The argument SHOULD be made, that the Democratic party allows for State parties to choose if they want to use the caucus model or ballots. Texas CHOSE to use both. The argument COULD be made that the Obama campaign has proven themselves better at working the caucus model with their supporters. The argument COULD also be made that the Clinton campaign is whining about not being able to follow the rules set up in States long before these contests ever took place. If your beef is with caucuses, your beef is with the Democratic parties of each State that holds one.

I think the Texas system is a bit screwy but that being said, they all knew each states rules but the difference was Obama made plans from day one to go well beyond Feb 5th, so he was prepared for not just primaries, but caucuses as well. Including Texas' funky system.

And just like Michigan & Flordia, everyone knew the rules going in and only one campagin has tried to change them or complain about them almost every step of the way when they no longer suited them.

On a seperate note, thanks for being understanding yesterday bornagaindem. Much appreciated.

"All day long we had some young college students hanging around outside though asking voters if they supported Obama and if they did telling them about the caucus and asking them to return. Turns out at least some of them, though they truly were registered in this precinct, were being paid by the Obama campaign to do this."

This sounds like a good thing to me. Is it illegal? The Clinton campaign could have easily done the same thing.

The problem most Obama supporters have with this argument is that is was not being made until the middle of the primary season. Fact is, the states get to choose the way in which they send delegates to the convention, and if the citizens of each state don't agree with their state's method, they should have and could have voiced this prior to beginning the campaign. If caucuses were some newfangled idea I could understand this argument being made in the midst of the campaign, but they are not. Both campaigns knew fully well that caucuses were a part of the system, and neither of them spoke out against the undemocratic-ness of them prior to beginning their respective campaigns. Perhaps it should be revisited by the states in the coming years, but it to argue against them now only because the candidate you support is not winning them just won't hold water with enough people.

Can you honestly tell me that if Clinton had won all but one of the caucuses, you would be arguing that they are undemocratic? Did you protest it in 2004?

The rules are only fair when they massively favor Clinton.

I don't hear Obama supporters complaining about the states who moved their primaries up to Super Tuesday, giving an unprecedented advantage to the candidate with the most name recognition and money.

I don't hear Obama supporters complaining about closed primaries, which favor candidate who are supported by traditional party organization.

And I don't head Obama supporters complaining about Clinton's challenging of delegate after delegate at the county conventions in Texas last weekend.

And please, for the love of all that is decent. Can we please stop throwing around the word "disenfranchising?" One more time: you do not have a constitutional right to participate in a meaningful selection contest for the party to choose nominees. No one who chose not to stay for the caucus has been disenfranchised. They voted; they participated in the contest that determined 2/3 of the delegates. If Clinton had been running even a moderately competent campaign, she would've had people there urging caucus participation also. To say that people didn't know about the caucus is just idiotic. I knew about the caucuses and I live 1500 miles from Texas. It was even on the Teevee news.

And as for your condescending little rant at the end, you've proved yourself a fool enough, you don't need me to mock you.

The majority of the comments here in my view miss the point. There is some hypocrisy among those who would say Obama won Texas because he won more pledged delegates even though he received fewer votes, then turning around and saying the candidate who leads in the number of pledged delegates, rather than other measures such as the popular vote, is the only legitimate nominee and any other result would be undemocratic. In other words, if one candidate's delegate lead does not reflect the will of the voters of that state (as appears to have been the case in Texas and Nevada), that's an argument against using pledged delegates as your yardstick. If someone wants to make that argument - an insistence on the rules favoring pledged delegates - then they should be prepared to accept all the rules, including the rule that in the event of a statistical dead heat, the superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose.

Of course, given that Obama is leading in all categories at this point, my argument may be academic.

he received fewer votes, then turning around and saying the candidate who leads in the number of pledged delegates, rather than other measures such as the popular vote,

Bullshit, pure and simple. The only way the caucus votes cannot be considered "popular" votes is strictly because of nomenclature but they were popular votes. Regular people who had voted already lined up and participated.

There was nothing about it that was unfair and the reason it's like it is is to try to make the votes more evenly weighted between districts with a lot of people and districts without a lot of people. I'm ever so sorry so many people seem to think it's more complicated than it is. It's really pretty simple - and it was fair, I don't care what anyone says.

I agree with you. before this election began, Obama obviously looked at the primary rules, decided on a game plan, executed his plan, and ended up winning a majority of the states so far. He has played by the rules that were laid out before this primary began, and he has done it well.

I didn't like him at first, and voted for HRC. This has been a major issue for me, in changing my opinion about Obama. He seems to have some great leadership and management skill.

I personally believe that this is exactly the skillset that we need in the White House. I love Hillary, and think very highly of her. However, as president, we need someone who can assess a situation, realistically, and create a game plan that works within the constraints of the situation.

There has been quite enough of government that decides on a game plan, and then assesses the situation to provide support for their game plan. Caucuses are part of the Democratic nomination process and have been for years. To say that the results are unfairly supporting one candidate is ridiculous.

“This was not the general election. It was the primary which is a technical process the party uses to pick the nominee. There's more to it than ballot box voting and everyone knew the rules before hand.”

Tena: If that’s your view, the I presume you would not be upset if the superdelegates throw the nomination to Hillary, despite Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. Since he didn’t earn enough delegates to win, they can make up their minds however they choose, right? After all, it a “technical process” and those are the “rules.” Taking it a step further, we shouldn’t be upset that Gore lost the election after having won the popular vote because those were the rules.

I credit Obama’s skill at working the idiotic, arcane patchwork of “rules” that govern this process. (I also credit his ability to rally actual voters to his side, which thus far appears to surpass that of his rival.) What irks me is selective embrace of only those rules that suit a particular candidate. If you believe in the rules so strongly, you should not see it as illegitimate if Clinton wins under the “rule” that superdelegates are free to choose whomever they want.

And by the way, how did you manage to quote in italics?