Jack the Sailor said [[It disturbs me that much of Hillary's support has been in Bush strongholds. I think that a lot of her support in Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania is from Republican mischief makers.]]
Actually, this is more than speculation. Not only has Rush Limbaugh (with his myriad legions of dittohead supporter/listeners) been blatantly advising them to do just that - because "we want this [battle] to go on," because "we want Obama bloodied up" and "none of the Republican Party leaders have the stomach for that" - but there's been a lot of exit polling and post-primary analysis of voting patterns that show that.   E.g., in a number of HEAVILY Republican precincts or counties in Texas, not one single vote was cast for a Republican candidate in the primary, and Clinton won over Obama big time in those districts. E.g., quite a few Republicans in Texas, Ohio, etc., have admitted to - even bragged about - having tried to sabotage the Dems by helping keep the intraparty fighting going and/or to make her the nominee.

Some Republicans in some states have switched parties and voted for Obama - maybe some for Clinton too - because they genuinely do not want McCain to win (for various reasons).   Obama has won over some moderate Republicans in the primaries, just as he has done in his Illinois races.   The same can be said for Hillary Clinton, who would probably not have been elected US Senator from NY without considerable support from Republicans.   But there's also good evidence of mischief in the form of switching parties JUST FOR A WEEK or so, as El Rushbo is advising.   The discrepant results in Texas between the primary (open to everyone, easy to cross party lines) and the caucuses (Democrats only) is telling.

Contrary to what Hillary says, she did not "win Texas." Obama has more delegates than she does from that state.