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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (801675)	8/15/2014 2:33:25 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576002

>It is also my belief that, come 2016, Obama will be endorsing Elizabeth Warren to be his successor. I'd take that bet. Not just because I think Obama is ideologically closer to Hillary (though he has moved a bit to the left since 2011), and because I don't think Warren will run in 2016, but also because I don't recall sitting Presidents openly picking sides in primaries. I also was really disappointed in Obama not seriously backing Warren to be the permanent head of the CFPB. Having said that, I would LOVE it if you were right and would happily lose that bet and that if somehow Clinton were to lose in 2016 (scary thought!) Warren would run in 2020. Being that I don't think Obama will support anyone outright in the primary, the key sign will be for whose campaign Obama's top campaign staff end up working next year. >This is because I disagree with what you just said. Obama is closer ideologically to Warren than to the Clintons. Not only that, but the Obamas don't really like the Clintons. When I still kept my blog in 2008 in the lead up to the NY primary after John Edwards, who I was supporting at the time, dropped out, I spent two weeks publicly comparing Clinton and Obama issue-by-issue and couldn't find any daylight. The big bones of contention were Iraq and the health insurance mandate. He eventually gave in on the latter once he got elected (Hillary was right and he was wrong; the whole thing doesn't make sense without it) and I never really believed that Obama wouldn't have voted against the war had he been in the Senate in 2002. As far as the distaste between the Obamas and the Clintons, a lot of that has to do with the dirty campaigning between the two in 2008. But Bush's campaigning against McCain was worse, and McCain still supported him in 2004. >Plus I think people are tired of political dynasties. Another thing I'd like to believe is true -- I certainly am tired of dynasties -- but the American people do seem to like the Clintons and don't seem to vote against dynasties... I was just in suburban St. Louis and saw a ton of Ashcroft campaign signs. If anyone decent to the left of Hillary actually runs, I'm all in with them. I just don't see the candidate out there. Biden is pretty close to her ideologically, O'Malley's a doofus, Schweitzer is a bigot, Cuomo is to her right (though I don't think he'll run)... I think her nomination is as close to a political inevitablity as I've seen. Another thing about Warren vs. Clinton is that Clinton never seemed to like serving in the Senate and it was clear that she was out as soon as it was feasible. Warren seems to LOVE getting to grill people on the floor of the Senate. If I had to guess, she'll run for a high level Senate leadership position soon. I guess we'll see... -Z