Because she did.

If anything, the charade of the caucuses only goes to show how the whole notion Obama has "won" is ridiculous.

So what? Obama has beaten her in every arena: total contests, popular votes and delegates. So hold on - if you can't stomach Obama winning - you're in for a rough ride!

Total number of contests = irrelevant. A dozen Mississippis do not equal one California. Why? Because it's *people* and not lines on a map which determines legitimacy in a democracy.

Lead in pledged delegates = irrelevant. Party rules give a magic number of delegates needed to win the nomination - it says nothing of what mix of pledged vs. superdelegates is needed for the nomination.

So what do we come to? Ah, yes, popular votes. And Obama *currently* leads in popular votes by a little over half a million votes. That's not a "beating"... it's a "small edge." And that edge is not even counting the votes of Florida and Michigan. If those two states have re-votes, Hillary need only have respectable wins in Florida and Pennsylvania to wash away Obama's current advantage in popular votes. Not saying that she will, but it is very, very possible - enough so to give her supporters real encouragement.

All the Obama campaign's talk about pledged delegates is designed to deflect attention from his very narrow edge in popular votes... How's that for democracy?

Arashi, that was a noble attempt at justifying why Clinton should stay in the race, but I think it is a pipe dream. Obama came out with a net gain of 4 delegates after the Texas Primary and Caucus, and netted another 5 in Mississippi. The 100,000 m/l advantage in the popular vote in Texas for Clinton was erased by the reverse numbers in Mississippi. In Florida (if you insist on counting that as legitimate) Clinton had a 300,000 advantage in popular vote, still not enough to catch Obama's popular vote, and in a re-vote those numbers are likely to decrease, with too little net gain in the delegates to put her ahead. If you look at the Michigan results you will see that without Obama on the ticket there was a huge "undecided" number, so any thoughts of Clinton making any significant gains in Michigan are wishful thinking. A re-do is at best a "feel good" thing to do, at worse, a waste of time if trying to get the lead for Clinton.

Clinton has lost this race. You can blame it on a lot of things, but the management of her campaign was so poorly executed that there wasn't time to play catchup by the time of Texas and Ohio.

What I take most pleasure in is that all of that Lobby money spent financing her efforts have gone down the tubes...a very bad investment for sure.

I just want to remind my fellow Texans that if Hillary wins the nomination, she will get obliterated in the national election.

McCain wins in a landslide.

Just my $.02

My math is hardly a pipe dream.

Hillary cannot surmount Obama's popular vote advantage via Florida alone - never said that. And, actually, as for Florida, a mail re-vote might actually yield a larger margin of victory if *more* people participate - people who didn't the first time b/c they thought their vote wouldn't count, for example.

There are states coming up where Hillary polls strongly: Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and Indiana... throw in a re-vote in Florida and Michigan and, yes, Hillary has a fighting chance. A fighting chance is just that, a realistic possibility. She has the support of almost half the party currently, and she shouldn't just throw in the towel when things look difficult. That may be difficult for Obama supporters ready to declare a premature victory, but they'll just have to deal... and fight on.

I applaud your devotion...however misplaced. :-)

Hillary R. Clinton won Texas because she won the majority of votes.

Barack Hussein Obama's won the caucuses, which everyone know if it is not the same result as what the major of Texans' voted for, is then a REJECTION OF THEIR VOTES, which can not be permitted.

So, yes Clinton won Texas, she has won Florida and Michigan and if there is a redo, she will win them again.

Obama is ahead right now in so called delegate counts because he manipulated all of the caucuses and the so called KINDERGARTE DEMOCRATIC MENTALITY, we must share our winning because we do not want the other child to feel like a loser...

So. Clinton had to share her big state winning (ie, New York, California, Texas etc.) with Obama and that is why he has the majority of delegates right now.

This whole "big state" meme is absurd in the extreme. One wonders how far ahead Obama would be if caucus states where he won huge would have had primaries. As one example: Colorado, pop. 4.5 million, is a caucus state, and a swing state that may be crucial this year. SUSA polling has it going for Barack by roughly 9% versus McCain, and -5% in a Hillary/McCain matchup. And so on. Surely Barack does better in caucus states than primary states, but we simply don't know what the votes would be had those caucus states been primary states (he still would have won them, but my guess is he'd have fewer delegates, but an even larger popular vote lead). If there were re-do's in FL and MI, Hillary would win FL again, but might not win MI (they are currently tied there, according to Rasmussen. Also, although Hillary would likely pick up PA, IN, and PR easily, Barack is likely to easily pick up NC, OR, MT and ND by similar or even larger margins, effectively cancelling out both the delegate and popular leads in the states/territories that Hillary wins, depending on the margins each place, of course. As things stand, Hillary has no shot at overtaking Barack's lead in the pledged delegates, and a possibly but unlikely shot at overtaking him in popular vote. But all of that is kind of moot: according to the RULES, the superdelegates will cast the deciding votes. They should be voting in the best interests of the party. I think it's likely they will vote Barack's way not merely because he's ahead in delegates and popular vote, but because his coattails are much longer for the local races--he's more competitive against McCain in more areas of the country. Therefore if the superdelegates are thinking beyond the prez general election (where both Clinton and Obama poll ahead of McCain), they should be casting their votes for Obama. Any way it comes out, so long as it's according to the pre-established rules, and there is not even the appearance of shenanigans (which includes, IMHO, any efforts to swipe pledged delegates, or bribing supers with money or swanky positions in government), neither group should cry over the result. I think the article's correct to point out the hypocrisy of some Obama supporters. However the Clintonites have so far been much worse: whining about caucus states, dismissing Obama's states as "insignificant" (THAT ought to go over real well in the general), dissing his wins in red states (despite that Texas is her most important "win"), etc. etc. Between this and Ferraro, why do I get the sense that Clintonites are just pissed that this turned out to be a tough campaign, and not a coronation?

Boy, you don't understand this process at all, do you. "so called delegate counts", "share her big state winning", "rejection of their votes"?!? The delegate counts are the delegate counts (not sure what you mean by "so called"). All Democratic primaries and caucuses are awarded proportionately depending on how each candidate performed. As far as rejections of their votes, everyone knew that you had to, first, vote, and then, caucus if you wanted your candidate to win. If you didn't feel like caucusing, then it's your fault that your candidate lost.

And yes, Obama has been forced to share his numerous wins with Clinton. Is it a "KINDERGARTE DEMOCRATIC MENTALITY"? Who knows, but everyone knew going in that these were the rules.