomes reality. I feel sorry for Obama. I feel sorry for us. Once again, the news media's hurry and horse-race hurts us. It has already changed the campaign. It may have changed the result by what it did (or didn't do) right this week.

Thanks for printing this story here. I have the audacity to hope it gets center attention broadly.

Sent by Aaron Boyson | 11:32 AM ET | 03-07-2008

Its a weird process to be sure - allowing voters to cast 2 votes for a single candidate. But...it is the process that the Democratic Party has adopted. The Caucus I attended near Austin was 3 to 1 for Obama. How can those results be ignored?

Sent by Trey Hailey | 11:46 AM ET | 03-07-2008

This is no surprise, I heard a number of pundits say she might win both states, but not in delegates in Texas, because of the caucuses.

She did win the popular vote by at least 3 percentage points, and that is significant, especially since Barack was out spending her 3 or 4 to 1 in ad ratio.

Personally, I think caucuses are very undemocratic because most people cannot go to them, and they are "democracy by mob mentality." I know people who went to caucuses and thought Hillary was more qualified, and wanted to vote for her, but they felt "peer pressure" from their friends. That is not democracy, that is high school. Barack may be the "cool" candidate, but what our country needs right now is our most qualified candidate.

Superdelegates are important because we need experts. A lot of Democrats are naive about who can actually win against Republicans.

The reason why Superdelegates were created was because the party was tired of losing.

Sent by Lauren | 1:28 PM ET | 03-07-2008

This is excellent news! Poor Hilary! It's like you just found out that you won the lottery and you went out shopping for your Ferrari only to find out later that it was all a big mistake. Haha... My hatred for her only grows as she stays in the race.

Obama should say, "Yes, Hillary and John McCain have the experience, the experience of making the biggest misjudgment in the history of mankind which resulted in over hundreds of thousands of deaths!"

The Iraq War as we all know was a big lie! Bush and his regime went after Saddam's oil at all cost and he got it!Killing for oil makes Bush and his accomplices the biggest murderers ranked up there with Hitler and PolPot! Wow, and to think the Republican Congress wanted to impeach Clinton for his lie. I love Republicans so honest and always morally correct!

Sent by Smith | 6:44 AM ET | 03-08-2008

This means Hillary has to drop out right ?

Sent by Bryan | 6:52 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Bottom line as a democrat, if billary wins the nomination, I will vote for CrazyCain before I let her get anywhere near the White House.

Sent by Marcus | 7:10 AM ET | 03-08-2008

I feel like the Republicans are supporting both of these candidates wherever they are weak to divide and conquer the deomcrats for loss against McCain in the election. If I was a Republican, I'd be dying laughing right now at the first woman deadlocked against the first president in my opposition's party...

Sent by James Vaughn | 7:29 AM ET | 03-08-2008

"The Clinton camp is none to happy about this development and is threatening to take legal action because it said it won the state."

Huh? This is either poorly written or Hillary's campaign doesn't understand the law. You can't sue someone else for something you said.

Sent by seth | 7:52 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Super Delegates are important because the party leadership misses the days where candidates were decided in smoke filled back rooms by "those in the know". Saying that we need "experts" to choose our candidates is only one step away from suggesting that we need them to choose our president for us as well. Suggesting that the common citizen is not fit to make the decisions that will shape the possible future of our government is as insulting to the American legacy as Super Delegates and the Patriot Act.

Sent by Geoff | 8:02 AM ET | 03-08-2008

The sad fact is, Hillary will do anything to win. She'll cozy up to the man who humiliated her multiple times. She will sue Texas. She'll run negative ads that McCain can run against either of them. 'Monster' really isn't enough to describe it.

When you start a campaign as the most divisive candidate run and when you don't manage to change that perception among the voters, you have only yourself to blame when we reach this inevitable situation. HRC has long since made the decided that she is willing to destroy the Democratic parties chances in 2008 to satisfy her own, personal ambition.

If HRC weren't so sad, she would be funny. I'm looking forward to the first books out of her campaign staff during the McCain years.

Sent by Mr Judgment | 8:04 AM ET | 03-08-2008

"Superdelegates are important because we need experts. A lot of Democrats are naive about who can actually win against Republicans."

That is absurd, Superdelegates are not about democracy at all! They are the ANTI-democracy. The democratic voter think they have a say on who will be nominated...BULL. the Superdelegates are there to make sure the DNC get the person they want, regardless of who the public voted for...they are there to sway the primary election and disenfranchise the voter if the primaries are not going as the DNC wishes...That is it. IT's a total SCAM..it goes completely counter to democracy. If you believe that Democrats are too stupid to pick a candidate, why give them a vote, Just let the superdelegates do what they are designed to do...control the election

Sent by Mitch | 8:09 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Texas is a caucus State. Both sides get a caucus. People turned out in record numbers this Primary for both the Caucus and Election.

On a "Hilary" note, I don't think she can win against McCain. As much as this country doesn't need another neo-facist President, I'd rather cross the lines and vote Republican against Hilary. She has run a smear campaign, and is now being a poor loser here in Texas. These are not qualities of a professional, much less a President.

Sent by Jay | 8:09 AM ET | 03-08-2008

The superdelegates are a bad idea all the way around. Not to mention the fact that some superdelegates are barely 18 years old themselves. Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Rae

Is this kid really qualified to determine who will win against a Republican?

Sent by Rodney | 8:17 AM ET | 03-08-2008

I attened a caucus in Texas and can tell you first hand that Sen. Clinton lost because her campaign didn't know how to compete in the primary and Sen. Obama's did. The Clinton campaing spent a ton of money on Mariaci bands and tacos rather than on the local field organization that was needed for the caucuses. When caucus time came, the Obama people knew what to do and the Clinton people did not. Claiming now that caucuses are unfair is just an attempt to spin away the fact of their incompetence.

Sent by Greg Nudd - Austin | 8:31 AM ET | 03-08-2008

It's disingenuous to paint Hilary as the experienced leader and Obama the novice. I'm amazed at how long Obama's camp has let that one fester, but I suspect they'll be popping it soon enough.

Sent by Matthew B | 8:50 AM ET | 03-08-2008

"That is high school," have a firm belief in your candidate and vote, c'mon.

Regarding experience, it is pretty evidnet she dosen't have any experience. Obama wanted to take the high road and not challenge it. Might have been a campaign mistake, could be over by now....At 3 am, do you want Sybil answering the phone. (larry david)

You see a true character come out in dire times and Hillary's nature has a reslembance to Nixon after he has lost gambling on a football sunday.

ANyway, this thing is over in practical terms. Obama is going to have more delegates and win the popular vote...the democratic leaders are behind this measuring stick. It would be political suicide for th party if they don't honor it. Plus, a deal have been made among the party leaders. This thing is over, but Hillary will keep taking shots. (btw...I have voted for bill twice, dukakis and voted for obama in IL). After that ad, I will never vote for Hillary.

Sent by Grant G | 8:58 AM ET | 03-08-2008

I have to admit, while Obama has his faults, I fail to see how Hillary has more experience than he does. Experience by osmosis? Her time as first lady hardly counts as she was never elected to the post.

Between the 2 candidates Obama has spent the most time in a publicly elected position. How that counts as less experience... I'll never know.

Then there's the whole Nafta-gate lie from the Clinton campaign.

McCain has to be loving this. He's coming off better and better.

Sent by Aaron | 9:00 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Thanks for the history lesson, Lauren. I think you may be a little mistaken, however. The Superdelegates were created in 1984. Prior to that, the last 12 Presidents were split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. If you want to get technical, even the terms are split down the middle. That is almost 100 years of an even race. Please do not try to use false information to scare people into your way of thinking.

Sent by Matt Monday | 9:10 AM ET | 03-08-2008

It's only good to see people actually starting to question this HORRIBLE ABOMINATION which some imbeciles, a few senile pundits, and many crooks call American Democracy.
Together with News Media, the studios producing fiction, misinformation and shameless lies, these are the main reasons US is falling apart so rapidly.

Sent by Fred Stork | 9:17 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Lauren, Superdelegates are not experts by any means. Look for the stories of the college kid who is a current superdelegate. We do not need to give up our rights to pick our leaders based on "experts". That is the antithesis of what makes this country great. The problem is the Democratic proportional delegates system allows for these situations to occur. If they had a "winner takes all" system, this would be over and done with.

As it stands, when the dems choose one of these folks in the end, half of the party will be angered and disenfranchised. Looks like another 72 year old white male president for us.

Sent by kevin | 9:21 AM ET | 03-08-2008

It seems to me that all the media coverage of the last few days has been all about "Somehow we must get Michigan and Florida delegates counted for Hillary and we must somehow eleminate Obamas delegate lead" Sorry news media progressives won't be fooled into supporting another republican lite candidate again.

Sent by Greg | 9:27 AM ET | 03-08-2008

is H.clinton a monster? of course not. But how about Bill ? we should never forget that he like nixon brought shame to whit house when he lied under oat. Has she ever appologized for her husband lies. Was she involved in "renting" lincoln bedroom to friend? If the answer is "no" she has to let people know and it is "yes" then the question is does she owes us an apology?

Sent by soroui | 9:32 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Lauren:
Oh come one, that experience argument is a bunch of bull$#!t. She has 15 years of experience, and he has 10. Not a huge difference. However if your don't include Hillary's years as First Lady (which you should not), then she only has 7 years of experience to his 10.

Wow...Hillary actually has LESS experience than Obama. Interesting...

You swallowed that experience lie, hook line and sinker...

Sent by Nick Fotopoulos | 9:33 AM ET | 03-08-2008

It sounds about right. I caucused for Obama Tuesday evening in Brazoria County. When my precinct was divided between Obama and Clinton supporters the Clinton supporters were sent from the room to the hall. The room seemed just as packed after they left as it was before. I don't remember the exact numbers,(it was late), but Obama delegates to the county convention outnumbered those for Clinton by a significant margin .

Sent by Robert | 9:37 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Clinton is making a big deal out of a non-win.

Sent by Mike Reynolds | 9:45 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Let's see if I have this right. Obama is following the rules and winning fair and square. Clinton is fighting the results in court. What ever happened to counting every person's vote and accepting the will of the people? We now have a person running for president, with less elected delegates, who actually thinks that it's okay if she wins the party nomination in court. Is this the kind of person we want as leader of the free world?

Sent by Jerry | 9:57 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Why does the Clinton campaign always threaten to sue when it hears unwelcome news? Why can't they be gracious and respect the process? It's these kind of hardball bullying tactics that gave us George W Bush in 2000.

Sent by John | 10:05 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Lauren,

I couldn't disagree more. It's not fair of you to say the democratic process is flawed, only when it's hurting your candidate. It's been this way for as long as I can remember, and just because your candidate is getting out voted, out campaigned, and outsmarted doesn't mean you can just blame it on the process.

Perhaps if Hillary had more charisma, more courtesy, and tried to keep the debate civil instead of trying to sling mud in every direction she would be ahead right now and this wouldn't even be an issue.

Hillary is claiming the media is treating her unfairly, well now as this article would show, she certainly has had her share of the press benefiting her.

Sent by Kyle | 10:14 AM ET | 03-08-2008

The news media continues to report that Clinton won texas, thereby continuing to give her momentum that she doesn't deserve. Obama got more delegates, so that means he won. There needs to be a major retraction by the mainstream press to set the record straight. The whole notion that the media has been unfair to Clinton is nothing but a smoke screen to mask an obvious bias towards her.

Sent by Thomas | 10:15 AM ET | 03-08-2008

I think Lauren's comments sum up the whole problem. 1st she complains that caucuses are undemocratic because of "peer pressure" & then goes on to praise the need for Superdelegates(the ultimate in undemocratic!) to protect "naive" democrats from themselves!
The hypocrisy is astounding!
Lauren, try this:
The 'Texas Caucuses' can be called 'undemocratic' because they are structured along with primaries that allow people to vote twice - one person one vote is about as basic as democracy gets.
If Superdelegates are forced to vote according to the results in their areas then the effect of having them(which I don't agree with but that is a discussion for another day) is eliminated. This would simply be like having more delegates awarded as a 'bonus' to the winner of each state.

Now that said - The Texas primary rules, the DNC decision on Florida & Michigan and the use of Superdelegates were ALL in place before this process began. For Clinton to now threaten legal action about Texas, skirt the rules(ie CHEAT) on Florida(Yes going on National TV the day before the Florida Primary & saying the vote should count is obviously campaigning to the people of Florida) & then push for Florida & Michigan votes to count is just a result of her losing this primary election. Ask yourself-If Obama had won Florida would Clinton be saying the vote should count? Obviously not, so whatever the rhetoric, her interest is only in getting herself elected, not in the claimed 'fair process' for Floridians.

Sent by Brendan | 10:18 AM ET | 03-08-2008

It's plain silly to say a caucus is not democratic. Midway through the election, the Hillary camp cannot whine about the process and go suing about here and there. The process was no surprise to her when she started contesting. Rules should not be changed midway and this also means, there should be no re-elections in Florida and Michigan. Let the chips fall where they may.

Sent by Kiran A | 10:22 AM ET | 03-08-2008

It seems that when things don't go the way the Clinton's want things to go then they want to change the rules, in the middle of the game. Everybody knew the way we in Texas elected our delegates before the elections now the Clintons want to change the rules just like Florida and Michigan which I don't think their vote should count. Hillary just can't be trusted and I need a President that I can trust.

Sent by John Ohlson | 10:38 AM ET | 03-08-2008

3 percentage points is not "significant", in point of fact it's barely outside the margin of error (1.5-2%).

Caucuses were, in fact, the origin of Democracy. The Athenians would gather in small groups to vote on significant laws . They would discuss and persuade, then vote on a given measure. Vote by mail, as we have here, or in a voting booth are a pretty antiseptic way to cast your vote. I don't have a problem with objectivity, but a significant portion of the voters are unaware of most of the facts or history when they pull the handle. People who feel peer pressure usually do so when they're confronted with their own ignorance of the facts. Do I think caucuses are better? Not to an informed populace, which equals a tiny percentage here in the US.

Do I think Sen. Clinton should litigate her way to the top, that this process should descend to a knife-fight as she would have it? I do not. If we lose this next election it's because we've hung ourselves out to dry. Currently we have all of the advantages, I'd hate to see it go down the drain because of a vicious race.

As for Hillary's supposed qualifications. Two terms as Senator, and the dubious honor of being President Clinton's wife doesn't really sway me. I wouldn't trust my Doctor's wife to operate on me, how is it any different for a first lady?

I would love for this race to be an issue-driven campaign rather than the current one-sided mud slinging.

Sent by Jason | 10:45 AM ET | 03-08-2008

"Superdelegates are important because we need experts. A lot of Democrats are naive about who can actually win against Republicans."

Wow, that is so amazingly ignorant. From this logic we shouldn't have the public vote at all, just have the "experts" decide who should be President. Fundamentally, these are experts, everyone is positioning themselves for power. That is why all of this should be by popular vote. Let the people decide. Not the elite!

Sent by Steve | 11:00 AM ET | 03-08-2008

I disagree fervently Lauren. Caucuses are wholly democratic. Maybe even more-so than primaries. As one has to be more educated on the candidates to actively involve themselves in a caucus, they are much more reflective of the citizen part of democracy. Also, anyone of voting age can attend a caucus. Maybe a person cannot attend a caucus because of a scheduling conflict, but the rules and the dates a published well (At least a year.) in advance. So the question isn't can everyone have access to a caucus, but how much does one really want to participate in the civic process?

Sent by onlinesavant | 12:07 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Hillary's actions show that she is helping Republicans, acting as spoiler for them.

The fact that she lost Texas, clearly shows she can't win the nomination by delegates, so what she will try and do, is say she won the popular vote., she is doing a disservice to Democrats.

I have no preference for either of them, but do watch their actions, and hers clearly shows she is not prepared to be a president.

The way she conducted her campaign and the way she reacted to problems in Latin America (she didnt consider the fact that even though Venezuela is bad, the problem between Colombia and Ecuador was a flagarant breach of international law, most of the regional neibhors and Obama acted accordingly) her actions word emplies ".. the end justifies the means... ", clearly shows she would only be an extension of the Bush policy.

So all those voting for change with Hillary will benefit what the ask for, economic change and more blunders similar to the recent past.

Now, this is not something to be surprised about, as her voting record during the past few years, show she is in favor of these actions.

Then November the choice will be or more of the same (republican nominee) or more of the same if she got elected.

So, to all those who made this choice. Don't complain 5 years from now. You called for it if you get your way, which is very doubtful. Math just doesn't cut it, but Politics is not only math, its back door dealings, and Hillary is a champ here.

Sent by Just an observer | 12:19 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Lauren, while I respect the contention that people can be talked out of supporting who they wanted to originally at a caucus, I don't think it's at all undemocratic. Just because one person believes a candidate is more qualified doesn't make it so. The fact is that a lot of people on both sides don't do their research and don't really know the qualifications of a candidate. The caucus environment actually gives a chance for people who know to lay it out clearly. Or course it also gives an opportunity for overly pushy or annoying people to turn those who are undecided against the candidate they advocate.

Also, if you're going to say that "not everyone can go to a caucus, therefore it isn't democratic" that same arguement is true of a primary. Until election days are officially mandatory holidays that allow people to take time off work, they will never be 'democratic'. The other danger of primaries is that because they are a secret ballot, you don't have a room full of witnesses to attest to just how the voting went. Do you really believe that the secret ballots in primaries and elections aren't ever tampered with or creatively counted?

Sent by T | 12:29 PM ET | 03-08-2008

There seems to be a double standard here - If Hillary says one thing and then retracts it, she goes unscathed. If even a hint of change is sensed in Obama, he is bludgeoned by the Press and the Clinton machine.

Let's be clear: The Clintons knew before the election season began, during the season, and even now EXACTLY how the primaries work, including in Texas.

They knew EXACTLY the issues regarding why Florida and Michigan's Delegates should not be seated.

Let's not be so gullible or openly slanted to think for a second that they honestly didn't know the system they now claim to be flawed.

The issue is this and this alone: They didn't anticipate or even consider the possibility of being behind or losing.

Sent by Mike Khandjian | 1:03 PM ET | 03-08-2008

I'm curious as to how Clinton is the "most qualified candidate"? Is it her VAST years of experience as a Senator from her home state of Arkan... er, New York? How about all of the widely successful policies she implimated while in the White House... as the WIFE of the President? Heck, with that reasoning, I have a tremendous amount of expreience as an architect due to the fact that my wife is one. Oh, yes! Her experience must come from the years she spent in an inner city neighborhood working as a community organi... wait, that's the other guy. Hmm... I can't seem to find any evidence of these 35 years of experience. Could it be that a Clinton may, possibly, be exaggerating and stretching the truth more than a little? Say it aint so!

Sent by Chris | 1:31 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"She did win the popular vote by at least 3 percentage points, and that is significant, especially since Barack was out spending her 3 or 4 to 1 in ad ratio."

yeah, but Obama came from 20 points behind - in less than 2 weeks. AND in a state where Hillary already had past affiliation and organization.

Also, 8% of the vote that went to Hilary were neo-con republicans that were only voting for her because the neo-con news corp got them to.

if you take those two factors into consideration, Obama lost the popular vote but still defeated Clinton. The caucus delegates, and the final delegate tally will represent the will of the people.

the caucuses have everything to do with getting people involved in the democratic party. it is a very necessary part of the process, especially for the demoralized and small democratic base in Texas. the fresh blood brought in by the caucus system is good for the texas dems, good for the party, and good for the whole process because it means more regular people are playing a part in the overall democratic process - not JUST voting every four years.

are there issues with caucuses? sure, but the benefits outweigh disadvantages.

i was at an Austin caucus and over 600 people showed up. there didn't seem to be any pressuring or mob mentality going on. there was discussion of who was supporting who, but it was polite, cordial and i appreciated the process.

we waited for two hours to vote again. that may seem to be disenfranchising to some, but to me it talks to the motivation and dedication of those who did take the time to wait.

will some not be able to go? sure, and if caucuses were the only process we used, then i would be in line with everyone else screaming disenfranchisement, but with the primary system on top of this, people's voices still are heard.

lastly, if is such a horrible process why didn't hillary say so at the same time she voted for MI and FL to not have their delegates seated. If it's so bad, why has the system been this way for so long in Texas.

Hindsight is a politician's best friend and we need to remember that.

If you still have issues with it, PLEASE vote against democratic politicians that want to keep the status quo -instead of complaining about it when it's not convenient to your candidate.

Sent by cliff | 1:39 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Texas has run their elections in a two step process for years... Hillary Clinton would be wise to heed the advice to not mess with Texas...When you go into any state it is important to know how to play...Why are caucuses undemocratic? Most people can go to them...At the caucus in Texas we had people from all walks of life at them....Mark my words they won't be changing because Hillary doesn't like them!!!

Sent by Audrey | 1:40 PM ET | 03-08-2008

I cannot understand the sheer idiocy of anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is at all qualified to be president, or more qualified than Barack Obama. Not only are her claims to experience inflated and/or false, but how stupid do you have to be to build your campaign on being "the most qualified" only to enter the general election against a candidate with FAR MORE experience and stronger qualifications.
If the dems are dumb enough to put that power hungry, machiavellian witch on the ballot, the GOP will hold the White House.
The only smart play is to offer a real CHOICE to the voters: four more years of Bush policies, or a different way of governing altogether. Offering up Bill's frigid, soulless wife as an alternative to McCain is not choice at all - just a less experienced version of McCain in a pantsuit.

Sent by Avi | 1:43 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Being first lady doesn't make you the more qualified candidate. What matters is judgment and Hillary has proven that her judgment is flawed. Further, she inspires hatred in many and has the ability to unite conservatives like nothing else. She will not beat McCain but Obama can. She has proven throughout this election that her real concern is power and not the ideals she supposedly believes in. If she was really concerned with our country or the democratic party, she would have gotten out already.

Sent by Michelle | 1:46 PM ET | 03-08-2008

So, insisting that the delegates from Michigan and Florida get seated is respecting the people's voice and protecting the integrity of the democratic process, but if she doesn't get the lion's share of Texas delegates the people's voice and democracy don't matter?

No sense of entitlement there, no sir.

Sent by Ken | 2:07 PM ET | 03-08-2008

If caucuses were so undemocratic why all the squawking now? This isn't new! If someone thinks Hillary is more qualified and they didn't vote for her because they were experiencing peer pressure I completely agree "that is high school". Grow up. Democracy requires back bone not feelings of victimization by people who don't agree with them. And I am not exactly clear why it would be in the benefit of the November election to so rudely describe folks who support Obama as part of some mob mentality or so stupid as to vote for someone based on being cool. Please stop the insults and recognize we have to eventually work together. Elevate the conversation so that everyone can particpate rather than slinging mud at those who aren't voting for Hillary Clinton during this nominating process. It happens to be convenient at the moment for Hillary Clinton and her supporters to call caucuses "undemocratic" and superdelegates "important".
Taryn

Sent by Taryn Browne | 2:22 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Lauren,
Are you serious? Hilary is the more qualified candidate? SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR! She went along with Bush's lies! Bush murdered for oil! She didn't have the guts, the courage to question him and instead blindly go along with the herd! You call that leadership quality? Bush, his regime, all Republican and Democrats and all Bush-lover supporters are accomplices to murder! They knew it was a lie and they allowed it to happen! As a result hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children died including US military personnel! You call her qualified? You better re-examine yourself because if your child were blown away in an IED attack, I don't think you would be very happy with Bush and his regime and anyone else that supported his lie for war!

Sent by Steve | 2:22 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Can't blame this on Bush.

Sent by Leslie Hunter | 2:31 PM ET | 03-08-2008

each state is free to have its own election system. this is ok with me. no one should have been declared a victor in texas until the full count had been resolved leaving hillary with a lot of buzz. a freebie so to speak. ditto for florida and michegan. they had their chance and blew it. now they want taxpayers to finance a new election. they blew it, so let them wallow in it. dean is right. the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game. otherwise, come the next election idiotic state party leaders can do as they please and then later have a comeback.

Sent by patrick hughes | 2:58 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Accept defeat with honor Hillary,.....Obama is the winner in TX...that's why we have been smiling all along:)

Sent by Rachel | 2:59 PM ET | 03-08-2008

According to CNN polls, only 46% of votes have been counted at the caucus -- and the caucus happened 5 days ago!! Perhaps Texans could learn a thing or two from other caucus states, which were able to announce their results that same night??

Come on, SPEED IT UP TEXAS!!

Sent by Tony | 3:04 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The caucuses are part of the popular vote. The news outlets were wrong to announce that Hillary had won Texas, she has not. If the trend in the caucuses holds the win would be Obamas.

The Clinton campaign said Hillary needed to win big in both Texas and Ohio in order to stay in the race. She did not do it. If she truly cares about the future of the country and Democratic party she would bow out gracefully. There is a good chance that her improved performance was only because of the "Rush Limbaugh effect", republicans voting for her because she would be the easier candidate to beat in the fall.

Sent by Pat Allen | 3:05 PM ET | 03-08-2008

First of all, clinton WON the texas primary where EVERY dem's vote counts! The caucus held after the primary was nothing more than a pitbull dogfight; the nastiest side won. As a caucus worker, I personally witnessed the obama side's tactics of bullying, badgering, and ignoring all caucus rules to win votes...(Texas is the ONLY state in the union where one person can vote TWICE!) We had been warned that these same obama tactics had won him all the caucuses in the country...they swoop down and overwhelm the system, bringing in voters from who-knows-where. The Texas caucus results have NO meaning whatsoever...it's a fraudulent system that robs dem voters of their primary vote (which should be the ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS!!)

Sent by Jan Farris | 3:07 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Clinton WON the Texas primary! For those of you unfamiliar with the Texas caucus (after the primary)...it is nothing more than a barroom brawl....no rules, no governance (unlike the primary). As a caucus worker, I saw the obama people berate black women who voted for clinton...because the vote is public knowledge, they stood there and pressured every black person to vote for obama. They ignored all caucus rules, counted votes from people who were not in our voting precinct, and even bullied old, white primary workers to allow their people to vote who came to the primary 10 minutes after it had closed. The obama side displayed such cheating at the caucus, I do not believe ANY OF THE CAUCUS RESULTS FROM ANYWHERE IN THE US!! We had been warned that the obama side deployed all these tactics all over the country to win each caucus...I hope the superdelegates do their ONLY JOB and support clinton against this tide of fraudalent voting!!!!!

Sent by Jan Farris | 3:17 PM ET | 03-08-2008

....what democracy? if it were a democracy, Bush would not be president. Obama is the only candidate i've seen so far that is not corrupt. He has my support.

Sent by Mike | 3:19 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Thank you for the update. Wonderful news that Barak Obama may well have won more Texas delegates than Hilary Clinton. Will the newspaper and tv journalists be prepared to speak the truth and let the public know this critical news, I truly wonder, considering the current media bias against Barak Obama?

Sent by Nah Dove | 3:25 PM ET | 03-08-2008

It is interesting to see people now realizing that Texas will take until summer to officially choose its delegates. Interesting because while many people focus on that particular state and many of its nuances they neglect to mention that other states such as Iowa and Nevada also will not finish their delegate selections until summer and in an area like Iowa, either hillary or obama still have the opportunity to pick up the delegates that john Edwards has left whether or not he chooses to endorse a candidate.

Sent by Greg | 3:42 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"Superdelegates are important because we need experts. A lot of Democrats are naive about who can actually win against Republicans." By Lauren

Lets rephrase what Lauren said: "The public is too stupid to elect the candidate they feel is best, so we have to have a bunch of so-called experts save people from themselves or else the people can just elect anyone they want!"

Is that what Democracy is supposed to be about?! If that is what Democrats believe, then the maybe the Republicans deserve to win.

Isn't that

Sent by Jim | 3:56 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"Retroactively claim victory" is certainly a loaded phrasing, Mr. Regan.

The news organizations were irresponsible and misleading by emphasizing just the primary result. If they'd been able to maintain a semblance of objectivity, they wouldn't have to eat crow now that Obama has actually won the delegate count. As it is, rather than feast on said bird they are ignoring the reality of the vote all together.

Sent by Dave | 4:00 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The truth is that Clinton needed double-digit victory percentages and the corresponding delegate lead in BOTH Texas and Ohio to pull enough delegate strength to actually WIN the nomination via existing delegates. If you look at the remaining states' delegates, Clinton realistically can't gather enough pledged delegates now to actually give her the nomination (barring the remote possibility of landslide wins in all the remaining states). This is why her campaign is fighting like mad to make her likely Texas caucus loss (and delegate deficit there) look like fraud on the part of Obama's campaign.

Also, we're now seeing a push by her campaign to make the votes in Florida and Michigan count even though the Democratic Party had already laid out the rules and those states broke them. Most of the Democrats there either abstained from voting or voted in the Republican Primary (for Romney to keep the battle going among Republicans) to have a voice in the election. Those that voted in the Republican primary are now ineligible to vote in any "re-vote." Furthermore, Obama and Edwards removed their names from the Michigan ballot and did not campaign in Florida, but Clinton left her name on in MI and DID campaign in FL.

Consider the fact that Clinton wants to CHANGE the rules in Texas where she LOST the caucus, but wants to IGNORE the rules concerning Michigan and Florida where she "won" the election. No matter how badly you want to win something, you have to be careful about how you approach it. With her (presumable) inability to attain enough pledged delegates and her open challenges to the rules in order to benefit herself, Clinton is setting Democrats up for another 1968-style convention. In other words, she is just stalling until a brokered convention. Even if they do choose her at the convention, many people will be furious, and many will likely abstain from voting - or at least abstain from voting for her. The Democrats can't handle this mess right now. With the Republicans being so unpopular lately, Democrats should be pulling together for a big win in November. I'm ashamed that Hillary Clinton is staying in the race knowing that, at best, she's going to "steal" the election at the very end and almost certainly hand the Republicans a pass on years of unpopular action.

Sent by Rob Shepard in Urbana, IL | 4:02 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The Texas Primary is a 2 step process, it always has been. If Obama came out ahead after both steps were completed, he is the winner.

Clinton seems to have trouble following the rules. Her campaign is instigating the efforts to make Florida and Michigan count.

Obey the process. Bending the rules, doing back deals, whining, attacking - there are not the qualities that will attract voters in the general election

Sent by Abdul Farukhi | 4:02 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Personally I don???t think 3% is significant for either candidate, I would consider that pretty even.

I don???t think I need a Superdelagate ???expert??? to tell me whom I feel would be the best candidate, or whom could win against any other party. They created the superdelagate mess to change an otherwise fair process. Convoluting public votes can work to benefit either candidate . Trying to change the rules after the fact because you don???t like the results is wrong, ie??? MI, FLA, Clinton in Texas. I would hate to see what she would want to change as President if she didn???t get her way. Kind of reminds me of Bush. I???m not sure she is the better candidate.. Maybe the better politician .

My vote should speak for its self. Person over party, needing no other expert interpretation

Sent by drue | 4:06 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The Media is incredibly biased at this point. I wouldn't even bother listening to the news. Just sun the numbers yourself if your interested. And read the Facts! Like congressional records. I've very glad somebody at NPR is still speculating after the amazing Clinton spin machine has done it's work. Sure puts any republican machine to shame.

Sent by Marshall Ambros | 4:06 PM ET | 03-08-2008

@ Lauren ??? if our party wants to win, what it does NOT need this year is the candidate of Ken Starr, Whitewater, impeachment and Monica-Gate.

That candidate will unite the Republican party and meanwhile, the most excited new donors and voters on our side - including the vast majority of younger voters, who are most important to the party going forward - will stay home in disgust.

In one area - accepting crooked lobbyist money - Clinton has more experience than EITHER Obama or McCain. Meanwhile, Obama's only crime is that he is fresh and new... and has dark skin. To me, neither of those things is a crime!

Sent by Jed | 4:13 PM ET | 03-08-2008

SERIOUSLY NOW, just so I understand this, a certain unnamed candidate is pressuring for the disqualified Florida and Michigan delegates to count, at the same time that she is threatening to sue to prevent Texas caucus delegates from counting. Did I miss anything there?
At the time those two states moved their primaries forward in violation of DNC rules, they were told that they would be stripped of their delegates, but they did it anyway. Now somebody wants to change the rules ~ retroactively! The rules are the rules; you do not get to change them just because it would benefit you.
And did nobody warn her about the Texas two-step? How can this possibly be a surprise to her? Everyone knew about the two-tier system ahead of time, I am sick of the Clintons insulting my intelligence.
She-who-will-not-be-named needs to get out of the way before she inflicts any more damage on the party's chances in the general election.

Sent by Theworldneeds Obama | 4:24 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Rush Limbaugh urging his listeners to go out and vote for Hillary was a factor in the results. The big question is: was that a factor that caused her to win the popular vote. Analysis of exit poll demographics show that Conservative Republican men were Clinton's strongest demographics in that primary, and that there were hundreds of thousands of them. Without that Rush Limbaugh plug would Clinton have won Texas?

Sent by Cathy Smith | 4:27 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Hard time resisting peer pressure? Wow, if you don't have the conviction and integrity to defend your position in front of your peers, should you even participate? I seriously doubt that anyone strongly supporting Clinton would change their mind due to peer pressure.

Sent by Brad in Georgia | 4:51 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Caucuses are anything but "undemocratic". Most people can certainly participate if they have to think it matters enough to make the effort, the same as any other scheduled event. If Lauren's friends voted against their best judgment due to "peer pressure", then they are indeed acting like high school students, and they have disgraced their rights of citizenship. That's their failure, though, not the caucuses'.

If the superdelegates are needed as "experts" in winning elections, that would explain why we Democrats have been winning the Presidency so consistently since they were created in 1968. Oh, I forgot; we haven't. As for the suggestion that rule by superdelegate "experts" is more democratic than primary caucuses, well, it hardly warrants a response.

Sent by Aaron Levitt | 5:01 PM ET | 03-08-2008

If someone disagrees with her own party's primary rules, she might want to challenge them before the primary is held. Challenging them after the fact might well support her opponent's charges against her of cynical political manipulation.

Sent by Charlie Wood | 5:01 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Superdelegates are important but they are not siding with HillBilly anymore. According to Realclearpolitics.com Obama has gained 3 Superdelegates to Hillary's Big ZERO. I have done the math using many different delegate calculators and sometimes even giving Hillary 60% in the remaining states. She still come in about 50-100 delegate short of Obama. A re-do in FL and MI will not help either.

I do agree on the idea of them running on the same ticket. I will not mind having Obama play the good guy and let Hillary be atop the ticket. He is young and can afford to wait.

Sent by Shamoleda | 5:08 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Ever since the 2000 presidential election, these close races have been exposing a very fractured, faulty voting system. The voting processes vary so much from state to state, that it leaves me feeling unsure about how fair and balanced this whole thing is. Why can't the DNC (and the RNC for that matter)regulate the procedures in each state?

Sent by anonymous | 5:13 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"The Clinton camp is none to happy about this development and is threatening to take legal action because it said it won the state."

Yes, but Al Gore was also pronounced to be the elected President and then eventually everything changed. And now Clinton (who is more on the side of McCain after her recent statements than being a Democrat) claims to have won Texas, because someone said so? Despite the fact that the results prove otherwise?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is really immature.

Sent by Steven | 5:34 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The news media also called Missouri for Clinton, when she didn't actually win it. The Clinton camp was clearly aware that the Texas primary consisted of a two-step process to determine the winner. They talked about it themselves, and attempted to not have any of the caucus results reported until much later when they realized that TX had a voluntary reporting system in place that could have the results that Obama actually won the state. So, the MSM is no friend of Obama's, and never has been. Obama won TX, so the Clinton camp should get over it.

Sent by Janice | 5:45 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Texas got to do what they got to do. It is what it is. Suing the system would not get Hillary ahead. Rule is rule. Why all the sudden sour remorse?

Sent by humblesage | 5:57 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Don't forget Republicans who voted for Hillary, heeding Rush Limbaugh's call to keep the Democratic race dragging all the way to Denver, CO.

These Republicans did not turn up for the caucuses in the same numbers. the few that did turn up, were not as determined as Obama supporters who were willing to wait hours in long queues, so it favored Obama.

Sent by Tim | 5:58 PM ET | 03-08-2008

I attended the caucus in my pct. The Obama supporters out numbered the Clinton supporters. The pct. chair selected was a Obama supporter. Out of a sense of fairness a number of Obama supporters voted with the Clinton supporters to select a Clinton supporter as the pct. secretary providing a Obama supporter verifed the count. We all agreed. It was very fair. I was a precinct captain for the Obama campaign in Houston and we had numerous training session on how the caucus process worked.

Sent by Judy in Houston | 6:06 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Anyone who took the time to learn about the Texas primary/caucus system would have understood that Hillary had no right to claim victory in Texas after winning the primary. The primary is only half of the race for delegates. It was clear that Obama was winning the caucuses there and had a very good chance of taking away the most delegates. Hillary and the media are to blame for claiming victory for Clinto when the Texas Two-Step was still in play. How can Hillary possibly sue? The rules were clear from the start.

Sent by Nicole | 6:32 PM ET | 03-08-2008

I think that she would be able to balance the budget and give us all a refund due to her experience in the cattle futures market. A 10,000% return in 14 months is nothing to sneeze at, especially when done by a novice who knew when to buy and sell merely by reading the Wall Street Journal. She was even able to do this at times while her calendar showed that she was traveling. That's the kind of financial savvy this country needs, but perhaps as head of the Treasury and not the President?

Or, perhaps, her success was due to trade allocation, which is a felony.
http://www-marshall2.usc.edu/main/magazine/98winter/hillary.html

Christ asked about Hill's experience: "How about all of the widely successful policies she implimated while in the White House... as the WIFE of the President? Heck, with that reasoning, I have a tremendous amount of expreience as an architect due to the fact that my wife is one...". Perhaps you could design a house for Hillary. One with iron bars would be nice.

Sent by Alan | 6:39 PM ET | 03-08-2008

From the article: "The Clinton camp is none too happy about this development and is threatening to take legal action because it said it won the state."

I take exception to this statement. This is not a "development", this has been well known for a very long time. This is how Texas' system works, and is nothing new. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. It's too bad that Clinton's campaign did not have the vision to account for this.

Sent by Phillip in Colorado | 6:53 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Odd how Texas voters can have 2 votes, and People in Florida and Michigan, 2 large states, have no votes counted.
Reguardless of some idiotic rules the party reps made, the voters shouldn't be punished. This whole system seems archaic - where 7-8000 people in wyoming have more power in their caucus than 2 million people in FLA and MI have, in their primary.
This can't all be decided unless we count in all 50 states. Like it or not.

Sent by brianD | 7:05 PM ET | 03-08-2008

What nobody mentions is the 7% of Texas voters -- mostly Clinton backers -- who openly stated that race was the most important factor in their decision. Extrapolating from exit polls, the racist vote gave Hillary Clinton a net gain of 15,374 votes.

And 8% of Texas voters -- mostly Clinton backers -- openly admitted that gender was the most important factor in their decision. Extrapolating from exit polls, the sexist vote gave Hillary Clinton a net gain of 35,609 votes.

Both Clinton and Obama had racists and sexists voting for them, mind you -- the numbers above are Clinton's NET gain, after factoring out the minority of racists and sexists who voted for Obama.

Consider, too, that these were just those people comfortable enough with racism/sexism to openly admit to an exit poller that their vote was primarily due to race and gender.

The degree to which Senator Clinton's campaign profits from racism and sexism (universally decried as great evils) would make for an interesting news article.

Sent by fjfjdvdv | 7:07 PM ET | 03-08-2008

He's not "trying to retroactively claim victory", he won!

I don't know why people are having problems understanding this.

Sent by Scott | 7:30 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"caucuses are very undemocratic because most people cannot go to them, and they are 'democracy by mob mentality.'"

So, getting off your butt and actually going out to vote is something other than democracy? That's the way "pure" democracy would look - and did look in Rome where the foundations of our republic was first born.

Sent by Joe | 7:31 PM ET | 03-08-2008

All this push for Obama to become the nominee is weird. It must be the Kennedy and Kerry and other big dogs who always felt threatened by Bill Clinton's aura. And they found the puppet who charms the crowds. What a joke!

Sent by Andy | 7:32 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Be smart my fellow Americans, don't let the media turn your brains to mud. Do as the caucus voters do: be well informed, think and take action.

Sent by vero | 8:13 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Peer pressure? Arguing? I think not. I attended a caucus in Austin with at least 400 people. Once the Cacus started (after all voting had ended in the precinct) The room started signing in with their preference for presidential candidate. 2/3 to 3/4 of the room was for Obama. No yelling, no shouting.

Clinton LOST the battle for delagates at the caucus by a larger margin than she won the popular vote. At best the Texas primary was a draw, a deadheat for both candidates. This whining by the Clinton camp is just more evidence why getting rid of the Clintons now gives our country the best chance going forward. Is Obama perfect? Nope, but a better alternative to the Clintons (yes BOTH of them) for the next 8 years.

Sent by sophia | 9:29 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Are you freaking kidding me?

Hillary is more qualified. She doesn't repeat the same rote answers each and every debate. She doesn't behave as if she's being smited for having to answer a legitimate question. Get over yourselves.

Barack DID NOT win the popular vote in Texas. He won because we have a ridiculous system in place which all of you would be crying foul about had the results gone in the other direction. Shoot! They might still go the other way, we have until June don't we?

Sent by Melissa | 9:42 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"Rush Limbaugh urging his listeners to go out and vote for Hillary was a factor in the results. The big question is: was that a factor that caused her to win the popular vote. Analysis of exit poll demographics show that Conservative Republican men were Clinton's strongest demographics in that primary, and that there were hundreds of thousands of them. Without that Rush Limbaugh plug would Clinton have won Texas?"

You must be smoking something. Conservative men would rather shave their faces with an armadillo than vote for Hillary Clinton. Rush Limaugh wasn't a factor in anything other than the amount of RX meds purchased illegally in Florida last year.

Sent by Melissa | 9:45 PM ET | 03-08-2008

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!!!

Sent by Andrew Norris | 9:47 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The caucus in my town was very civil and nobody questioned anybody's vote for Clinton. Obama had more delegates at our caucus. I had plenty of Republican friends who said they were going to vote in the primary for Clinton like they were told but none of them went to the caucus.

Sent by Hal | 9:55 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Before the Texas primary, MSNBC and CNN had announced that the candidate who wins the most delegates in Texas would be considered the winner of the state. Presumably, they made that decision before the vote to make sure that they appeared objective. But now the vote is over, Obama won the most delegates, and the media is still calling the state for Texas. Is the media intimidated by the Clinton campaign?

Sent by Terry Craig | 10:07 PM ET | 03-08-2008

"Before the Texas primary, MSNBC and CNN had announced that the candidate who wins the most delegates in Texas would be considered the winner of the state. Presumably, they made that decision before the vote to make sure that they appeared objective. But now the vote is over, Obama won the most delegates, and the media is still calling the state for Texas. Is the media intimidated by the Clinton campaign?"

Learn to read, please. The votes from the Texas caucus haven't all been counted yet.

Sent by Melissa | 10:28 PM ET | 03-08-2008

The AP says:

The 8,247 precinct officials are required only to mail the
results of their caucuses to their county party chairmen
72 hours after the primary election day.

County chairmen don't have to reveal those results until
county or state Senate district conventions March 29.

"...this is a voluntary call-in system," said party spokesman
Hector Nieto.

It's still very likely that he has won Texas, but as of 3/8, we only have 41% of the caucus results posted anywhere (and he's 12% up). With all the attention to the close race, why is there no pressure on these precinct officials and county party chairmen to report preliminary results? Who wants them to wait?

Sent by Brodie | 10:43 PM ET | 03-08-2008

Thans NPR--Nowhere else posted the TRUE news aout TRUE Delegate winner in Texas. Shame on all MSNBC and CNN. except NPr. When will Americans LEARN thoe WERE the guys who really pushed BUSH presidency and subsequent Iraq War.
Who was it who said"Follow the Money"...etc.

Sent by Jeanne | 12:14 AM ET | 03-09-2008

I have been looking for TX caucus results for days. Why I did not look on NPR sooner is beyond me. I don't know why mainstream media is not reporting this information. Maybe they want it to look like a race. I read all the above blogs and I think when the rules are published ahead of time then you should not complain about the results if you did not complain about the process. Sour Grapes on the Clinton supporters is what it looks like. That would be politics as usual. Obama is proposing a change in that attitude. That is why the big turnout, us little people finally think we have a choice for a change.

Sent by divedave | 1:23 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Obama supporters seem fervently determined to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. Way to reach out and unite us ya'll. Nothing like giving everyone a seat at the table!

Sent by David | 1:52 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Melissa from Texas 9:45 ET says "Barack DID NOT win the popular vote in Texas. He won because we have a ridiculous system in place which all of you would be crying foul about had the results gone in the other direction. Shoot! They might still go the other way, we have until June don't we?" You are right that Barack "won" Texas even if you find the system "ridiculous' but then you will also have to call the caucuses in many other states "ridiculous" where Obama also won. What would you say if Texas was such a state with ONLY a caucus?
The fact is that Clinton won the total yardage (the primary) in the Texas football game, Obama will probably win the ball possession time (the caucus) but the last time I read the sports pages, the winning team was the team with the best SCORE (most delegates) which will apparently be Obama!!
In football (as in politics) we can't change the SCORE of the game because the rules might be ridiculous in your opinion (but if we are Clinton we can of course sue!). So my advice to you is to play fairly according to the rules and wait for the final Texas results at the June 6 - 7th convention. Then argue for changing the long-lived Texas caucus rules for the next election if you believe they are ridiculous.

Great cudos for NPR discussing the uncertain Texas outcome whereas most other national media and gurus are doing everything they can to lower normal thinking peoples' low opinion of them by still holding on to the erroneous "Clinton won" mantra.

Sent by Claes | 3:02 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Why don't they just do away with delegates and superdelgates? Let's do it the American way -- of the people, BY the people, for the people -- with a popular vote. Why should one person win because they have more delegates, when the other has more popular vote? It's not right. The voice of the people needs to be heard! Take the power away from the few and give it back into the hands of the many!

Sent by Natalie | 3:13 AM ET | 03-09-2008

RE: Jan Farris (roughly in the middle)

which caucus did you go to?
I'd like to know.

Sent by Matthew | 3:38 AM ET | 03-09-2008

TEXAS NEEDS TO STOP THAT RIDICULOUS AND TOTALLY WORTHLESS TWO- STEP SYSTEM IMMEDIATELY

Sent by Jelly | 3:51 AM ET | 03-09-2008

If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

If Hillary supporters are so upset that she can lose the delegate count after winning the primary in Texas, then maybe they should have convinced Hillary to leave her name off the ballot.

Apparently, the less experienced Obama has done his homework regarding the Texas election and realized that the election is a two-part process. His forces have yet again outfoxed the more experienced Hillary team and engineered a come-from-behind victory playing by Texas rules.

Sent by Dave from NY | 9:01 AM ET | 03-09-2008

It Is easy to see, which one of these candidates is trying to bring the country to gather to bring about change. Also, it is easy to see, which one is causing friction among the voters. It is also easy to see, how TV's journalists is trying to sway voters to vote in order to help the GOP, and they are making a ton of money at the same time. I wonder, if it was TV's journalists or Sen. Hillary Clinton's ideal to mention that she and Sen. Obama could run on the same ticket with Sen. Hillary Clinton as president and Sen. Obama running as her vice president. This ideal can only fool voters, who are not sure who to vote for, due to their lack of knowledge of both candidates. This trick would only benefit Senator Clinton's vote count and help the GOP to eliminate both candidates in the general election. why, because of her past experiences. We cannot allow this to happen, we don't want a future with continuous friction in the White House and among the people.

Sent by E.A. Norris | 9:58 AM ET | 03-09-2008

If Senator Clinton or any of her supporters did not or do not agree with the Texas process, they should have spoken up BEFORE the Texas voting date. This process was no secret, and has been in place for a long time. And shame on any of you for suggesting legal action after the fact; what a shining example of old school politics. One more reason to vote against Senator Clinton.

Sent by Scott from Texas | 10:09 AM ET | 03-09-2008

The Clintons certainly knew this was the process in Texas. This was the process when Bill Clinton won the nominations. How can they now say this is unfair? If it is "unfair" now, it was unfair then! They would not be complaining if Hillary could walk away with more delegates.

Sent by Elba Collier | 11:20 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Isn't Hillary the perfect exemplar of Un-Democracy? She won the primary , and may lose the caucus. The split decision is built into the rules and she should man-up and accept the outcome, whichever way it goes, and so should Obama. Her tactics in Texas, Michigan, and Florida tell us that she would rather be the candidate who elects John McCain than lose the nomination in fair contests. Her supporters should ask themselves what kind of a President she would make when she is so completely bankrupt of personal and professional integrity? Yes, if you want the candidate who is ready from day one to operate at the same low level of scam and dishonesty as George W. Bush, why, she's your gal. Let the Bush-Clinton dynasty roll on!

Sent by davidmulenex | 11:40 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Any respect I had for Clinton has vanished in the last few days. Granted, the Texas system may not be the fairest, her camp was totally fine with it until it looked like it would spell trouble for her.

I hate to say it but she really will stoop to anything. The final kicker is her suggesting Obama be HER running mate. Hello!?!...who is ahead here? What would people be saying if the situation were reversed--if Obama was behind by several states, popular vote and over 100 delegates and he made mention of her as as the Vice Presidential Candidate!

Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I am astounded at Clinton's over-the-top effeteness and arrogance. She will lose big and history will not be kind to her.

Sent by Billy Brent Malkus | 11:55 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Obama supporters, please please keep arguing that the caucus results are all in and it's final. It makes you seem ever so intelligent, particularly because it is patently FALSE.

If I had to wager a guess it would be that the larger cities (counties) have voluntarily turned in their caucus results (Austin, Dallas, Houston) and that the smaller counties have not (think the border counties). If my theory is correct Obama likely will not win the caucus delegates as he did not come close to winning the popular vote in these counties. It will go the same way it did on election night with him up at first (again, large cities reported first) and them him down in the end.

Obama up with 41% of the caucus votes reporting does not = Obama has won. It's rather elementary and I'm surprised that none of you have cared to notice the distinction.

Oh and Claes, there really is no need to drone on with your vapid football metaphors. The fact is that in the great state of Texas certain people get their vote counted twice. No amount of blathering changes that.

Sent by Melissa | 12:16 PM ET | 03-09-2008

The talking heads on every network have covered every nuanced aspect of the race all week long except for what happened to the 67 delegates from the Texas Caucus. I saw a brief excerpt of the NPR story on Olberman's Countdown. Otherwise, not a scintilla of attention to this. Its almost like a media conspiracy to squelch the true results of the Texas Primary in order to exacerbate a horse race that doesn't really exist. I have seen numerous talking heads use the term "razor thin" margin to describe the results of 40 primaries. Excuse me-- since when is 650,000 votes and 135 elected delegates a dead heat?? Any reasonable prognostications on the remaining 12 primaries project Obama to win 10-- mostly around 60/40. Notwithstanding revotes in Michigan (which Obama will probably win) and Florida, Obama will increase his delegate lead by around 100 come June. Should the super delegates opt to subvert the vote of the people and put Clinton on the ticket the Democratic party will be destroyed. Even if the super delegates properly break for the people???s choice, Clinton will have done irreparable damage to the party in terms of her muckraking and forcing Obama to waste valuable resources that would be better used to mount an attack against McCain. I have been a loyal Democrat for 40 years. But if Clinton gerrymanders her way to the nomination I will cast my vote for McCain or someone else of higher moral character.

Sent by rob Hoffman | 1:17 PM ET | 03-09-2008

The game is delegates, NOTHING else maters including popular vote. I knew Texas was tough to call with it's system, why did the media go with "Hillary wins Texas". Idiots, or pro Clinton?

Sent by John | 1:37 PM ET | 03-09-2008

After the primary and the caucuses,
how many delegates each candidate have?
I heard that Obama had more.
If this is the case, Obama should be considered th Texas Winner.

Sent by Peter Susis | 1:47 PM ET | 03-09-2008

This all goes back to when the constitution was drafted (i.e. lack of provisions for primary elections and the electoral college). When will Americans wake up and realize that our votes don't really mean anything? Today's leaders, as our forefathers, believe that we are unable to choose the right person and the system designed in 1789 does not apply to 2008 given the fact that you have a more diverse and educated population ??? Remember Gore vs. Bush (2000). Hillary Clinton has made this point clear in her argument that Obama has only won small states. Doesn't a voter in Delaware carry the same weight as a voter in California? I am a democrat and unless Hillary can fairly overtake Obama (no lawsuits, without Florida and Michigan) and win the nomination, I will waste my vote on McCain.

Sent by Tired of the Drama | 2:52 PM ET | 03-09-2008

If Obama wins the most Texas delegates as a consequence of the Texas caucus results, the media and the Obama campaign should let voters know that in effect Hillary did not really "win" Texs. There appears to be a purity to the caucus process which requires voter dedication and disallows spoilers from the other party to take part. Until it's changed, the caucus process is a legitimate measure of voter sentiment and should be respected.

Sent by Steve | 3:17 PM ET | 03-09-2008

CAUCUSES ARE NOT PART OF THE REGULAR ELECTIONS, HENCE THEY ARE NOT REGULATED BY FEDERAL LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY ARE SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION BY THE DIFFERENT PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. SO EVENTUALLY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE MIGHT HAVE TO VENT THESE ISSUES IN COURT.

Sent by HECTOR CARRILLO | 6:20 PM ET | 03-09-2008

Once again, Hillary wants to change the rules after the fact. Talk about a two-step. What ever happened to supporting people who "work hard and play by the rules"?

Sent by Arthur | 8:04 PM ET | 03-09-2008

Obamacans should support the MI and FL re-vote. The delegates will split about even and Obama will be generating passion and newly registered voters for his fall campaign. More importantly, he will get a ton of delegates towards his 2025 goal. This will lessen the importance of Superdelegates and lessen his chance of having insiders steal his Presidency. In short, its a no-risk and all-gain vote in MI and FL.

Sent by Ed Yarbrough | 8:22 PM ET | 03-09-2008

To all Obama supporters: HILLARY DID WIN THE POPULAR VOTE IN TEXAS, You guys are all saying that since obama has the leads in pledged delegates he should win the nominations and super delegate shouldn't change the results of the elections. For me this is in contrast of what is happening in Texas where she won and she end up with less super delegate than obama. If obama wins in caucus that means that his supporters are more committed not he has more supporters.

I am independent but for me the popular vote is the factor. I would vote democrat only if the nominee is chosen by the popular vote including Florida not the pledged delegate count whether it is obama or Clinton.

Sent by Navid | 9:06 PM ET | 03-09-2008

She denies this claim but I am losing my respect for obama supporters(Not the obama himself yet.)
1. If as one said the vote in Delaware should count the same as the vote in California, so why the vote in Florida shouldn't. Why the democrats in Florida should be punished because the state republican officials held the primary sooner than Feb 5. and why some guy that didn't want to go to caucus in Texas have his/her vote credited as half.
2. If these are the rules and one should comply then you guys stop talking about how is undemocratic super delegates shouldn't turn the pledged delegates votes.
3. It is a double standard the way you guys treated Larry Sinclair allegation and this/Clinton campaign officially denies it.

Sent by Natan | 9:45 PM ET | 03-09-2008

Good lord people, reading these posts reveals such style, such class here! Isn't it apparent that these candidates are running neck and neck? They are the ones to be torn apart by the vicious press and each other advisors, campaign managers etc., so if we as a public want to focus on what counts, maybe we should not spout such hateful nonsense, huh? You like who you like, support who you support...
The big picture is that there are issues that matter, like keeping the Republicans from extending the war for another 100 years. And keeping the economy in the doghouse. And keeping our med bills sky high. Remember that?
And no matter who becomes the nominee, if the Dems let this petty shiite rip the party apart, then we ALL LOSE!
Dean could've handled FL and MI better, and FL and MI should've controlled their primary date envy, but hindsight is 20/20. None of them thought this would go on this long, they all underestimated the race for this nomination. They were all wrong. We are all as a party suffering for it, no matter who you want to win.
But if we all act like a bunch of pissed off babies at the election, and the Republicans win then we only have ourselves to blame. So check the hate folks, it's not helping.

Sent by Big Picture | 11:41 PM ET | 03-09-2008

Completely agree with Ed at 8:22 ET 3/9 that Obama should actually take the LEAD in letting MI and FL re-vote. John Kerry said on This Week that the Obama campaing will follow the direction of the states and DNC but it's important for Obama to more ACTIVELY suggest a re-vote since: 1) This is the only fair solution since Obama has to avoid the worst alternative which is Clinton trying to count the election where everybody had agreed the vote would not count. This is like counting a pre-season football game in the regular league AFTER the game had been played. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what Clinton (and the Republican Florida governor!) is trying to do. 2) Obama can't afford to try to exclude the MI and FL delegates at the convention now or at the DNC convention, where he will maybe control the votes on the appeal panel deciding this issue. This will turn off many potential voters in the general election. It's a lot smarter to get the additional delegates in MI and FL that might even put Obama over the 2025 delegate minimum even if he looses by a small percentage.

Stay ahead of Clinton's shenanigans and be positive that you are watching out for the voters in MI and FL!

Sent by Claes | 12:16 AM ET | 03-10-2008

I live in west Texas. Hillary won the primary vote and the caucus in my county. I was a Hillary precinct captain and I was trained by Clinton campaign staffers. I hate to see the arrogance of Obama supporters cloud the fact that the Clinton campaign is organized, effective and aware of how to achieve a win and did so in Texas.

Sent by AJ | 12:47 AM ET | 03-10-2008

I thought that Hillary was now saying that pledged delegates aren't really pledged anyway and so was going to start try and get them to change their votes.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_pledged_delegates_can.php

Sent by CyGuy | 1:26 AM ET | 03-10-2008

Clinton can't claim that the Texas process sucks. The same process has worked for years and it worked twice to get her husband elected!

Sent by Paul | 4:46 AM ET | 03-10-2008

SNL has it all.....go check it out
It could be our lives if Obama wins this crazy thinghttp://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#cat=new

Sent by Janel | 6:54 AM ET | 03-10-2008

Actually, the contest should have been billed as two contests, because that's exactly what it was: a primary for 128 delegates, and a caucus for 67 delegates. Just to remind, the 67 delegates vyed for in the caucus represent a larger delegate block than a number of states in the union.

So, big deal. Clinton won the primary 51-47, and most likely Obama won the caucus with enough of a margin to be +7 on Clinton.

WHAT THE MEDIA FAILED TO DO was to inform that the TX party rules first require returns to be mailed in 72 hours after the caucus is closed - phoning in the results is not required.

So, this is a lot of fuss about nothing. It's the way the thing was presented that was the mistake. Yes, WA also has a caucus and then a primary, but the primary was just a beauty contest and has no effect on the outcome of the caucus.

The real question is: should we ever have caucuses again? They are, imo, by their very nature, very undemocratic.

Sent by Mark R. / Bonn, Northhein-Westfalia, Germany | 8:03 AM ET | 03-10-2008

You can't just go to court when the results don't work out in your favor! Everyone knew this was likely to happen because Obama does well in caucuses, and Clinton barely won the primary vote anyway. It's totally unfair for her to try to not count this result! The news media were stupid if they phrased it as "Clinton wins Texas" instead of "Clinton wins Texas primary -- caucus result pending". I realize some outlets said the former. But still -- she should be glad the media worked in her favor here! It gave her a ton of momentum because the caucus result comes in later.

I agree with Ed Yarbrough that Obama people should be happy for a re-vote in MI and FL. I am one such voter from MI and I was very angry when my vote was not counted. I just hope that the re-vote is soon enough that I'm not on vacation. I live in Ann Arbor (a huge university town that is extremely pro-Obama) and I'm afraid many people will be gone for parts or all of the summer.

Sent by Katherine | 8:21 AM ET | 03-10-2008

How dare we declare a winner of the Democratic Texas prima-caucus without first counting the caucus votes??!! The Texas election had two components - a primary and a caucus. The votes for the primary came in first, and they are stil counting the votes at the caucuses. Shouldn't we wait for all the results before declaring a winner, especially since the primary outcome was so close? We know the caucuses account for one-third of the delegates. But I am not even talking about the delegate allocation. I am simply referring to the actual voting results. We behave as if these caucus-goers never voted!!! What we should have done is wait for all the results, from both components of the election, and THEN declare a winner based by weighting the two results according to the Texas rules (2/3 for the primary and 1/3 for the caucuses). Then, and only then may we truly and fairly say who won the Texas election for the Democratic nominee!!! If Obama wins the caucuses by 55% or more, there is a sincere case that can be made, with integrity and conviction, that Obama won Texas or at least that the win was split... especially considering that Clinton only won the primary portion of the Texas election by such a slim margin. Would someone in the national forums and media please discuss this dynamic? We talked so much about the "Texas two-step" and yet we treat the election as if it was done just like the other three states!! Seems patently unfair to dismiss the work and votes of all those voters who went back to caucus that night. I know the big "comeback" story for Clinton loses its lustre... but this is about fundamental honesty and justice for the voters and the candidates.

Sent by Maggie Anderson | 8:52 AM ET | 03-10-2008

Why does the Clinton campaign always threaten to sue when it hears unwelcome news? Why can't they be gracious and respect the process? It's these kind of hardball bullying tactics that gave us George W Bush in 2000.

Sent by John | 10:05 AM ET | 03-08-2008

Like Obama going to court to keep the polls open? People could have got up in the morning if it was that important to them. Obama is putting things in court just as fast as Hillary so that argument is null and void.

To the Obamanites. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid. You are reminding me of the Republicans and them blindly following their leader Bush and look where that got us. Grow up and grow a brain where you have the capacity to think on your own.

Sent by Malisam | 10:00 AM ET | 03-10-2008

To those who claim that Clinton's win in the primary means she "won the popular vote..." How do you know? Who counted these votes? What was their agenda? If the caucuses show a strong Obama lead but the primaries do not, it either indicates one of several things:

1) Obama supporters are more encouraged and more determined to have their voices heard and are more energized to vote twice.

2) Both sides were equally determined but the vote counters in the primary were corrupt.

I now live in a caucus state. The people in the room with me were all from the neighborhood and when all the papers were counted the vote for Obama was staggering. Because so many people were there, we all know exactly how everyone voted and we can verify and vouch for each other's intentions. If there's some kind of vote counting shenaningans, any one of the hundred odd people who were in that room can step forward and say so. When I lived elsewhere, I could never say such a thing.

Sent by T | 12:42 PM ET | 03-10-2008

Every time I hear someone say that caucuses are not democratic I think that a lot of people need to find a dictionary. Caucuses are the closest thing we have to true democracy in this country. When we talk about primaries, we're talking about representative republic. Now, America is a representative republic to be sure but before you go flex your intellectual muscles you should really know what these terms mean. It's really safe to bubble in an absentee ballot at your kitchen table then sneak off to the mailbox, but that is not democracy. Democracy is meeting with your friends and neighbors and standing up for what you believe. Sound familiar? People can say a lot of things about caucuses but undemocratic? Ignorance is not a word I throw around lightly but if you think that caucuses are undemocratic then it's a word that applies to you.

Sent by Jonathan | 12:42 PM ET | 03-10-2008

My God, malisam, how insensitive, ignorant, spoiled and/or uninformed can you be? I don???t know about you, but I wake up and go to work too early to be able to vote in the morning. By the time I come home and pick up the kids, we go home and eat dinner, then my wife goes out to vote, then she comes home and I go out to vote. Lucky for us we live in a neighborhood where the polling lines aren???t too long. Some places, you have to wait in line for hours. God forbid they run out of ballots and have to go get more, or bad weather prevents anyone from reaching the polls in a timely manner. That was the case in the precincts where they stayed open. You can???t be penalized for having a job and family.

Obama and Clinton supporters, just remember, there???s no debate here. Obama is going to win. Hillary knows it, the media knows it. They were loving on Obama, but if they had reported correctly that Obama won Texas(indisputable fact???.he won the most delegates according to Texas state law, in accordance with the nominating rules of the DNC), the perception would???ve correctly been that Hillary had seized none of the momentum that she sorely needed, and the party would???ve had to push her to bow out. As it is, the campaign will go on until at least the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, which means CNN, MSNBC, even Fox News, and all the political news websites will continue to garner high ratings. Of course, they still love Obama and I???m sure they think he will be the more interesting news story over the next several months and years. It???s in their best interest for him to be the nominee, so their positive coverage WILL swing back in his direction.

And besides all that, there is absolutely no way mathematically, even with Florida and Michigan, that Hillary will have more pledged delegates than Obama. She would have to win every single state including Mississippi where she will be utterly blown out, by greater than a 60-40 margin. Considering her home state of Arkansas is the only state she has won by such a margin, we can safely say it is impossible. So the only way she can win is by superdelegates. These people aren???t stupid. They are elected politicians(for the most part) and they don???t want to lose their jobs. Plus they would be absolutely crazy to vote for Clinton and risk turning away the more enthusiastic Obama supporters.

Sent by Jeff | 12:58 PM ET | 03-10-2008

How can Obama "retroactively claim" a win when the results are not in. There is a certain amount of bias in this story because otherwise you would have stated, for balance, that Hillary "preemptively claimed" a win in a state which in all likelyhood she will not come out with more delegates . . . the same thing happened in Nevada too.

Sent by Ronald | 4:37 PM ET | 03-10-2008

I was elected a precinct delegate at caucus. Precinct 345. I can tell you Obamma wiped Hillary out in caucus. He won 9 out of our 11 delegates.

Sent by brett thomas | 5:35 PM ET | 03-10-2008

I thought Senator Obama was going to inspire us to unite and move forward with a common goal, not burn each other at the stake. You can credit Obama with trying to unite us, but he needs to actually do that to get accomplishment credits, and it's just not happening.

You can blame Senator Clinton all you want for Obama's failure to unite the party, but this is turf that Obama staked out all by himself. If he can't foster a sense of unity within his own party, what's going to happen at the next level?

Frankly, I'm a little creeped out by all the vitriolic hatred I see here directed at Clinton. This partisan "enthusiasm" is healthy neither for the party nor for the country.

Sent by David | 10:13 PM ET | 03-10-2008

All the experince in Hell doesn't equal one speech from Heaven. I once liked Senator Clinton but her saying she and McCain are the only ones fit to be President, thus giving McCain ammonition for the battle yet to come is treasonist to her own party. If other democrats don't see that then we deserve to have her as President. There are some states a black presidential candidate will never do well in. Ohio was one and Pennsylvania may be another. It's sad to think so given that it all began there but that may be the way the crow flies. To all the people that want to keep hope alive the time to speak out is now. Maybe we should stop watching news channels and vote what we feel in our hearts. Washington will not change unless we send it a real message. One that says look if you don't do right we will fire you. I know Senator Obama hasn't said anything about 98 and 99 or about White Water but the republicans will and we all remember how depressing that and those two years were. We must heal our country. I have a quote and it goes like this: "Lincoln's back and his name is Barack."

Sent by James Gibbs | 10:48 PM ET | 03-10-2008

OK. Senator Obama had to rack up a startling 833 votes for each delegate he won in the Wyoming caucus. Senator Clinton needed a mere 22,458 votes for each delegate she won in the Texas primary.

Please explain to me again how the super delegates are supposed to interpret "The Will of the People."

Sent by David | 12:01 AM ET | 03-11-2008

In our precinct caucus in a northwest Dallas suburb, it was 2 to 1, for Obama. Clearly, everyone has the same opportunity to attend a caucus and there was no pressure by anyone when it came to privately signing your name and your selection for President. Perhaps the caucuses in 3 of the major Texas cities, won by Obama in the primaries, were also attended by a majority of Obama supporters and Hilary just didn't get her supporters in the rural areas to go to caucuses. So, overall, Obama won the state of Texas.

Sent by Tom | 1:29 AM ET | 03-11-2008

Some of you say that kids shouldn't be Super-delegates and then let your kids tell you how to vote or allow them to select your nominee for you. Barack Obama supporters were storming the precinct voting sites in Texas and voters who actually have responsibilities were giving up and going home without caucausing. Texas school kids had TAKS test the next day and their parents had to go home. These tend to be voters who would have supported Hillary Clinton and I hope she does go to court about it. Voter fraud was rampant and was reported in the local papers.

What is fair about that?

Sent by foreffectivegovernment | 2:24 AM ET | 03-11-2008

Where is your evidence that ???These tend to be voters who would have supported Hillary Clinton???? Comparing the caucus results so far, 56-44, with the overall state count, 47-51, this is about the same disparity we should have expected based on Obama's organization and the past caucuses. Texas was a hard fought state by both sides and it turned out basically even, and it was influenced on the last day by the Rezko and Nafta controversies which shouldn't have affected the voters anyway. Most independent observers have said that Obama's connection to Rezko is nothing compared to the numerous shady characters affiliated with both Clintons, and the Canadian embassy has said that the nafta thing was baseless and taken out of proportion, nevertheless, analysts say it probably cost Obama the popular vote in Texas and at least a couple percentage points in Ohio.
Look, no offense to those of you who are registered democrats, but there is a fundamental problem with your party and there has been for several decades now. All this talk of destroying the democratic party sounds good to me. If they ever get their act together, I might actually register as one. Hillary represents the party establishment, which has been ineffective on a national level for most of the past 40 years. Obama is trying to reshape the party according to his vision, which is why he's attracting independents like myself, my parents, my brothers, my wife, several friends of ours, all of whom are registered independent and very much backing Obama. He is a different kind of democrat, both liberal and moderate. He has never claimed to be the one to unite the party, he talks of uniting the COUNTRY, which sounds to me like it turns off many democrats because he isn't putting the party first.

Sent by Jeff | 12:25 PM ET | 03-11-2008

Finally, a mention in the New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/still-counting-in-texas/):

"The latest tally of the Senate district convention delegates on the Texas Democratic Party Web site showed Senator Barack Obama holding more than Mrs. Clinton. But the state party announced Tuesday that it would no longer keep the Web tally.

"Hector Nieto, a spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party, said the party was not required to report anything before March 29.

"About one million people attended the caucuses, and it is unclear when, or even if, the popular vote from them will be available. Precinct officials are required only to report delegate totals, but, Mr. Nieto said, the party 'is doing everything in its ability to make this information available in a timely manner.'???

Uhuh.

Sent by Brodie | 11:36 PM ET | 03-11-2008

wow the clinton campaign now is going really weird! there are several reasons to not vote for hillary, like her dirty campaigning, which will probably divide and damage the democratic party so mccains chances to continue bushs failed politics increased! her lying about her forgein "experience", her unwilling to public her tax returns, the out of the question comments of ferraro that obama is only in this position because he is black and now ferraro weep bitterly she is a victim of racist attacks. how poor!

Sent by Brian | 2:34 AM ET | 03-12-2008

I don't get it.
Didn't Bill Clinton run in Texas under the same exact Texas 2-step system?
So why doesn't she just suck it up and accept it? It is a crazy weird system as far as I'm concerned but it has been around for YEARS!!
She doesn't like the results, so she is going to sue?
This campaign - and HRC - just act as if they are children who have a tantrum when they don't get their way.
Please. Let's move on.

Sent by LQ, ROCHESTER MN | 10:12 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Hillary's strategy is to kill any chance for the Dems. in 2008. Then she can run again in 2012.

Sent by Rose | 11:23 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I love how all the rules seem to change when Obama wins! "Oh, caucuses are not democratic, only big states that Hillary won count, this TX two step is undemocratic..." Well, when Bill ran twice for President, he had to go through this process and no one said a peep! You would think Hillary would have been prepared for all of this, which shows that she won't be able to run a country, let alone a campaign.

Obama WON TX, he played by the rules and came out with more delegates. The End.

Sent by Robyn | 12:27 AM ET | 03-14-2008

How is this news? Our caucus process works the same way. Our precincts caucused Feb 9, our next level caucuses are Apr 5, and the entire thing won't be wrapped up until the state convention Jun 14. Was this whol