Not when she won the Texas popular vote...I think this the clear signal that caucuses need to go.

Sure, count second voters. Voters in the caucus is not in addition to the primary, it is voters who already voted. So, by that, Clinton won Texas among the 2.8 million who voted.

Story is over. Texas is the prime example of how undemocratic caucuses are.

The process is undemocratic.

Caucuses disenfranchise the elderly, single mothers, workers in the service sector, the active servicemen off-shore.

Is this the kind of win you're proud of?  Remember Bush v. Gore?

She NEVER endorsed mccain.

Id this the new memo you O supporters are getting from the O campaign?

LoL/ Your really off base on this. She certainly didn't endorse McCain. She said that both her and McCain have much experience and all Obama has is a speech. So let's get the record straight and stop twisting the facts, much like Obama is doing.

nothing to celebrate, unless you are willing to do anything just to win...

Proportional delegation as it stands needs to go. There should NEVER be a situation where one candidate wins the state's popular vote and does not get the majority of the delegates.  Delegate allocation should be tied to the popular vote of the entire state.

Democrats screamed that it wasn't fair that Al Gore got the majority of the popular vote in 2000, but he lost it in delegates to the Electoral College.  Now we have codified this discrepancy in our own party.

Ridiculous!

Dude, you are on drugs. Clinton won the primary with 3 million votes. Obama won a violence tainted caucus with 100,000 votes. The primary is lot more like the general election than these joke caucuses. What matters no is not the delegate count but who can prove they can win in November. Obama cant win real elections in big states. Period.

Isn't this like Obama "winning" Nevada?

I'll take the orderly, fair, and huge win in the primary (that also involved 2 weeks of early voting) over a "win" in the clusterfuck that was the Texas caucus.

(I was there in my own caucus in Austin, and I don't use that word lightly).

I think that the Obama campaign would have had a better result had they lost the delegate count by one or two in Texas, because the "reversal" result enhances Clinton's argument that the pledged delegate count does not reflect the will of the people.  

I'm not an Obama supporter, but if I were, I wouldn't push Orwellian doublespeak about "winning" Texas when he lost the popular vote by 100,000 actual private personal votes on real ballots cast secretly throughout the day at polling stations statewide.  

Please note: I do not think that caucuses are undemocratic just because Clinton failed to organize for them.  I think that they are undemocratic because they are.  I'm also not dismissing the results of caucus states.  I don't want to "change the rules" and "not count" caucus states.  I'm just making a point about the language and the larger narrative.  

It's an amazing piece of anti-people-powered-politics that the proponents of "caucus delegates" and not "peoples votes" contort themselves into in the name of Obama.

Just like Bush won Florida!

"You keep saying that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Irregularities are still being looked into and there may be a challenge. I wouldn't claim that O won the caucuses yet. From my understanding, there were many, many wrongdoings. The Clinton campaign has a legtimate right to question these votes (I've been hearing quite a bit from the legal team down there). The question is: will they? In this primary, when each delegate seems to be counting heavily, I would urge her campaign to come public as soon as they can with at least a quarter of the information I've heard. Let O's dirty campaign be even more exposed and weigh whether or not to challenge and prosecute.  

one person - one vote.

Unless you're in TX and vote twice (caucus & primary).
Unless you live in FL or MI and you're vote doesn't count at all.

You didn't get the memo?  Delegates don't matter.  Only superdelegates, apparently.

How is NPR even reporting anything official when any news site I've just been to still shows that only 41% of caucus results are in?

But you state: "Since Monday, then, Billary has gained 8 pledged delegates while Obama has gained 7 in the Superdelegate race. To sum, Hillary has gained one delegate in her big week. At this rate Hillary will catch Obama somewhere around June of 2010."

Using available figures, Hillary picked up 9 more in OH, 5 in RI, and 4 in the TX Primary, for a total of 18 she made up.  But Barack picked up 3 more in VT, cutting her increase to only 15.  It looks like NPR is extrapolating the % currently shown for the 41% of the caucus calculated, which is Clinton 44% and Obama 56%, to the total 67 to be applied.  They even site 2 less in their pickup than I'd calculate (they note only 7 while I get 9).  But even so, if he picks up 7 in the caucus--that would cut her gain to 8, not the 1 pickup you note?