funny, clinton "won" Texas (just like some other states she "won" but actually lost) but it looks like she'll get less delegates from it.

how is that a "win"?

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html

Democrats
193 pledged delegates, 35 unpledged

Candidate Vote % Delegates
Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,455,959 50.9% 65
Barack Obama 1,356,330 47.4 61


Caucus Results

Democrats
Candidate Vote† % Delegates
Barack Obama 23,009 55.9% To be determined
Hillary Rodham Clinton 18,117 44.0

So, is she getting fewer delegates from Texas because she didn't win a SINGLE metropolitan area?

Edited to add--I "think" she won El Paso? That figures, though, because she is getting the Texas Hispanic vote.

im not 100% sure, but tx has a screwy system that bases the # of delegates for a county/district on previous turnout. so if she's getting tons of votes from high latino turnout in areas where it has been low previously, she wont get much from those votes.

i find some counties amazing. jasper county went 58/31 clinton, but (with 28% reporting) is 82/18 O.

I guess the same way Bush won in 2000 with less votes.

Would it be to Obamas advantage to go negative or just fight back by sticking to the issues?

i disagree. i think voters realize, to a degree, its part of the game. i think his image is a bit to sissy. he would gain some respect from some voters by showing some mettle.

wtf. texas still hasnt finished determing results of their caucus

only 41% in.

Yea he really needs to go after her a bit, there is so much stuff, that he has to chose from. But keep it civil, dont seem to malicious.