It’s worth noting that nothing about yesterday’s results necessarily vindicates the Clinton campaign’s strategy of effectively conceding most the states between Super Tuesday and Texas, and allowing Obama to run up huge margins, both in votes and delegates, in nearly all of them. It isn’t as if the firewall strategy allowed her to barely stave off an Obama surge that might have succeeded if she’d spread her time and resources around. The Obama surge did succeed, in Texas at least, thanks to his momentum out of the Mid-Atlantic: He swamped her firewall and pulled into the lead, and it appears that she only regained the upper hand thanks to some hard-edged last-minute campaigning. If she could have narrowed his margins in states like Virginia and Wisconsin, she might not have lost the lead in Texas in the first place – and more importantly, she’d have higher delegate and vote totals to carry into the looming argument over whose “moral claim” on the nomination is the stronger one.

I suppose that if you buy Mickey Kaus's friend S.'s argument about how Hillary tends to win and lose - with voters rallying round her when they think she’s down for the count, and spurning her when she’s just scored some victories – there’s a sense in which she needed to get hammered for a month before Texas voted to have any chance of winning there. But even if the friend-of-Kaus diagnosis of voter motivation is correct, trying to create a situation in which your candidate scores a big pity vote seems like a lousy way to run a Presidential campaign.