I see that the Obama campaign is jubilant about his (entirely expected) victory in the Texas caucuses and his resultant delegate lead in Texas despite his having lost the popular vote to Clinton by a non-insignificant margin.
I hope the Clinton campaign uses this example to highlight the complete absurdity of the delegate allocation process and why, just like in the year 2000, it is relatively easy for someone to get a higher delegate count in lower turnout caucuses even after losing the popular vote in higher turnout primaries. In fact, I hope the Clinton campaign does a full court press on this 24/7 for the next week and educates the broader public about the completely absurd and undemocratic system we have where someone who wins the popular vote ends up being behind on the delegate count.
I know a lot of voters who were outraged about Bush being appointed to the Presidency after losing the popular vote to Gore and after the electoral vote count was shifted in his favor by the SCOTUS. There was a long period of time when many activist Democrats felt completely betrayed by the electoral process and felt that it was undemocratic. Many of these people vowed to do what they could to make sure this never happens again. Of course, some of them are now fully in support of a similarly undemocratic system since it benefits Sen. Obama, but there is a large chunk of the population that actually remembers the year 2000 and will resonate with this travesty today. Even if we don't fix it in 2008, we need to fix this before 2012.
In the meantime, I have to sadly AgreeTM with BDBlue at Correntewire on this:
Hillary Continues Her Campaign to Destroy The Democratic Party
Here's BDBlue's proof from Kentucky: