THE COWBOY STATE CAUCUSES SATURDAY
Obama and Clinton Woo Wyoming
Twelve delegates up for grabsBy Brodie Farquhar, 3-07-08
 |
|
 | |
| Presidential candidate Barack Obama tips a cowboy hat given to him by a volunteer after a rally in Austin, TX, on Feb. 23, 2007. Photo by Matthew C. Wright. | |
|
Normally, members of the Wyoming Democratic Party can grimly joke about holding party meetings in phone booths. Here, in the reddest of fire-engine-red Republican states, Democrats are still the minority party by a 2.3:1 ratio. But today, party officials and members are being courted by the Hillary Clinton and the Barack Obama campaigns, prior to Wyoming’s Democratic caucuses on Saturday.
Although Wyoming has only 12 national delegates up for grabs, those dozen delegates are hyper-critical to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns that are running neck and neck for the party’s nomination.
Large crowds greeted former President Bill Clinton on Thursday as he campaigned in Rock Springs, Laramie and Riverton for his wife Hillary. And a sizeable crowd of 200 was on hand to greet Chelsea Clinton at Casper College.
Today, Obama will speak in Casper at 2:00 p.m. in the Casper Recreation Center gym and in Laramie at 7:15 p.m. in the 15,000-seat Arena-Auditorium on the University of Wyoming campus. Clinton will speak in Cheyenne at 2:30 p.m. at the Laramie County Community College and in Casper at 6:30 p.m. Casper College Auxiliary Gym.
So who’s got the edge?
A week ago, even a couple days ago, the answer would have been Barack Obama, who has generally done better than Clinton in caucus contests. The Obama troops arrived in Wyoming a week earlier than the Clinton campaign, with double the number of offices (4:2) and triple the number of campaign staff (12:4).
This week and last, Democratic households around the state have received a stream of glossy, four-color, Wyoming-centric Obama campaign flyers and brochures, addressing Wyoming issues like the need for clean coal research and good-paying jobs so Wyoming’s young people can stay and work and raise families in Wyoming.
Wyoming television stations have been carrying Obama campaign ads, while listeners to Rush Limbaugh and Fox radio personalities (conservative talk radio is BIG in Wyoming) have had the jarring experience of hearing radio spots for Obama.
Yet in the past couple days, my email inbox has been flooded with Clinton campaign press releases, more than double or triple the pace of Obama emails. Clinton radio ads have also appeared, and all this new activity comes hard on the heels of Clinton wins on Tuesday, winning contests in Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas.
The Clinton campaign sent Bill and Chelsea into the state a day before Hillary, and Bill was making all the right references to Wyoming as an energy state and the importance of new technologies like carbon sequestration for coal-fired power plants. In Riverton, Bill Clinton spoke of Hillary’s energy plan as eliminating tax breaks for the oil industry and plowing $50 million into new energy technologies, as well as boosting alternative energy sources such as wind.
Clearly, the Clinton campaign waited until the Tuesday victories were in to crank up the campaign for Wyoming. But once that decision was made, the Clintons have gone after the Cowboy State with everything they’ve got, on the eve of the Saturday caucuses.
Still, the Obama campaign machine has been working Wyoming longer and possibly smarter, with Teton Range images on brochures and messages targeted toward Wyoming concerns. The Hillary campaign has been more generic in nature, although it has recruited Democratic party stalwarts like former Governor Mike Sullivan and former Secretary of State Kathy Karpan in support of Hillary.
That helps, but it doesn’t quite remove the sting of Wyoming Democratic Party Chairman John Millen publicly saying that Hillary Clinton would attract more Republican opposition than Barack Obama.
No polls have been conducted recently in Wyoming, so there’s no accurate way to gauge how Clinton and Obama will do tomorrow in the 23 county caucuses.
Stay tuned and we’ll have more reports today from campaign events in Casper.
Brodie Farquhar is managing editor of WyoFile.com, a politics and public policy web site and a long-time freelance correspondent to state and regional publications.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Her despicable campaign advisor Mark Penn called people who live in both small population states and "red states" "insignificant".
Her campaign has also said that caucuses were for losers.
Wyoming is a small population, red, caucus state.
She called Wyomingites losers, so I hope my friends and family there remember that tomorrow.
Low-level thinkers tend to populate mainly very red states...
The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel?
Obama's Connection With an Accused Political Fixer Raises Questions
By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Jan. 10, 2008—
In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.
The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."
On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.
Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."
This week, a federal judge in Chicago ordered the Rezko trial to begin Feb. 25.
Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."
Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.
Didn't get to watch the Obama-Clinton debate tonight, so I'm trying to catch up on how each did by reading the various blogs. I was startled to see this on the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who has been one of the most enthusiastic Obama boosters on the web:
10.09 pm. Farrakhan. Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced him is not the same as simply saying, "I denounce him"? A weak response - reminiscent of Dukakis. (By the way, why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans that Farrakhan is a fascist hate-monger? It's a question for all Americans.) Obama's Farrakhan response suggests to me he is reluctant to attack a black demagogue. Maybe he wants to avoid a racial melee. But he has one. He needs to get real on this. Weak, weak, weak. Clinton sees an opening and pounces. She wins this round. He is forced to adjust. His worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I'm astounded he couldn't be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan's support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me.
I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he'd rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.
Ye who watched this debate moment: Was it really as bad as Andrew says? Maybe Obama doesn't think Farrakhan is all that objectionable. Or maybe he can't understand why this has come up again, given that he criticized Farrakhan not long ago. Or maybe it's more likely that he understands that to denounce Farrakhan is to come close to denouncing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his (Obama's) spiritual mentor, who just loves Louie the Bean Pie Man. Here's the video tribute Obama's church put together when it gave Louie a Lifetime Achievement Award:
Top Obama Foreign Policy Advisor Says He's Not Ready To Answer The Phone At 3AM
3/5/2008 7:29:47 PM
Susan Rice, Sen. Obama's top foreign policy advisor, today acknowledged that Sen. Obama is not ready to answer the phone at 3AM as President. Watch the video:
Hillary is ready to take the 3AM phone call and is ready to be commander-in-chief on day one. That's why nearly 30 general and flag officers have endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Nation’s next President.
Transcript:
RICE: "Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They're both not ready to have that 3AM phone call.
March 7, 2008
Obama's Week in Review
Posted by BLAKE DVORAK | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
It's been one to remember. Here's a run-down:
* Samantha Power. The Bad: It does a campaign based on a new style of inclusive politics no good to have one of its advisers call the opponent a "monster." The Good: What is Power's gaffe compared to Howard Wolfson's comparison of Obama to Ken Starr?
* Susan Rice. The Bad: You can imagine the reaction in Obama HQ while watching one of its foreign-policy advisers admit that neither candidate was "ready to have that 3 am phone call."
* March 4. Losing is bad enough. But almost all talk of Obamamentum ended when the candidate couldn't pick off Clinton's core voting blocs, as he had done in Wisconsin, which is looking more and more like the exception to the rule. The Good: Wyoming and Mississippi. Knowing it will likely pick up two consecutive states is the campaign's silver lining to March 4.
* Rezko trial. The campaign saw this one coming, but the response from the candidate only made matters worse. Peppered by the media at a Monday press conference Obama walked out after taking just eight questions. Bad move. From the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet to the Post's Dana Milbank, the wrath of the reporters was unleashed. (Side note: The Sun-Times' Steve Huntley has a good column on this today here.) The Good: There is no evidence (yet) that Obama is hiding anything about his relationship to Rezko that he hasn't already fessed-up to (i.e., the sweetheart housing deal). And with the trial almost guaranteeing that something is bound to come out, one would think the Obama campaign would want to control the story by admitting it first. Hasn't happened, which might mean there's no there there.
* NAFTA-gate. The Bad: The original CTV clip sped around the Web as fast as those celebrity paeans to Obama. But again it was the ham-handed response from the campaign -- first denials, then grudging acceptance -- which constituted the first real blunder by the Obama campaign. The Good: With Ohio behind him and reports that Clinton's people were also sending signals to the Canadians, NAFTA-gate might not have the legs to continue.
* It began a week ago today with the Clinton campaign's release of the "3 am" ad. It's always tough to gauge the effectiveness of any particular ad, and late deciders in the this campaign have consistently moved toward Clinton. But on the margins in Texas at least, where the fight was neck-and-neck, the ad might have made the difference. The Good: Clinton tax returns. The Obama campaign immediately made an issue of them the day after Texas and Ohio. Some suggest this is ruining the campaign's "purity." Please. Whatever purity existed was lost the minute the votes started getting counted and anyone who thinks that Obama can win this riding the white stallion is drinking some serious Kool-Aid.
It's not a wash. Despite holding on to his delegate lead, Obama has had his worst week to date. It'll be a measure of the candidate's strength and resolve how he deals with the setbacks.
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
As to CLinton, her supporters on trial at the same time as this Rezko guy, not that Obama or Clinton did anything wrong there. And Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton. Holding White House tea-parties is not experience, and if it is, does that mean we'll be seeing Laura Bush 2012?
It has been known for nearly a couple of centuries now they were not 100% safe; but that the child who was not vaccinated was a danger to the community and to himself.
As a father I suffered through that lack of surety with three children; but responsibly vaccinated all three of my children.
Its a tough choice; but one which must--for the sake of the community and your children--be made by every generation until a better preventive measure has been invented...
"'Let me be very clear that the government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism,' Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Thursday. 'That is a complete mischaracterization of the findings of the case and a complete mischaracterization of any of the science that we have at our disposal today.'"
and
"Five major studies have found no link, and since thimerosal’s removal from all routinely administered childhood vaccines in 2001, there has been no apparent effect on autism rates.
Many of those who believe in an autism-vaccine link dismiss all this evidence, and Hannah’s case fuels their cause."
It again indicates how Republicans hate science and "dismiss" evidence.
I find the notion that you would sentence millions of people to illness and death just to push your crackpot AM radio notions.
The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate of any first world country, and even the Cuba's of the world do a better job of keeping kids healthy. If Hannah was my kid I might fight for a fundamental change to our broken health care system for starters.
Again you seem willing to sentence the vast majority to suffering to appease the few. Actually that makes sense, now that I think about it: vaccination is a government health mandate; therefore by winger definition, it is Communism. I'm surprised that the winger war on commie vaccines took so long.
And maybe your radical Christianist allies will start calling medicine "witchcraft" again like they did in the 1600's and we can get rid of health care all together and really push a conservative agenda.
If you can't stand up to someone pointing out how Republican anti-government policy is to kill kids (i.e. vaccination is a universal mandate, and Republicans oppose such things and call them Communism) how are you possibly going to stand up to al Qaeda (when they parachute into the middle of America and make us wear burkhas like Republicans like to claim is going to happen)?
Also I have never seen some of these names until the politicians announced they were coming to town. The caucuses are over so now you can go away again. P.S. take you damn commercials with you