Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NAG1 who wrote (63961)	5/7/2008 7:49:52 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542829

Can you cite some of the negative ads Obama was running? There is a big difference between policy criticisms (gas tax, healthcare, NAFTA) and saying someone is unprepared to be president. I haven't seen where Obama has been personally negative except to paint Hillary as part of old politics and the baggage that goes with it.

To: NAG1 who wrote (63961)	5/7/2008 8:00:38 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 542829

Neal, that quote about "Wright didn't happen" is an observation I offered early in the evening. I'm now very uncertain as to why Obama won. It's clear the race is over, no matter what the Clinton campaign does. But just why he won NC and basically broke even in Indiana is right now a mystery. As I said in later posts, I'm going to have to wait to see the analysis.

To: NAG1 who wrote (63961)	5/7/2008 8:14:52 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542829

<<<It may be that it did happen but Obama may have been able to campaign/spend his way out of the trouble. From some of the reports I was reading, he really outspent Clinton and was very negative in his campaigning. Not that there is anything wrong with that. >>> The race is a virtual tie. Clinton won all the important states. She won Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, California, Florida, and Michigan. These are the states that democrats have to win. Clinton is a much better candidate. Where she went wrong was with sticking with Mak Penn as Chief Strategist for too long. David Axelrod is the margin of victory for Barack. It was remarkable that she won Indiana. Much of Indiana is basically a suburb of Chicago. Losing Indiana would be pretty much like Clinton losing New Jersey. Barack did well in Indiana by pouring money into negative adds. There is absolutely nthing wrong with that. That is what he will have to be doing in the general elections. But then he will have to get his message changed and go back to politics and actually operating in the real world. So far he has never had to deal with the real world. He has had a pass. But going forward, that is not going to happen.