While Bill Clinton has become more involved with the presidential race, Hilary Clinton seems to be avoiding it. Instead, Hilary has devoted some of her time to supporting fellow democrat Rick Noriega. Hilary Clinton appeared today at a fundraiser in in order to endorse the possible Senate Democrat from Texas. Whether Hilary Clinton will become more involved with the presidential race is yet to be seen but as of now seems doubtful.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Bill says Obama "has better answers"
On Wednesday October 1, Bill Clinton arrived in the swing state of Florida to speak at the University of Central Florida on behalf of presidential candidate Barack Obama. Although Clinton began by discussing the current financial issues in which the country is entrenched, he continued on to support Obama's presidential campaign. Clinton told thousands in the crowd that they should support Obama because he has "Better answers for the economy, for energy, for health care, for education." Clinton continued to praise Obama for his willingness to speak with himself and other economical advisers for ideas concerning the financial crisis. He even praised Obama's running mate Joe Biden for his understanding of economics and securities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think it is hypocritical that Bill Clinton should be saying that the Democratic nomonee Barak Obama has better answers for America. He showed himself to be more conservative economically than Bush has been! As for Hilary, I think she is trying to avoid being questioned about how she can be suppoting Obama when McCain has a female running mate. Although she may have well thought out and legitimate answers, headlines may still make her look bad.
It's funny how Bill seems to be the ultimate authority in regards to the Democrats. Ironically, as Eric pointed out, he has been awfully conservative, economically speaking
(in a few important regards).
Specifically, when Robert Rubin was the secretary of the treasury under Clinton, he scoffed a the notion of further regulating the finance industry, insisting that the market self regulates itself. Yes, you cannot be held completely accountable for the acts and words of your subordinates, but ya gotta take a lot of responsibility if you are the president of the united states.
In regards to econ, I strongly believe that these folks-- both McCain and Obama-- better get some bulletproof Secretary of the Treasury's...also, they need to be smart in enough to listen the guy and throw away his (her) words just because they do not side with the party's doctrine.
Also, it was said a few months ago that Carly Fiorina may be the next SofTres for McCain. This better not happen. She was the CEO of HP and nearly drove the company into the ground. Fundamentally speaking, she is a marketing/sales officer...not a operations officer, and not an economic heavyweight. And finally, yes...the next SofTres better be a good operations officer. Under Paulson's plan, the Treas department will have to hire thousands of accountants to isolate the toxic securities and execute their trades...so...the SofTres must be a good manager and economist.
Samir--Who would you pick for Secretary of the Treasury for each of these candidates?
As noted in the SNL video, Clinton wasn't running for the nomination just on the basis of being a woman. She was running because she is an actual politician and she thought that she could do a good job as president. For that reason I don't think anyone should ever question why she is not endorsing Sarah Palin. Hillary Clinton is a serious politician and she is not going to make a decision based solely on the gender of a candidate.
My criteria are two things:
1)He/she should be well versed with the financial industry. Being just a professor provides substantial theoretical backing, but it lacks the practicality that the new SofT need badly.
2)He/she must be a good operations manager. With the Paulson Plan, the Treas will expand substantially, or at the very least it will have to oversee AIG (which it owns about $85 billion of), Fannie+Freddy, as well as the purchasing/selling of toxic securities.
Just floating around a few names...If Paulson would stay for both, it would be great. He was a succesful CEO if G.Sachs and with the bailout plan being his baby, he knows what to do. More importantly, he has very relavent industry experience.
2)Phil Gramm is iffy. As former senator as well as lobbyist for UBS, he knows his stuff. However it's work questioning his Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. While it deregulated the industry and partially allowed for the crisis to happen, it also made the system more flexible, thus allowing a commercial bank like BofA to buy an investment bank like Merill.
3)John Thane: The guy didn't have much time to prove himself at Merill, but the guy had a stellar track record at the NYSE, and he is known for his heavily analytical decisions...a good thing. Also, he was smart enough to realize that Merill would have probably gone under, so he just sold the company...now that takes courage and intelligence.
4) Jamie Dimon: The guy has become the original JP so a great extent. Scooping in small dying banklings, he is the chief of arguably the best positioned (former investment) bank in the nation. He had the foresight to unload sub-prime before it blew up...he's no ordinary cookie.
On October 2, McCain said that he put Meg Whitman and Warren Buffet on his list... Buffet, maybe. Whitman no. Whitman is an Ebay person...completely mismatched. Buffet is the ultimate investor...but I gotta question his ability to take care of all of this. After all, the guy sticks with filing cabinets and doensnt use a computer for research.
Bottom line...Paulson would be great for both.
Thane is republican...Dimon would be great, but I don't know which side he'd go for (possibly both); Buffet..eh..maybe; Gramm, well I'd rather have Buffet than Gramm. Gramm is more a politician than a banker.
Post a Comment