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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (370327)	2/8/2008 1:25:23 AM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1573201

>THis race will not be decided by money, IMO. That I agree with. Both Dems will have gobs of money. If Hillary can win $6.5 mil on the same two days Obama can win $7.5... >IIRC, Kerry was able to use Teresa's money without a problem (not subject to limits). So Hillary should be able to do the same. Yeah, but the Clintons aren't worth anything like that. Eight figures gets you nowhere in this game. -Z

To: Joe NYC who wrote (370327)	2/8/2008 1:28:29 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573201

No. I am saying that if her money woes are what they claim and with her deteriorating numbers in the polls, he had the opportunity to get her out of the race completely. That opp. was lost because of CA. Somehow, I don's see Clintons sacrificing their personal interest for the good of the party. They are in it until the bitter end. While Obama will have his chances in the future, 2008 is the one and only chance for Hillary. She will never get another chance again. So she must win. I don't disagree but I am suggesting that there were some dark days in January assuming their money concerns were real. I think had Hillary got beaten in CA, she might have had to rethink if she wanted to keep spending her own $$$ to keep going......much like Romney. But you're probably right......she probably wouldn't have bagged it even with all the negatives. As far as money, I thik the intention is to deny Obama the underdog status, and claim it for Hillary. I don't think money will be a problem. Clintons can spend all they accumulated, raise, borrow. Enough to keep up with Obama in the money race. It sure looks that way. Clintons were (or claimed to be) broke when they were leaving the White House an now they are milionaires. Bill can milk the ex-president status to always make enough monoey for both to live comfortably. If Hillary deploys Bill as a fundraiser, he alone can keep the campaign financed. And they have plenty of cronies who can lend them money. THis race will not be decided by money, IMO. No question.....they have the ability to raise money....they just haven't been able to do as well as Obama. Miraculously? that seems to be changing.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (370327)	2/8/2008 11:46:24 AM
From: brushwud	Respond to of 1573201

While Obama will have his chances in the future, 2008 is the one and only chance for Hillary. She will never get another chance again. So she must win. I completely disagree. Mrs. Obama said, "We're not doing this [campaigning for President] again." So this is Obama's only chance. But the Clintons could come back in 2012. They didn't try it in 2004 because they expected Bush to win, but if Pres. McCain is unpopular or chooses to retire, a Democrat could win in 2012. Clintons were (or claimed to be) broke when they were leaving the White House an now they are millionaires. I figure they went from zero in 1992 to $30M a few years after leaving the White House. If they get another couple of terms, they'll probably wind up billionaires. So putting up $20M or so of their own money in the current campaign is like a venture capital investment. They'll have more money than Gore, Kerry, Edwards, or Kennedy!

To: Joe NYC who wrote (370327)	2/21/2008 8:07:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573201

THE BOND MESS: ELIOT'S BAD FIX "... State and local leaders across the country (and investors in their muni bonds) complain that they're being punished for something that's not their fault. Yes, there's always a risk to issuing bonds whose interest rates "reset" frequently - but one can hardly blame municipalities for not foreseeing this strange situation. Spitzer and his insurance regulator, Eric Dinallo, think they have a solution. If big banks don't immediately pump billions into the bond insurers to make the market happy (or if the insurers don't capitulate to billionaire Warren Buffett's offer to simply buy out their muni-bond insurance business at a dear price), Spitzer and Dinallo say, they'll use their regulatory powers to let the insurers break up - that is, split their business in two, with "good" muni bonds in one company and "bad" mortgage bonds in the other. But there are a few problems with that. First, the state has a conflict of interest. It's a regulator, but also stands to lose money as an issuer of insured muni bonds. New York and its authorities have nearly a fifth of their outstanding debt in about $4 billion of "insured" bonds whose interest rates reset frequently - all of which could face millions in higher rates in even short-term turmoil. So splitting the bond insurers into "good" and "bad" firms may make investors wonder if the state is thinking of itself, rather than thinking of all insurance clients as a regulator should. And some investors will likely sue. After all, it's unlikely that the "bad" insurance company would survive after a split. That is, the firm that gets the mortgage bonds won't be able to pay out on its claims. People and institutions that bought subprime mortgages only because they, like muni bonds, came guaranteed with a AAA rating, will lose. This is why Spitzer thinks he can strong-arm banks into putting up a few billion: If they don't, they stand to lose more on their own insured bonds if an insurer goes under. But Spitzer can't make good his threat without a fight. And continued uncertainty (from lawsuits) means continued turmoil for muni bonds. In fact, insurers who made such terrible judgments that they're in danger of losing their best asset - their AAA rating - should fail. Regulators saving such companies now will cause even bigger problems down the road: Future insurers will figure they can count on a get-out-of-jail-free card if they run into trouble - and so would be more likely to take foolish risks. Instead of saving the insurers, the state should prepare for failures... nypost.com Eliot Spitzer is doing what he does best--threatening regulatory interventions of dubious legality, in order to strongarm banks into donating money to his pet causes. In this case, that cause is the municipal bond authorities of New York State. Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute points out the problem with this:... meganmcardle.theatlantic.com