Barack Obama Wins Wyoming Democratic Caucuses

Mar 8, 2008, 10:54 PM EST
Sen. Barack Obama is Wyoming’s Democrat victory Saturday, a boost in his efforts to regain momentum after a rough week that included controversies involving two of his top advisers and losses in three states.
“This is a big win for us,” David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager said.
Obama led Senator Hillary Clinton 61 percent to 38 percent.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s campaign sought to downplay the outcome, making the clear point that both candidates will gain roughly the same number of delegates due to the proportional way Democrats award them.
“We are thrilled with this near split in delegates and are grateful to the people of Wyoming for their support,” Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
The Democratic battle is now expected to drag well into the spring, after Clinton managed last week to breathe new life into her bid by winning perennial battleground of Ohio and massive Texas.
On Monday, Obama will head to Mississippi. Clinton, who already campaigned there last week, will head to Pennsylvania, where the next big contest will be held April 22.
After Wyoming, Obama holds the lead for delegates, 1,578 to 1,468. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination.
Barack Hussein Obama wins Wyoming caucuses

newsoxy.com

Tags: news, wyoming

6 Responses to “Barack Obama Wins Wyoming Democratic Caucuses”

on 22 May 2008 at 6:12 pm Rudolph

That fact has been obvious for weeks; I don’t think anyone has denied it. In fact, candidates have come from behind this late in the game before. It just happened so long ago that it doesn’t even register on the ADD radar of mainstream media.I am an Obama supporter. I think he’s super duper. I am also aware that the popular vote is quite close, and that Hillary has more super delegates. I think they are both worthy candidates, and the country seems to agree. There are valid reasons for and against both of them: Hillary is “vetted,” but she also has partisan baggage; Obama is “untested” on the international stage, but he doesn’t have partisan baggage or Beltway promises to keep.Forget about NAFTA, it’s a wedge issue. Forget about Rezko, and forget about Clinton’s tax returns. What matters at the end of the day is which candidate you find trustworthy, and voting your conscience. I’d rather you voted for the “wrong” person for the right reasons — based on research. Go to their websites, email questions to their people, ask their supporters and their detractors.I know the economy is in the shitter and we all have lots of crap on our minds these days, and bills to pay, and families to feed. I also believe this is the most important election in decades, and that informed voting will produce a popular decision that will create a ripple effect for decades to come. And not only here, but throughout the world.
on 22 May 2008 at 7:02 pm Shelton

I’ll be getting disenfranchised, for sure, but don’t worry about me going to the other side. I’ll simply stop giving a shit about politics. Drastic, but self-preservation trumps all, you know how it goes.
on 22 May 2008 at 7:53 pm Mirabelle

Supporting Suharto in Indonesia was an inherited policy.Death squads have been rampaging through Colombia for close to 40 years.Sanctions and bombings of Iraq were more or less constant from 1991 on.Massive military support for Israel was another inherited policy.In short, the world was ugly and messy and we were swinging our imperial dick fast and hard throughout the 90s, though not as blatantly as since October 2001.
on 22 May 2008 at 8:43 pm Kassandra

You can’t say that because Obama didn’t win a state in the Democratic primary that he wouldn’t win it, as the Democratic candidate, against a Republican, in the general election. Please use your head or stop posting.All of those states that Obama lost to Clinton, tell me how many total votes he receieved, and please tell me how many McCain got. Go ahead. Do it.
on 22 May 2008 at 9:34 pm Leigh

I’ll try to summarize it briefly.A caucus takes much more commitment of your time. They are usually hours long, whereas a primary vote is over with fairly quickly (line length permitting).They say that he does better in caucuses because his supporters are more energized, and her supporters are typically single parents, or people who work two jobs and can’t get off work to go and caucus.Also, I think both of them are binding, not sure what you are talking about there.

on 22 May 2008 at 6:12 pm Rudolph

That fact has been obvious for weeks; I don’t think anyone has denied it. In fact, candidates have come from behind this late in the game before. It just happened so long ago that it doesn’t even register on the ADD radar of mainstream media.I am an Obama supporter. I think he’s super duper. I am also aware that the popular vote is quite close, and that Hillary has more super delegates. I think they are both worthy candidates, and the country seems to agree. There are valid reasons for and against both of them: Hillary is “vetted,” but she also has partisan baggage; Obama is “untested” on the international stage, but he doesn’t have partisan baggage or Beltway promises to keep.Forget about NAFTA, it’s a wedge issue. Forget about Rezko, and forget about Clinton’s tax returns. What matters at the end of the day is which candidate you find trustworthy, and voting your conscience. I’d rather you voted for the “wrong” person for the right reasons — based on research. Go to their websites, email questions to their people, ask their supporters and their detractors.I know the economy is in the shitter and we all have lots of crap on our minds these days, and bills to pay, and families to feed. I also believe this is the most important election in decades, and that informed voting will produce a popular decision that will create a ripple effect for decades to come. And not only here, but throughout the world.

on 22 May 2008 at 7:02 pm Shelton

I’ll be getting disenfranchised, for sure, but don’t worry about me going to the other side. I’ll simply stop giving a shit about politics. Drastic, but self-preservation trumps all, you know how it goes.

on 22 May 2008 at 7:53 pm Mirabelle

Supporting Suharto in Indonesia was an inherited policy.Death squads have been rampaging through Colombia for close to 40 years.Sanctions and bombings of Iraq were more or less constant from 1991 on.Massive military support for Israel was another inherited policy.In short, the world was ugly and messy and we were swinging our imperial dick fast and hard throughout the 90s, though not as blatantly as since October 2001.

on 22 May 2008 at 8:43 pm Kassandra

You can’t say that because Obama didn’t win a state in the Democratic primary that he wouldn’t win it, as the Democratic candidate, against a Republican, in the general election. Please use your head or stop posting.All of those states that Obama lost to Clinton, tell me how many total votes he receieved, and please tell me how many McCain got. Go ahead. Do it.

on 22 May 2008 at 9:34 pm Leigh

I’ll try to summarize it briefly.A caucus takes much more commitment of your time. They are usually hours long, whereas a primary vote is over with fairly quickly (line length permitting).They say that he does better in caucuses because his supporters are more energized, and her supporters are typically single parents, or people who work two jobs and can’t get off work to go and caucus.Also, I think both of them are binding, not sure what you are talking about there.

kimblr.com