Obama gets 7, and the Clintons get 5, of the 12 delegates. So Barack is up +2 more as of today! While I am pleased, I wish it were more like 10 to 2. That would show the Clintons that their very ugly campaign tactics are not appreciated.

So happy to see the voters of Wyoming did not allow Clinton's "kitchen sink"
politics deter them from voting for Senator Obama, who is a classy, diplomatic statesman who can likely mend fences in this country and abroad. The fact that both are junior senators does not give her any "experience" lead in running this country. I do remember her having to defend her husband's indiscretions over and over again. She's truly experienced in standing by her man, and in this case, he's driving her to win at all cost, including destroying the democratic party and losing all support and respect. Her behavior and mean spiritedness has totally changed my opinon of all Clintons and their legacy. Up until 3 months ago, I had respect for the Clinton legacy. No more.

the people has bin speaking.obama is gonna be the nominee.hillary needs to stop with the negative vibe.

Re: After Wyoming:

From today's "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008

How Obama Can Win

Obama, as many recognize, now seems to be in a box of his own making.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and places the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will be immediately associated be in the voter's mind, and accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected--be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when attacked, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink", abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence, of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments", thus disempowering her already factually shaky appeals to foreign policy superiority--with a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack--rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain--and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

Yahoo

Ms. Clinton did not use ugly or mean spirited tactics. She brought to light some questions that Mr. Obama should have to address the same way he has brought tpo light issues that she should address. Just because you favor one candidate over the other does not mean there shoudn't be a lively debate about qualifications.

Ms. Clinton did not use ugly or mean spirited tactics. She brought to light some questions that Mr. Obama should have to address the same way he has brought tpo light issues that she should address. Just because you favor one candidate over the other does not mean there shoudn't be a lively debate about qualifications.

I'm not sure how the press can keep on reporting that Clinton beat Obama in Texas. While she had more votes in the primary, he won the caucus.

Obama 98 delagates
Clinton 97 delagates

So who won Texas?????

I am so glad sensible people are beginning to scrutinize Hillary's alleged foreign policy experience. In fact if we look at presidents from JFK to the present, which ones came with foreign policy experience- certainly not the current one and as for the previous one, Bill Clinton, though he was a governor, what national and foreign policy experience did he have? The emphasis has to be put on judgment, the ability to listen, inspire compromise, and work out solutions taking into consideration all factors in play. Calling for all or nothing gets you nothing or a mess like that health care legacy or Iraq. Obama to my knowledge is the only candidate to have mentioned preventive care at all. Americans are crying for health care because they don't know how to care for their health- think they can eat any and everything, sit on the couch, and then the doctor will cure them.

So Obama wins another red state Democratic caucus. So what? He hasn't won a single large swing state primary. If he becomes the Democratic nominee, the Dems will lose big, once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Check out the hypocrisy of Obama here: http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/

Go Hillary. The orange will be peeled by Penn and you will see there is a clear choice of experience. The focus will be on the HILL.

Kee's comment touches a nerve. When all this started I did not subscribe to the Hillary hating bunk. But its not just that she attacks, her attacks are cheap, and all off point. her ideas paper thin. She really has taken the luster off the Clinton legacy and made us recall all of dark and not so great parts of that presidency.

Bill Clinton is offering the Vice Presidential slot to Senator Obama.

So much for all that bluster about Hillary as a Big Strong Independent Woman who would be totally in charge. Bill is the one who is selecting and openly offering the Vice President slot to Senator Obama. I guess Bill and Hillary do not feel that Big Strong Hillary is capable of handling that selection process.

Things continue to get nasty. There is a difference between the odd slip of the tongue, and contrived dirty tactics made to look innocent. The little girl in the ringing 3am phone ad, says she supports Obama. Who cares? That was old footage, she is 17 now.

What should happen, someone should wake up answer the phone quietly, put on a robe, go downstairs and meet with the staff experts. Then the person must decide a course of action, tell the truth about it, own it, and make something good happen.

Which one has experience doing that? We know it is not anyone who trusted bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, or Bill Clinton.

Barack--Good on ya mate!

The following, is simply put, Brilliant.

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008

How Obama Can Win

Obama, as many recognize, now seems to be in a box of his own making.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and places the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will be immediately associated be in the voter's mind, and accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected--be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when attacked, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink", abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence, of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments", thus disempowering her already factually shaky appeals to foreign policy superiority--with a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack--rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain--and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Congratulations Barack Obama! Wyoming was not entertained by Hillary's mud slinging tactics. Thank You to the citizens of Wyoming and I hope that Pennsylvania sees through Hillary's negative character as well. The nominee will be a person that is demonstrative of the tact of positive change and respect that such a close and interesting race has never shown. Barack Hussein Obama for America 2008

Looks like Obama is building up momentum yet again... matter of fact, he never lost it to begin with

The only states that he lost on Tuesday were Ohio and Rhode Island... Texas was barely a Hillary win, and even Ohio barely went for Hillary. Obama is going to win here in Mississippi on Tuesday and he's at least going to turn Pennsylvania into a virtual repeat of Texas, mathematically there's no way that Hillary can win... she needs to concede and endorse Obama if she really cares about uniting this country and electing a real leader, not Mr. Warmonger McBushCain.

Wyoming is wise. Their nomination for John F Kennedy in the Democratic primary after he lost Ohio helped him win the presidency in 1960. Wyoming was the first state to allow the woman's vote but they select the best candidate carefully.

This is a good sign and it provides us all with a chance to examine what really happened last Tuesday:

- Hillary won two states: Ohio and Rhode Island.

- Limbaugh pulled her chestnuts out of the fire in Texas.

- Her friends in the media spun the story of a "comeback."

Her candidacy is going nowhere, even if she wins Pennsylvania, and there is no imaginable circumstance under which the Democrats can stand for losing their most reliable constituency, African-Americans by nominating her.

Mrs. Clinton needs to take a page of Sonia Gandhi's book and earn her self a name above and beyond that of Madam President.

I believe it is demeaning and derogatory to Senator Obama that Bill Clinton keeps on talking about a dream ticket with Hillary on top. Senator Obama has more votes, more enthusiastic supports, better judgment, and more class. If Hillary were running against a white man would Bill be saying this?

Forgive me, but isn't it ambiguous who won Texas? Senator Clinton won the primary 51-47, but Senator Obama won the caucus my a margin that nets him more total delegates. Yet this post makes no note of the ambiguity, stating flat out that Senator Clinton "won." Details and accuracy matter.

I think Obama actually gets 8 delegates to Clinton's 5 because one extra "unpledged" delegate goes to the statewide winner.

Prantha, you do know, don't you, that Obama received 3 more delegates than Clinton in Texas, something like 93 to her 90? On the other hand, you might not know because most of media are still calling Texas a big victory for Clinton.

to Prantha (above): I think it WOULD have been more like ten if Ohio had been a genuine win for Clinton. There is rising "chatter" of investigation into the Clinton-Strickland tie (Ohio's governor) and disenfrachised voters in Obama-friendly precincts (e.g, voters were sent postcards to report to certain buildings to vote, but the buildings were boarded up when they arrived; HUGE complaints about running out of ballots and going home without voting, and the Secretary of State went on TV, under fire, and said that it was Republicans crossing over and voting for Hillary to throw the vote, because they believe she will lose to McCain. The media interview numerous Republicans who readily admitted to doing same...interesting to hear Clinton's spin on this: "Ohio voters have spoken...and they want me..."

So sorry for those poor people who weren't able to get out of Wyoming. No way this state goes blue in the general.

The caucus results are very strange. I was analyzing what happened in Washington state, where there was a huge lead by Obama but on the primary he only won by 3 points.

Can somebody explain what happened in Teton County in Wyoming. The number of Obama voters seams huge 10% of the population, similar to one of the most popolous County like Albany.

In Cheyenne, Clinton said, "I know it's an uphill climb, I'm aware of that."

Now the caucus-goers have told her, "It's all down, Hill, from here."

Why does the main stream media continue to say Clinton won Texas when Obama will get four more delegates than Clinton after the Caucus results are final. Obama WON Texas, stop covering it up.

I pray that God gives the U.S. another Ronald Reagan in my life time.

I'M Impressed!

Wyoming is 86.3% Christian Republicans.

Barack got 1.16% of the looney left vote...WOW!

Aren't there any muslims in Wyoming????

Paulo

The caucus results are very strange. Can somebody explain what happened in Teton County in Wyoming. The number of Obama voters seams huge 10% of the population, similar to one of the largest Counties. What's going on?

Newsflash: Obama's win in WY means nothing.

WY will not go to a Dem in the general.

Thank you, Baltimore Sun, for not pushing the incorrect but oft-repeated meme that Obama "only" wins in caucus states. While it is true that he has *vastly* outperformed Clinton in caucus states (winning 12 caucuses to her 3), it is also true that he's won 15 primaries (to her 13, if you count Michigan and Florida). Obama has won more states than Clinton, period, yet somehow the myth has sprung up that he can "only" win caucuses or that he can "only" win states that Clinton doesn't contest. I have come to rely on the Baltimore Sun's coverage more and more, because this seems to be one of the few places that actually presents the news, rather than one or the other candidate's spin.