Sounds kind of like when the king learned about there being a difference between sunnis and shiites and that they hated each other, which was after the invasion. Pathetic. And these people want to run the country? They are ready from day one? Too funny.

Another blow to her argument of competence.

HRC wants to do to the country what she's doing to her campaign? She did not know the rules in Texas, she did not know she was overspending, she did not know that inspiration mattered, she did not foresee that many small donors can matter, she did not foresee that small states matter.... WE CAN foresee what a leader, shielded from reality in a cocoon of trusted advisors, where loyalty trumps competence, can do to a country, as we are living it day by day. What would HRC do if Iran and Korea act in a way she did not foresee? CAll Bill?

Wow, that's insane.

Other then close politics followers, who of course would have already made up their minds I doubt many people will hear or care about this, but it is certainly funny. It's amazing to me that Hillary could be down there giving speeches and stuff and not know how the delegate selection worked. Crazy.

The WaPo hit piece conveniently fails to actually name their sources.
Kinda sorta reminds me of WaPo's propaganda campaign for Iraq.
But of course it fits the incompetence meme that the Clintons, despite their strong connections to the political establishment in Texas, were completely ignorant of the delegate apportionment system.
What trash.
I just hope that your seatbelts are tightened; WaPo is going to deploy the same tactics against Obama and Obama fans are in for a bumpy ride.
And honestly, I'll chortle at him as you now laugh at HRC.

But soon we'll hear be hearing from Mark Penn that Texas doesn't matter - along with Red States, Caucus states, and states with large numbers of African-American states.

Maybe after March 4th the Clinton camp can ask that the rules of delegate allocation in Texas be changed...just to be sure that no one is disenfranchised.

Check this out:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5010

As they say in Texas...Obama might win "Bigger than Dallas."

HRC might be a little light on cattle...

I don't think for a second the Clinton camp did not know about the Texas system. They want it widely reported that the vote in latino districts won't produce as many delegates as the vote in "urban" districts. Looks like they're laying the foundation for Bill to make his "they think they're better than you!" pitch to the voters, like he did in Vegas.

There are 126 primary election delegates at stake in Texas and 67 precinct convention delegates. If HRC got 50 percent of the primary delegates she would get 63 delegates under the rules and Barack would get the other 63. If Barack got all of the precinct convention -- or caucus -- delegates, he would get a total of 63 + 67 or 130 delegates. I can tell you, having attended Obama's precinct captain training on Saturday, that his campaign is acutely aware of the "Texas Two Step," and is going to be taking full advantage of it.

Frankly, it makes me want to cry with frustration. The Democratic nomination process is complicated, but it ain't rocket science. All this information is publicly available; all you've got to do is Google it up and read it through. There are only two possibilities: either no one at Clinton HQ had bothered to check how things in Texas worked, or the local Clinton folks on the ground in Texas knew but weren't able to pass the crucial information up the chain. I'm not sure which alternative is more profoundly discouraging.

The article itself quotes three state senators decrying the essential unfairness of the delegate allocation system, and it's clear that not one of them has bothered to think through their objections. Consider: Sen. Hinojosa complains that Clinton could win the popular vote and lose the delegate count. Well, yes. But why? Sen. Lucio provides an answer. He's aggrieved that Hispanic districts, which generate a greater share of the turnout in primaries than in general elections, are allocated delegates based on their performance in the generals. And Sen. Gallegos adds that the problem is there are few seriously contested general elections.

So let's add those objections up. What the Clinton supporters are saying is that general elections are a poor way to measure the distribution of Democrats in Texas, because many of them only bother to vote in the primaries, figuring that their votes in the general don't matter. And that's behavior the party ought to reward? Allocating the delegates based on the primary turnout would somehow be more fair?
There's also a rather conspicuous ommission from these objections, lurking just beneath the surface. I can't believe the Washington Post doesn't spell it out, but maybe the reporter doesn't understand what's really being said, either. The true objection is this: In Texas, black voters reliably turn out in both the primaries and the general elections in numbers disproportionate to their population. Hispanics turn out in numbers lower than their share of the population would suggest in the primaries, and that percentage drops even lower in the generals. That's right - this is a racially-tinged struggle, being waged without reference to race. You won't find the word 'black' anywhere in the WashPost piece. But when they write that Obama may fare well in "the more urban districts," that's code for "more black." Why can't the WashPost spell this out?

If you want a detailed account of the problems with the selection process, click on my name at the end of this post, and read the most recent entry on my blog. I'll be the last to defend the fairness of the present delegate allocation system. But I am thoroughly sick and tired of election-eve objections being voiced, as though those who object have just discovered these flaws. It's a flawed process, but we can't change the rules at the eleventh hour. Nor is it appropriate to attempt to delegitamize the results of a given primary, simply because the process runs against one's present interests. The Clinton campaign, which had assumed it would run most strongly in core Democratic areas, was conspicuously silent before the Call to Convention was issued, despite its strong influence over many DNC members. Frankly, Hillary was counting on black support, and had no reason to object to the formulas that assigned extra weight to heavily Democratic districts. The time to revise these rules is after the race is won, not now in the thick of things.

I'm here in our Fort Bend office and was working out of a volunteer office in downtown Houston before this one opened up, and I have to say, a week before Clinton strategists were "discovering" this "new obstacle", we were training thousands of volunteers on the rules, blanketing our precincts with calls and canvassers and making sure our supporters knew to vote early, to come back to caucus, etc etc.

Ready on Day 1, indeed.

"and remember Bill's legendary knowledge of election esoterica on a state by state basis?"

But isn't the current situation a result of Delay's crazy power grab in TX? The redistricting he forced through? If so, then rules have changed since Bill ran.

Ploy ... It's just gotta be a ploy. I find it very hard to believe that HillaryCamp didn't know this. Seems to me that they're just trying to get news stories out about it to, once again, lower expectations.

If they plan to run the country like they run their campaign ... god help us!

Between McCain's bankrupcies and Clinton's miscalculations, I think Obama's looking like the smart leader.

After reading carefully, one sees that it isn't the rules themselves, but how they play out in the intersection of demographics that usually vote Republican (Hispanics heavily supported Bush). Hillary is expecting to win in Bush districts, but longstanding Dem rules have given delegates to Democratic districts... Oops.

Not surprising. Remember, they never anticipated campaigning past Super Tuesday. Why bother learning the rules of Texas?

It sure seems to me that the Clinton campaign thus far can be summarized with the slogan: "It's not FAIR!"

I thought they had that Icky guy, you know, the "delegate expert" who voted for the rule banning FL and MI delegates before he voted against it.

"No, he's not right about the redistricting. This is entirely a Texas Democratic Party system, DeLay has nothing to do with it."

Thanks! I (she,me) is wrong.

I agree, it makes no sense Clinton wouldn't know about this. Perhaps this might have been leaked to lower expectations? I don't know.

Or maybe Bill Clinton realized last week the strategists didn't understand the rules and was part of the team which explained it to them?

I'm supporting Obama, but I have a lot of respect for both Clintons. They might have made the mistake of not planning ahead, but Bill is a very smart man, I can't believe he wouldn't understand rules of a state he campaigned in albeit years ago.

Thanks for posting that link - I was about to do the same. Stories like the one on BOR pretty much show that statewide polling in TX is somewhat irrelevant.

Now in all fairness, no Democrat has campaigned for President in Texas since the '80's. It's no wonder the rules are unfamiliar.

In 20 years of living here, I have never seen an ad for a Democratic national candidate. I am seeing the nightly now. And this is for a primary!! I wouldn't be at all surprised if Texas was in play in November!

I could believe that this is a spin by HRC's camp except that it doesn't work as spin.
Just read the comments and their gleeful assumption that it is yet more proof of HRC incompetence. Perhaps unintended consequences, but I don't think so.
The problem is that either HRC wins Texas or she doesn't. Arcane rules of delegate apportionment will have zilch coverage either way on the night of March 4th.
The story line has been built that Texas is a must win state for her, this was reinforced by her own campaign, and failure to win will be almost universally seen as the last nail in her coffin.
If someone can explain how big yawn tales of delegate count systems will overrule "Hillary Loses Texas" I'll be really grateful.

this is EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!!

!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!

Feel IT!!

So, just another clear example of Hillary "being ready from day one".

Isn't it clear by now that Hillery is just as bad a manager as the current Mope in Chief!

If Clinton somehow gets the Michigan and Florida delegations seated to steal the Democratic nomination, someone should clue Penn & Williams in about this wacky "Electoral College" thingamajig.

I just asked Mark Penn about that, Tag, and he said "Don't be silly, college voters don't count."

Greg, I could see Tennessee and Arkansas very close contests for Hillary. Also I think Obama would have a very good chance in Virginia. Just a thought.

As I said before, I don't care if Hillary camp is spinning as long as they're not winning.

Keep spinning, keep loosing. Good motto.

BTW- I thought this comment from State Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) posted on burntorange was brilliant and worth a read:

"Our main focus should not be on who can appeal to which racial or ethnic group more than another, but which candidate can unite all races, ethnicities, age groups, faiths and economic classes as a nation to address our common challenges and to restore our historic position as a respected leader of the free world.
I am the Latino son of immigrants, but, rather than engaging in the contrived politics of division, I want Barack Obama, a black man of mixed ethnicity, to be my president. How's that for the politics of hope?"

Hey Texas! You are second class, unless you vote for Hillary.

A co-chairman of Hillary's Michigan campaign and has a line that's sure to drive a whole bunch of red state governor's up the wall:

"Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

The real reason this is a problem for HRC and why I dont think it is a spin-game, although it could be somewhat is that HRC is toast unless she racks up a sizable delegate count from TX & OH.

She is behind 130-150 pledged delegates (depending on your source). After the Mar 4 primaries 80% of the delegates will have been awarded. Of the remaining states, there are only 3 sizable delgate ones, PA(158), NC(115) and IN(71). PA favors HRC, NC favors BHO and IN is a toss-up. The remaining states are about equally split btwn HRC, BHO and a few toss-ups.
At best HRC can probably gain 50 or so delegates from post 3/5 states and that is truly a rosy scenerio unless something major changes.

Which means HRC has to make up 80-100 delegates on Mar 4. A 20pt win in OH would net her at most 30 delegates, so she needs 50-70 out of TX.
To get 50 delegates under this system, she needs to win by almost 30 pts in each contest type.
Keep in mind that she only got 45 incremental delegates out of NY, a larger state, her home state, with normal rules.

Pledged delegates are the only ones that matter at this point because there are enough remaining supers that have chosen not to endorse until the campaign becomes more definitive. Which means what happens in the nt few months will likely sway them as well.

So, this is indeed a problem for HRC, especially as she is only leading in the TX polls by 10% or so.

Even my 8yo understands that to argue that you are ready to lead the United States, and not know the rules in Texas, is no sound arguement at all.

To be plagiarism--according to the accepted laws of the land, and laid out by my good ol' copy of the MLA--a direct lift must be cited back to the original source...

...or the original source must give express permission.

Deval Patrick gave express permission.

Thus, this is not plagiarims.

You lose. As a Clintonite, you should be used to it.

I'm wondering if TPM has announced it's support for the Obama campaign. I've noticed that there seems to be more photos and positive coverage of Obama, and more unfavorable commentary about the Clinton camp on this site. Reading some of the commentary from Josh, it seems that he has personal issues with some of the Clinton camp. I don't have a problem with TPM choosing one candidate over the other, but TPM should at least declare it publicly. If you are claiming balanced coverage of both candidates, I don't see it!!!

I am an author and former academic and know more about plagiarism than most people.

This is not an example of plagiarism but parallelism, prompted by Deval Patrick--a friend of Obama's--being hit with the same charge that Obama was: all talk and no action.

He used similar phrasing, and quoted great lines from American history that are commonly quoted by politicians and non-politicians. There's nothing dishonest about it. Yes, he could have prefaced it and said, "My friend Governor Patrick was charged with being all talk, and I'll echo his reply--"

But as a very experienced public speaker, I can tell you that it would have spoiled the rhythm of the speech, and he could also have planned to say it and in the heat of the speech forgotten. It happens, even with a prepared text. But allusions to other people can make you sound pedantic, and I think he made the right choice, conscious or not.

That people are making a big deal of this shows the utter hopeless desperation of the Clinton campaign. Did Obama steal whole paragraphs of someone's speech? No? We're talking about a few lines that are parallel.

And for all those who have suddenly become experts in plagiarism, it becomes a real issue not in speeches, but in printed material where copyrights are involved, as when David Leavitt was successfully sued by Stephen Spender for plagiarizing from Spender's memoir, and the book was pulped.