Obama wins Wyoming
 

Obama won the Wyoming caucuses today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23534864/

Yet another win in a caucus state. He maintains (and has for some time now) a lead in both the popular vote as well as pledged delegates. Yet I keep hearing Clinton and her people make claims like "We've won the larger states" or "We're winning in states that a Dem nominee needs to win to win the White House."

Every talking head I've heard and every article I've read has stated neither he nor her can reach the needed number of delegates without the so called super delegates. But they also say she can not catch him in either the popular vote or the delegate count.

This leaves her having to make arguments like those above. I think Obama needs to make a pitch to the super delegates like- "Yes, she's won some large states, so have we. And yes she's won some typically Dem states. The two things she hasn't won is the most votes or the most delegates. She seems to have the same problem with the definition of "win" that her husband had in determining what the definition of the word is "is."

You know, I wouldn't advise him to go that way.

In my opinion, what cost him the momentum into Texas and Ohio (although it turns out he won Texas) is that he let Clinton set the tone of the discussion. She went negative and he went defensive.

What I want from him is a solid answer to her attacks, coupled with a "there you go again" style response about the culture of negative campaigning and old-style politics. He strayed from that message in the last couple weeks, and it's cost him. Frankly, the fervor I felt a few weeks ago has waned, as I've watched him go point for point and set aside the change/hope talk. I want him back to what worked, what inspired me about him.

Hillary is now beyond desperate. The pundit bullshittery about "big states" has been replaced with things like this or this.

I'm glad Obama picked up Wyoming. (I'm pretty sure Obama's going to end up taking Texas, too...)

With all of this talk about super delegates and a close vote, I wonder if the Democrats can support a candidate that doesn't win the popular vote and only wins the delegate count because of a bunch of party cronies?

This is meant to be half-sarcastic, but it is also an honest question.

I blame the momentum loss on Clinton's lies, whining and complete bullshit. That and the press' willingness to play along with her games. Clinton whines about Obama getting preferential when the truth is if he'd lost 12 races in a row every major news outlet would have pulled their "A" team and stopped even pretending to take him seriously. I'd be willing to bet they'd have made that move after 6-8 loses. Clinton shows one face at the debate then the next day screams "shame on you!" about a mailer... a mailer she knew about for at least a week. She states she has all the respect in the world for her opponent and that who ever wins the nomination the country will be better off then another GOP term. Within days she's claiming she and McCain are qualified by their experience but the only experience Obama has is he gave a speech. She then proceeds to call (or have her people call) Obama a two-faced flip-flopper.

And I blame Obama for not responding to this BS. One of his top advisers resigned because she stated she thought Clinton was a monster. If I were Obama I would not have let her quit. I would have released a press statement saying he didn't personally feel that way but given the current heat level between the two campaigns and Clinton's recent behavior he could certainly see how someone could feel that way. Basically I think he could have found a real polite way to say if you act like an ass often enough a percentage of people are going to begin to assume it's not an act.

Yeah, I agree with this:

"It's time the media asked Hillary one simple question: Who is more qualified to be president, John McCain or Barack Obama. Ask her. Then let's see if she weasels out of it or defends the Democrat."


Hillary, at this point, will say anything to get elected. She's like a kid on the play ground who owns, or in this case thinks she owns, the ball. Either she gets her way or she takes her ball and goes home. Some one needs to tell her it's not her ball. Who that someone is? I have no idea.

Everything she's doing and saying is only hurting the Dems and helping the GOP.

Following Hillary into a negative campaign cycle will only hurt Obama. His power, his draw, EVERYTHING that makes him attractive as a candidate is that he stands above the fray and highlights it as the kind of old-school scorched-earth victory-at-any-cost political culture that he's out to change. And he's quit talking that way and it's a HUGE mistake.

ANYTHING Clinton says can be deflected simply by Obama saying, "Look, that's you going negative. That's you doing politics the old way, the way you and your husband became such huge champions of more than 15 years ago. It's time for something new in Washington, and I'm it. I'm not going to go negative on you, Hillary. No matter how hard you try to get me to, I'm not doing it. With a rising wave of American mandate at my back, I'm building a political culture based on understanding and respect, and I challenge you to do the same. And your failure to do that will only demonstrate your unwillingness or inability to rise above the past."

He's lost his way in the last couple weeks. He's forgotten the message that had him develop such a groundswell of support, and instead he got pulled into defending himself against attacks. The lure of old-school politics is strong! He's got to be stronger!

Unfortunately, it's near impossible for Obama to beat Clinton at her game. Not when she's willing to go so far as to praise McCain over her own Democratic colleague. Obama's best bet is not to play.

As for this concept that Clinton's wins are somehow more meaningful, I think "kos" described the situation fairly well...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...557/770/472129

Exactly. He's got to wrest framing control back from Hillary. He lost that a couple weeks ago--and there are signs that the tide is turning, but mostly it's been public sentiment returning to what I believe is its default position: against Hillary. I haven't seen him return to the powerful rhetoric from a month ago.

I'm not suggesting he follow her into a negative rat hole. I simply think he should respond in a way that points out she's being negative and then move out of her way and let her fall on her own words. I do believe he needs to point out, or have someone point out, the absurd comments and claims she's making.

I mean think about it- you a have person claiming to be winning when they have fewer votes, less delegates and really no chance of catching up in either. Talk about spin.

I don't think we're saying things that much different from each other. It seems we disagree on the more on the wording then the message.

Obama's campaign should point out to the super delegates that there may be a time bomb waiting to drop when Hillary releases her tax returns. She said she would release them before the general. Of course this could backfire if there is nothing damaging in them and I can't imagine she would even run if there was but who knows. Perhaps it has something to do with where and how Bill is getting his income. As I recall they would not release them once before when they showed a 10,000% profit in an unusual cattle future trade.

I want to know about the tax returns too but I want to see who (and in what amounts) contributed to the Clinton Presidential Library. Has anyone heard when they're talking about releasing these records?

Probably so. At the bottom of it, I'd prefer he stay away from "responding to Hillary" and instead focus on claiming control of the frame of the discussion. Which is not far from what you're saying.

I love watching a political party tear itself to pieces from the inside. I wasn't sure which one would self-destruct first, and I really didn't care. I'm just hoping this is the beginning of the end of the two party system. Thanks, democrats, for having the vision (or whatever) to move this country forward.

Do you think this is the first time in history that there has been a bitter fight between two candidates before the convention?

Clinton is acting out of desperation so her tactics are expected, and again, nothing new. At the very least, it will harden Obama up for the fall campaign, assuming he is the candidate.

But Clinton also has a very strong argument in her favor that the super-delegates cant ignore, particularly if she wins Michigan and Florida in re-votes. That would give her the four states - FL, OH, MI, PA - three of which the Democrat MUST win in November to reach the magic electoral number.

And, an Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) ticket is not at all out of the realm of possibility. The whole scenario is playing out somewhat like 1960. A dynamic, young, inexperienced Senator against the seasoned, veteran insider in the party fighting for the nomination....and the party and country united behind JKF/LBJ.

Just voicing my hopes, that's all. And I seriously hope that you weren't actually comparing Obama to JFK...

Obama actually has more experience in elective office (and grass roots politics) than JFK. :)

I wouldn't exactly call 49.7% to 49.5% a united country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F....ntial_election

Tully....I was refering more to the aftermath of the '60 election.

In 1961, Kennedy recorded poll numbers in the 80s....not seen by any President since then. And this was even while the Dems had actually lost seats in the House in the '60 election and JFK taking on (albeit, half-heartedly) the highly controversial issue of race relations and support of Eisenhower's Vietnam policy.

Ok, I'm listening. Got a link to these poll numbers?

Its somewhere in the recesses of my mind.

But here is an article from Time on naming JFK as the person of the year for 1961.
I think he lost a few points (down to 78%) after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Wiki agrees with you too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating

I concede your point.

I'm a little surprised with his numbers given the events of the time. But considering I was 6mos. old when he was shot- maybe I don't have a completely clear picture of the era.

And picked up a few delegates in California according to CNN last night. Something to do with on going vote counting and his doing better in certain districts then originally projected.

Since the press is so in love with Obama it's kind of strange this is the headline of every major press web site.

Who blames the media for loving Obama?

How can you not?

Clinton and her minions have been blaming the media, in part, for her loses for sometime now.

Because it's the media, not post-menopause, that's causing her batshit insane outbursts. She'd do well in TFParanoia.:expressionless:

The press turned on Obama awhile ago. They bought into Clinton's accusations 100%. So, very little reporting on the CA delegate gains, very little reporting on the fact Obama actually won TX in terms of delegates, and no one is talking about how, despite losing Ohio and Rhode Island, Obama has increased his delegate lead over the past week.

Now there's Mississippi, and what are the press reporting? Aside for the obligatory mention that Obama won, they're also quick to point out that he "only" got 25% of the white vote. What they aren't quick to point out is that Clinton only got 10% of the black vote. So, in reality, Obama did a better job of crossing over racial lines than Clinton did. But that's not the spin you'll see in the stories.

I again assert that if the tables were turned and she'd won the number of states and delegates that he has since Feb. 5th no major news outlet would be treating him as a serious option.

Also that he got 35% of the Democratic white vote; all the white Republicans who attempted to crash the election voted for Hillary.

Where did you find these stats?

heh, yeah I'd be interested in seeing the source for that, but I can easily believe it.

I assume those stats come from exit polls in Mississippi.

CNN exit polls have different numbers - seven pages of data on white/black vote (pg 4), Repubs in Dem primary, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri.../epolls/#MSDEM

Interesting, thanks.

From the internet, which I then repeated without verifying them. I withdraw my fallacious remarks, with apologies.

Pure personality politics... Beautiful spectacle.

Enjoy your circus.

*eats bread*