<p>“Wyoming was never in play. It was Obamas from the start”</p>
<p>Polls on Friday were calling Wyoming a tie.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton campaigned there on Friday and so did Hillary. It must have meant something to them. If they won, it certainly would have been in play. The momentum would be rolling, rolling,rolling…</p>
<p>I guess Obama is the Comeback kid. Clintons are still the Underdogs and the Attack Dogs. ;)</p>
<p>good steroid dose?</p>
<p>^ Typical Clintonite response. Don’t address the issues. (Either finances or Wyoming in the case of this thread). Try to change the topic at hand by interjecting totally ridiculous nonsense and avoiding any meaningful exchange. Try to attack anyone that doesn’t agree with you.</p>
<p>Hey simba, What flavor Kool Aid were they serving tonight at the Clinton camp? 
</p>
<p>orange-tangerine with a twist of lime</p>
<p>The reason that tax returns are important to the voter is that it’s the only way to know where the candidate gets their income. That matters because money buys influence, and it’s good to know who the candidate might be beholden to, much the way it’s important to know where campaign funding comes from.</p>
<p>The Clintons have said their income is “somewhere between 10 and 50 million” last year. Most of that was because of Bill’s business dealings, much from foreign business people and governments. Bill is cutting ties with some of these sources now, so that when Hilary is the nominee it won’t raise red flags.</p>
<p>This is the type of thing that might give them trouble against McCain in the general, [Bill</a> Clinton Severs Burkle Business Ties | The Trail | washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/22/bill_clinton_severs_burkle_bus.html]Bill”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/22/bill_clinton_severs_burkle_bus.html)</p>
<p>which is why I think she owes the dems transparency now. There is no law that says she must, but it is standard practice in the general election- has been since about 1984.</p>
<p>anti-steroid dose:</p>
<p>Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role</p>
<p>To others, though, the mismatch between Mr. Obamas outside profile and his inside accomplishments wore thin. While some senators spent hours in closed-door meetings over immigration reform in early 2007, he dropped in only occasionally, prompting complaints that he was something of a dilettante.</p>
<p>He joined a bipartisan group, which included Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Kennedy, that agreed to stick to a final compromise bill even though it was sure to face challenges from interest groups on both sides. Yet when the measure reached the floor, Mr. Obama distanced himself from the compromise, advocating changes sought by labor groups. The bill collapsed.</p>
<p>To some in the bipartisan coalition, Mr. Obamas move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand.</p>
<p>He folded like a cheap suit, said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a close ally of Mr. McCain. What it showed me is you are not an agent of change. Because to really change things in this place you have to get beat up now and then. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1205028020-5cpGeqd%20HWtEvy6XNoibkw[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1205028020-5cpGeqd%20HWtEvy6XNoibkw</a></p>
<p>Pardon me if I don’t get too upset that Graham doesn’t like Obama. This article is kind of a gossipy one, full of writer’s bias. It’s also a bit odd to post it on a thread about Clinton’s tax returns, but hey, it’s a free country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you have a link for those polls where Wyoming was a tie?</p>
<p>In response to #26</p>
<p>"Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton’s ‘silly’ Irish peace claims</p>
<p>By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008
Page 1 of 2</p>
<p>“Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols108.xml[/url]”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols108.xml</a>
********************
With a lifetime of experience, wonder why Hillary didn’t know that Monica was answering the phone at 3 a.m.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Responding for 1sokkermom (who must be doing something more fun than hanging out on her computer tonight 
)</p>
<p>[ABC</a> News: Obama Wins Unusually Hard-Fought Wyoming Causes](<a href=“Obama Wins Unusually Hard-Fought Wyoming Causes - ABC News”>Obama Wins Unusually Hard-Fought Wyoming Causes - ABC News)</p>
<p>PLEASE----that Dubai thing is old news. The only ones even talking about it anymore are the right wing bloggers and Dick Morris. Don’t forget It was “W” that supported that deal as well. In fact, I think Hillary actually came out agianst it back in 2006.</p>
<p>I bet half the people on this list hold stock in Halliburton - a DUBAI company - through their pension fund. Now that H. is based in Dubai, they can hire American workers to work abroad on taxpayer-financed projects, but don’t have to pay into their Social Security, Medicare, or employment-based income taxes.</p>
<p>Good deal!</p>
<p>KKR now bases its workforce out of the Cayman Islands.</p>
<p>re: Wyoming</p>
<p>“A Newsweek poll released Friday found the rival candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in a statistical dead heat, with 45 percent of registered Democrats and Democratic leanings favoring Obama, and 44 percent favoring Clinton.”</p>
<p>That poll on Friday, the day before the caucus, may have said that it was a virtual tie but that certainly hasn’t been what was reported in the week to ten days leading up to today. It was clear in most news reports, and even admitted by the Clinton campaign, that Obama had the advantage and would likely win in Wyoming. No one said it wasn’t a hard fought campaign there but Obama has been considered the favorite there for quite some time. Maybe those registered Democrats were having a change of heart about voting for him if it, indeed, was a dead heat yesterday.</p>
<p>Right, but as in Texas, in the last few days before the caucus, it was thought that Clinton had caught up. </p>
<p>Not that the expectations matter than much - 61%-38% is pretty convincing.</p>
<p>Clintons base just isn’t built for caucuses…</p>
<p>“61%-38% is pretty convincing”</p>
<p>No but if you look at numbers, total number of people voting in caucuses is less than 3-4 precincts in TX. Caucuses are a sham.</p>
<p>Yes, making the parties pay for their events, rather than the state = sham. And what makes it acceptable to minimize half the states in this nation? Iowa has been important and valued by everyone, until Clinton lost. And on and on.</p>
<p>Caucuses are actual democracy - You go and speak out for you opinion. It follows in the heritage of America, Rome, and Greece.</p>
<p>And Wyoming has less people than Texas? WOW. I didn’t know that. 500,000 people vs. 24 million, we know. But nonetheless they are American citizens and get 2 senators.</p>
<p>“Caucuses are actual democracy”</p>
<p>Not really. People are concerned by e-voting that their votes might be manipulated. </p>
<p>It is very easy to do in caucuses. The way I saw in my precinct, if caucus chair or secretary wanted to fudge the numbers they could very easily do it.</p>
<p>It’s funny how the total number of voters in Wyoming is trivialized by some posters, yet in some states (NH), Clinton claimed a major comeback victory when the vote differential was about the same. 
Go figure.</p>
<p>Wow, they really start serving the Clinton Kool Aid earlier and earlier each day. Maybe they served it with a bit of OJ and champagne this morning to celebrate daylight savings? :D</p>
<p>Also, Many others have argued that is much easier to fudge numbers with voting machines. :o</p>
<p>“No but if you look at numbers, total number of people voting in caucuses is less than 3-4 precincts in TX. Caucuses are a sham.”</p>
<p>Such a sham that Obama won MORE delegates over Clinton in Wyoming than Clinton did over Obama in Texas.</p>