You said: "Obama’s people will say that it shows he’s back on track and that the losses in Ohio and Texas were aberrations."

Um, no. Obama didn't lose in Texas. He won, by any measure you'd like to use.

Texas ran a two-step race, with a primary part and a caucus part. A screwy system, maybe, but that's what they do there, and have been doing for a long time.

Obama played it smart, played by the rules of that game ... and won.

Delegates? Obama got more delegates out of Texas than Clinton. Votes? Obama got more votes too, counting both the primary and the caucus parts of the Texas race.

True, Clinton got more slightly votes and slightly more delegates out of the primary part of the Texas race. But so what? The primary part was only .. well, part of the Texas race. Obama played it smart. He knew it's the delages, stupid and he won the only count that matters in Texas.

Saying Clinton won Texas because she won part of the contest is like saying Obama won Ohio because he crushed Clinton in a particular Ohio city. Both are incorrect.

Also worth noting that he came from 20+ points behind in two weeks, to win. Whichever horse you're backing in this (and I'm not committed to either of them) you have to admit that the guy's got game.

So quit saying Clinton won Texas. It ain't true.

Also, why do people keep mentioning Texas when they bring up the "Clinton wins big states that matter" argument? Ohio, yes. She deserves some credit for a big win in a key state. Texas? Well it's big but it will still go for McCain barring a massive dem turnout. Texas is probably not a state that matters. And she didn't win it anyway, as you point out.

Clinton's only hope of defeating Obama rests on her ability to wrestle the popular vote from him and convince more than 230 of the remaining 350 superdelegates to look at that instead of the pledge delegate total (a reasonable argument).

She took more than 100,000 more votes from him in TX while the difference in popular votes number in the several hundred thousands (not including MI/FL ofc). In that respect, she did win big in TX.

It's all about the media perspective. Obama is arguing why he's already won the nomination (which he hasn't) while Clinton is arguing why she hasn't yet lost the nomination (which she hasn't). So the press evaluates the results in two different contexts. In this respect, Obama's results are set to a higher standard. Regardless, I'd rather be in Obama's position.

This is the same Billary lie perpetrated in Nevada. Clinton DID NOT WIN NEVADA. She lost by 1 delegate after putting on the dirtiest (and violation of all the rules) attempts to blatently steal the caucuses from Obama. I was there!!!!!! So don't tell me about how wonderful Clinton is. The whole thing is still being fought out at the Clark County convention, which had to be rescheduled because so many Obama supporters were disenfranchised the first time it was held(same thing the Clintons tried to do at the caucuses). Many of the Obama delegates at the Clark County convention, by the way, if anyone cares (the press certainly doesn't), were African-American.