This is SOP for them, given their lawsuit in Nevada.

Good lord...

The Clinton campaign started out with support from almost all of the Texas Democratic power structure from Bob Slagle on down -- for them now to be whining that they don't understand the rule is completely silly - it is their supporters who wrote and approved the rules. But since they were asleep at the switch, they're now crying"unfair" and threatening to shut the whole thing down.

Didn't they try this in Nevada -- suing to change the caucus rules a few days before the caucus -- when they had been adopted a year before hand by the same party leaders backing her?

Add to that the effort to overturn party rules relative to Michigan and Florida - even though Harold Ickes and other Clinton leaders were the folks who voted to impose the sanctions in the first place.

It becomes clear that "rules are rules" unless they seem to get in the way of Clinton's campaign. And the campaign that was supposed to be the master political machine didn't even do their homework to understand the rules of the game.

The Clinton folks would do a lot better to go out and campaign with a positive message to win votes instead of spending their time and energy trying to play games with the party rules.

This is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!1!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I don't get it. What are they upset about so late in the process? Unclear. And, whatever the issue, none of it could have been cleared up earlier? I really don't get it at all.

I think just last week Hillary admitted that only a few weeks ago had her team become aware of the arcana of the Texas system, and she remarked (paraphrase): "We have grown men crying over this."
Yes, well may they cry.

I find it rather amusing that the Clintons would do this. After all, they had plenty of time to find out the rules of these states. It is their fault they didn't plan to be competing after February 5th.

I think one measure about whether someone is ready to run the country is how they run their campaign. The Clinton's campaign? A total mess.

At this point, it's useless to try to argue with Clinton supporters about the consistent and obvious ethical lapses of the their candidate and her campaign. Facts mean nothing to them.

What's interesting, though, is how out-in-the-open their attempts to disenfranchise voters actually are. First, the immediate disparagement of caucuses and caucusers following Iowa. Then the lawsuit in Nevada. Then the trivializing of South Carolina as a tantamount to a 'black win' and nothing more. Then the marginalizing of red states that 'Democrats won't win anyway in the general election.' And now a lawsuit against the process in Texas. And throughout the entire process the relentless insistence on characterizing the growing legion of Obama voters (fellow Democrats) as cultists and Kool-aid drinkers.

The trash and burn style is puzzling. If Clinton does get the nomination, you wonder just how much back-pedaling her campaign is going to have to do to win back all of these groups. I mean this stuff is just buttah for Republicans because it reinforces in the naked light of day the extant and pervasive idea that the Clintons care only about their own power. Their trail of bodies in this campaign astonishes.

Hey, Texas undecideds, this is your future on Hillary Clinton. Just say no.

I just watched Josh's election 14 roundup. In it he talked about how the McCain camp would try in various ways, ani-american, crypto muslim and the like against Obama in the geneeral. Josh pointed out basically how McCain would be doing the same thing that was done to him by GWB. It occured to me that Hillary is already doing that to Obama. Having surrogates slime, while she claims no knowledge.

The uncanny resemblence to GWB's Karl Rove campaign is scary to any committed democrat. I saw this listing on another blog and again the shivers went up my spine. My God, if Hillary gets elected she will govern just like GWB. Check this out:
Does anyone see the similarity in GW's preparation for the Iraq war and HRC's preparation for this campaign. I'll try and point out the similarities:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adament that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
The list can go on and on. The bottom line is that HRC should be confined to the senate alone. She has the potential to be a good party leader (senate majority leader...anyone) but I dont think that she is ready to 'lead on day one'. She has very similar characteristics as GW.

This can't really go over well with Texas voters. I wonder how many undecideds swing the other way when they see their state party threatened this way.

Clintons Sue at Last Minute to Change Voting Rules!

The headline today in Texas newspapers. Doesn't sell well with the voter I have to think.

Ridiculous though the process in Texas may be, it's been in place since 1972. 1972!

And Cliton is going to sue because it happens to not favor her this time? Because her campaign was too incompetent and ill-prepared?

I don't know how you sue someone else for your incompetence. Guess it happens all the time, though.

Yeah... Texas isn't looking too good for the Clintons. The latest Zogby poll found Obama leading 48.2 percent to 41.7 percent there, with undecideds trending in his direction.

To me, this tells me a few things:
1> Texas-style "rugged individualists" are going to put Obama over the top, bigtime.
2> The problems that Obama had with the polls in California -- unexpectedly low black turnout, unexpectedly high latino turnout, and lots of last-minute "can I trust him" jitters -- aren't much of a factor in Texas, where blacks clearly ARE going to the polls, and where the latino delegate share is essentially surpressed, due to their low participation in the last election.
3> Obama will, as always, decisively outorganize Clinton in the caucuses.

Now, Ohio... Clinton is still in the lead there by 2%, and may pull out a narrow win there. Early voting could give her an advantage there... but not so much in Texas, where Obama has done a very good job of getting voters to turn out early for him, with the "Texas Two-step" -- vote early, then caucus.

The big question, really, is whether Hillary concedes after losing Texas, concedes after losing the next two states after Texas, concedes after losing Pennsylvania... or whether Howard Dean, John Edwards, Al Gore, and a large bloc of superdelegates step in and tell her to back down or be this party's next Joe Lieberman.

Simple answer required from BHO:
"Florida, Michigan, on and on... Hillary, can't play by the rules!"

I just wonder how much longer the public is going to tolerate all these myriad systems for voting across this country. Why does Texas have this system to begin with? Early voting? And then caucuses? Setting number of delegates on the basis of an election 4 years ago?

What are they thinking about?

Hillary Clinton's Titanic is sinking and they are trying to take the whole Democratic Party down with them. With this type of divisive activity, the Democrats will never take the Texas back that Karl Rove and W stole from them.

The Clintons have proven time and time again throughout this nomination process that they only care about themselves and their power and egos. Just as Bill had no problem with the Democrats losing Congress and Al Gore losing the presidency as long as he kept his position, HIllary and the gang are showing that nothings changed. SHAME ON YOU HILLARY CLINTON!

Background on the Texas system:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19211076

It may be crazy, but they didn't cook it up this year to foil the Clinton campaign.

Why am I not surprised that Hillary Clinton has issued the threat of a lawsuit over Texas delegate allocation rules. Early voting is brisk, but I wonder if it might have been smarter for their campaign to have waited until folks in Texas have all voted before issuing the predictable petulant threats. I wonder if they are looking at their internals and realizing that Obama has already carried the state? Here's an interesting question. Which luminary amongst the bevy of overpaid overrated 'ready on day one' cowpunchers will lead the Clinton Texas delegate challenge? Will it be Texas Terry McAuliffe? Hopalong Penn? How about The Lone Ickes? They should have lots of time on their hands soon. Not to mention plenty of cash to take the sting out of it all. So what was that about all hat, no cattle?

The thrice repeated theme is "Clinton as victim".

In New Hampshire this appeared to work, portraying the media as unseemly gleeful over Clinton's loss Iowa and her about to lose again the following week.

In this week's debate, Clinton herself started out saying that media was being unfair to her, using the SNL skit as evidence. No one mentioned the host Tina Fey stating her strong support of Clinton at the same time. Clinton complained about receiving the first question at the debates. I found this surprising. If you are behind then it is good to receive the first question of the debate which gives you a chance to set the tone of the debate. Would not it have been more unfair to Clinton and biased to Obama if he were always receiving the first question as the frontrunner? It as if in a sudden-death overtime football game, your team won the coin toss but elected to kick the ball.

Finally, portraying the Texas primary/caucus as unfair and Bill Clinton saying that the election will be stolen form Hillary in the dead of night is a blatant play-the-victim ploy. In Texas as in other big states Clinton's strength has been the organized power structure, the very people who wrote the election rules long ago. How can they be accused of bias against her? Obama's campaign had nothing to do with writing the Texas election rules.

Funny how when Hillary was the inevitable candidate, noneof these problems existed. If I hear her say one more time how the party will be united behind the eventual nominee, I think I'll throw up. She and her husband (whom I voted for twice and really liked)are turning out to be little more than whining phonies. It's a disgraceful display of poor loser syndrome.

Yeah this is great for the democratic party, to have a possible legal decision regarding election-erring? I mean it is obvious that the democratic party enjoys much more divisive discourse regarding any range of topics than the Republicans, which I think is good for a democracy, but in the end, 'is this not the same type of shenanigans that keeps many independents in doubt about who to support? It would seem to me that the Clintons are much more interested in winning the nomination than putting on a good campaign that will highlight her strengths, clearly define her divisions with Senator Obama, and also try to pick up the independents who are desperate to see a party change for the POTUS. She has every right to wage this campaign but I just do not see how this wins her traction within the democratic party, especially those new progressive democrats. Personnally I think this election has been partly about the Clintons fading power within the democratic parties establishment and the future vision of the democratic party. Any Clinton supporter's have a different take?

Since "day one" in Texas hasn't happened yet and Hillary is already threatening to sue, maybe the truth is Hillary's ready on "the day before one"; ready to sue that is.

Like I said, she'd rather burn the house down than not get it for herself.

!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!