Perhaps the Clinton campaign has done the math and realized they have very little or no chance of overtaking Obama in the elected delegates so there shooting for the popular vote, and will make the argument to the superdelegates that as the popular vote leaders they are more representative of the will of the people.  I've heard noises about the popular vote coming from their campaign and from supporters as well.

They are just figuring this out?!?!  There have been blog posts on this point for about 4 weeks.  So they can't read either???  Yes, I support Barack, but really, if they didn't know this, you really gotta question management.  They've had people on the ground there for awhile, and someone should have read about the TX primary delegates online before today.  If I had to guess, I would expect the problem is too much top-down, and not enough bottoms-up in their management style.  The folks working for them assume the powers that be know what they are doing and don't bubble up information.  This is consistent with Hillary's reported style and hands-on approach, along with Solis Doyle, et. al., and their over-reliance on consultants instead of, oh, I don't know, what do you call them?  Oh yeah, VOTERS!

"What it means is, she could win the popular vote and still lose the race for delegates," Hinojosa said yesterday. "This system does not necessarily represent the opinions of the population, and that is a serious problem."

Uh, I imagine Sen. Hinojosa hasn't received the latest talking points from the Hillary campaign. We're now in the "screw the opinions of the population, we need the superdelegates" phase.

I think AaronBBrown might be on to it. it is very possible that Clinton has been aware of the Texas delegate selection process all along but is choosing to showcase the idiotic, undemocratic parts of it now. As he says, her best path to the nomination might be to roll up big popular vote numbers in TX, OH, and PA and then claim that she deserves the nomination because she has the most popular votes. Given the inherently winnowing nature of the caucus process, this is unfair. But it might be her only case. The Obama people should jump on this argument now and start talking about how respect for the commonly accepted rules is democratic.

I hope that doesnt mean we'll be subjected to more whining as to why she didnt win enough delegates. Its not just Texas thats a reflection of her incompetence its all these small states that she decide to pass on that Obama took by wide margins and still manage to compete with her in the big states that she won.

She is the one touting her experience about being ready on day one. Not only was she not ready from day one of this campaign she has also shown poor judgement througout. If how you run your camapgin is a reflection of how you will run the Federal government we are in deep trouble in a Hillary Clinton administration.

Carol

The thing is, this is _exactly_ the problem with the Bush administration: Planning only for success.

How on earth could a campaign not have understood and planned for the rules that would govern Texas's primaries? Well, if you assume that you'll have the campaign wrapped up on Super Tuesday, then you don't have to bother planning for the rest of the race. But that's a hell of an assumption: You create a best-case scenario, assume that it will happen, and plan as if it's the only possible outcome.

The problem, as the Bush administration has taught a new generation of Americans, is that planning only for success is actually planning to fail. The best-case scenario never happens. Never. Not in the real world. The first and most important difference between a competent executive and George W. Bush is the ability to anticipate what you'll do if your best-case scenario doesn't come to pass. And on this test -- are you competent, or are your George W. Bush -- the entire Hillary campaign seems to fail at every step.

Ha. Head over to intrade.com

This is exactly why Obama is so highly valued, when the race appears to be close (and heading towards Clinton strongholds).

Hillary Clinton is done. The only thing folks in DC are wondering about now is how she goes down. With class, or without class?

You know, 9 months ago it bugged the hell out of me that the press had concluded prior to any actual vote that HIllary Clinton had the Democratic nomination sewed up.

Now, with Obama barely ahead in delegates, legions have concluded she's lost it.

It ain't over 'til it's over, folks.  I'd rank a cornered Clinton machine amongst the most dangerous political animals in the democratic world.  Don't count her out because of Texas' strange rules.

Last week, I asked whether the Clinton campaign's touting of their Texas chances, despite convoluted

VC, I disagree -- George W. Bush demonstrates that "failing upward" remains an important American phenomenon. Hillary could certainly fail all the way to the nomination. She is best understood as the Democratic George W. Bush, with all the attendant advantages that allow for upwardly mobile failure.

As to the question of whether Hillary will leave the race with class, or without class, that's not even a question. That's like asking, which way will the river flow, downhill, or not downhill? As long as she thinks there's even a chance that she could wind up standing on top of the rubble, she'll be perfectly willing to destroy the Democratic Party in pursuit of the nomination. After all, her candidacy is based on the implicit understanding that Gore and Kerry got steamrolled because each exercised decency and restraint, and that her advantage for Democrats is that she suffers from neither.

I dont think she's done but I do think if she gets into that White House it will be a disaster. There is no way that she can recover from this that convinces me she is capable. Running a campaign is about strategy just like running an effective government is about strategy. Hillary ran out of money early in her campaign she has had to lend her campagin money her message has changed several times. She didnt think this was going to go past February 5th. Again it shows someone who is ill prepared. These are all qualities that is detrimental to running a government. Yes she can still make it. Since It wouldnt be the first time we've had incompetency in our govermnent.

Carol

To piggyback on the comments of harriscrl3 and Rhubarbs, all of this carping about process from the Clintons definitely suggests that they are guilty of what Eisenhower called the greatest political sin: poor prior planning. Perhaps more damning is the Clinton campaign's failure to match ends and means. How could someone of her stature and access conceivably have run out of money? It is totally inexcusable and, as others have said, does not suggest that she understands grand strategy or, WORSE, the limits and constraints associated with the exercise of power. Which brings us back to the Iraq vote, doesn't it?

"I think AaronBBrown might be on to it. it is very possible that Clinton has been aware of the Texas delegate selection process all along but is choosing to showcase the idiotic, undemocratic parts of it now."

Oh, of course. As I've said many times, delegates aren't going to matter. She's just making sure that Texas's absurd delegate apportioning is mentioned in the same breath as her winning Texas (assuming she does).

Are there some actual proofs (disclosed balance sheets, etc.) that they actually ran out of money, or wasn't that much publicized self-loan just another equivalent of her bogus tears, and a device to screw over her donors lying to them about her bankruptcy?

Rhubarbs, generally I agree but not with "The best-case scenario never happens. Never. Not in the real world." Actually, the problem happens when it works once, as it did with the Republicans 2002 Congressional elections, that people then will think it will always happen. Even Afghanistan looked to be a great success with minimal loss of american lives early on.

And I think Hillary felt since they have won before they would always win. I think Bill only lost one election his entire career, and Hillary won her two Senate races.