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: Paul Smith who wrote (142317)	8/10/2010 5:02:39 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541429

I suspect Hillary remains ambitious and thinks that she can do more than she is currently doing. You should be careful about making up what people are thinking. Hillary has been asked about this and denied it quickly and emphatically. No trial balloons anywhere except pundit-talk. And Wilder is one of the last sources I would turn to for insight into top-level Dem politics today. He is day before yesterday's news. Seems much more likely that the 2008 ordeal was the last hurrah for someone well in her 60's now. The VP slot would be less interesting and influential than where she is now, and like I said before, people tend to burn out in the SecState job after a few years and crave quieter pastures. Look at the history of all the Sec States in the modern era. I think only Haig even tried to have a political career after being at State.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (142317)	8/10/2010 5:36:50 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541429

>>f you read the article, you may have noted that it was not Fund's idea - the idea of Hillary replacing Biden was from well respected Democratic Doug Wilder. As the article also notes, conservative Chris "tingle up his leg" Matthews decided to use part of his MSNBC show discussing the idea. << In his very first paragraph, Fund makes an unsupported statement about how Democrats are looking around for someone to blame for Obama's unpopularity, and brings up this kooky idea as if it's part of a huge groundswell of desperate Democratic thinking. The bias and lack of intellectual rigor is clear. Fund is simply foaming at the mouth again.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (142317)	8/10/2010 7:47:10 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541429

Oh, please, Paul, get serious. It was Fund's idea to write about it. And the WSJ's idea to make something out of nothing. And your idea to post it here. There's always speculation of this sort, particularly during the summer doldrums when newspaper publishers and writers and media folk need something, just anything to sell newspapers. Only a small spec of it is worth thinking about. And Fund, with his anger at the Dems, won't find that spec. He'll try to take a spec and turn it into a bit of dirt. His style. Heileman et al were on the Mathews show. Which I mentioned. Just trying to fill some space. Who knows. There may be something there. But Fund is simply trying to stir up trouble. And you're certainly helping.