Buffett hopes for a Clinton White House in 2016
November 14th, 2012
04:11 PM ET
1 year ago

Buffett hopes for a Clinton White House in 2016

(CNN) – Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said he hopes Hillary Clinton will become the first female president of the United States in 2016.

"I don't see how you could have anybody better qualified," Buffett told CNN's Poppy Harlow in an exclusive interview Wednesday about the current Secretary of State and 2008 White House hopeful.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

"I like what she believes in," said Buffett. "I think she's extraordinarily able and energetic for that matter in pushing those beliefs."

Buffett not worried about fiscal cliff

Buffett, a Democrat and the namesake for the bill known as the "Buffett Rule" that would require people earning $1 million a year or more to pay at least 30% in taxes, supported both President Barack Obama and Clinton as presidential candidates in four years ago. He held fund-raisers and donated money to each of the candidates' campaigns.

The bill, which failed to pass the Senate in April, was intended to prevent the wealthy from paying a lower actual tax rate than most middle class workers, a proposal Buffett, Obama and a number of Democrats have endorsed.

Clinton is finishing her term in the Obama administration and has said she will not run for the president in the next election insisting she is finished with politics for good.

–CNN's Dana Davidsen contributed to this report.


Filed under: 2012 • Warren Buffett
soundoff (244 Responses)
  1. Southerner01

    Sure, how about the Hillary/Nancy Pelosi ticket. Their campaign slogan could be "Shrieky Old Crones for President/VP". Honestly, with as bad as Clinton looks now, do you really think she'll have a chance in 2016?

    I don't know who the Democratic nominee will be in 2016, but what I am fairly certain of is that it will not be Clinton, Biden, Pelosi or Reid.

    November 15, 2012 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  2. Cj

    The only thing Ms. Clinton as ever said that I could support was her comment that she would never run for office again.

    November 15, 2012 10:25 am at 10:25 am |
  3. Kent

    Should be an easy win with the baboons the GOP comes up with. (I voted for Reagen twice )

    November 15, 2012 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  4. JC in Western US

    I don't understand why people keep acting like she doesn't mean it when she says she is not going to run in 2016. She's old. Her daughter is married and living her own life. Her husband is retired but active. Why would she want to take on a 24/7 job that is physically exhausting at this point in her life? I guess maybe women look at things differently when we get to her age. I think women tend to see that life is not a dress rehearsal and you don't know what tomorrow will bring. You need at some point to stop thinking about another rung on a career ladder, and start thinking about enjoying the life you've worked to achieve while you still can.

    November 15, 2012 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  5. rad666

    2016? How come he did not promote her in 2008?

    November 15, 2012 10:41 am at 10:41 am |
  6. Maurice Tyndale

    I will go one step further; if possible for Bill, now about a Hillary and Bill ticket. That would sink the GOP for another 8 years.I have been alluding to a Pres Obama/ Hillary ticket in 2012, as a perfect set-up for Hillary in 2016.

    She will run.

    November 15, 2012 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  7. Francis

    A Clinton or Biden White House would play well with the American people.

    November 15, 2012 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  8. Nick

    It is a pretty sad statement on this country when we think that only two familes, Bush and Clinton, can hold the highest office over most of the last 30 years. I would've taken Clinton over Obama any day, but by 2016 she'll be in her mid-70s; doubtful she could handle the stress.

    I think Biden and Pelosi would make a great toothpaste commercial since they are constantly out there with their big, maniacal grins. They are the poster-children for what politicians shouldn't be.

    November 15, 2012 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  9. JW

    Great! The final nail in the coffin of the American dream!
    Just wait until Obama gets done this term. If there is anything left of this country maybe people will come to their senses and vote for someone that doesn't want to distribute wealth.

    November 15, 2012 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  10. Francis

    A Clinton or Biden white house will work.

    November 15, 2012 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  11. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    Ms. Clinton would be insane to not run for office in 2016. I'd be surprise if she doesn't win all 50 states! I'd also be surprise if anyone on the GOP side decides to run against her.

    Hillary Clinton 2016 by a LANDSLIDE!

    November 15, 2012 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  12. Wilson

    @Aww u lost

    @ Wilson.....what you and some others don't get is simple..America not is ...has changed. minorities blacks, asians, and latinos.....bonded together become the majority! They voted for the president that represents them...the GOP was not smart not only not appealing to the so called minorities...they insulted women...who make up 2/3s of the population.....LOL How smart is that? people voted for their own interest...and unless you're a millionair..if you voted for Romney you are a complete and utter idiot.
    -----------------------------------------
    Oh, we get it. Romney offered a "hand up" an opportunity for the minorities to make thier lives better, instead of the "hand outs" Obama offered. My statement stands, they voted socialist against their own self interest, they won't get the chance to make their lives better now. Socialism, as it is really done, not as defined, keeps all power and wealth in the hands of the few "elite," i.e. the Buffet's, Obama's, Clinton's, Kerry's, including the "hollywood elite," of the world. Some, "Obama gave me my phone!" are just as happy to simply exist on the government handout.

    November 15, 2012 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  13. maryann tina

    We made a mistake first time around. Hillary is the one who should have been nominated. Would love to see her do a run but she may have missed her time. Very qualified lady..lets hope she will reconsider!!

    November 15, 2012 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  14. Eric M

    Actually I think Condoleezza Rice is more qualified. I was actually hopeful that she would have run in 2012 against Obama rather than the sorry candidate selection that we got.

    November 15, 2012 11:02 am at 11:02 am |
  15. jeff

    You should have pushed her over Obama in 08. and have Obama in 16.
    You all got it backwards

    November 15, 2012 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  16. The Real Tom Paine

    Wilson

    @Aww u lost

    @ Wilson.....what you and some others don't get is simple..America not is ...has changed. minorities blacks, asians, and latinos.....bonded together become the majority! They voted for the president that represents them...the GOP was not smart not only not appealing to the so called minorities...they insulted women...who make up 2/3s of the population.....LOL How smart is that? people voted for their own interest...and unless you're a millionair..if you voted for Romney you are a complete and utter idiot.
    -------------–
    Oh, we get it. Romney offered a "hand up" an opportunity for the minorities to make thier lives better, instead of the "hand outs" Obama offered. My statement stands, they voted socialist against their own self interest, they won't get the chance to make their lives better now. Socialism, as it is really done, not as defined, keeps all power and wealth in the hands of the few "elite," i.e. the Buffet's, Obama's, Clinton's, Kerry's, including the "hollywood elite," of the world. Some, "Obama gave me my phone!" are just as happy to simply exist on the government handout.
    ********************************************************
    And the GOP with the rich screaming " Give me my tax cut" were supposed to craft a strategy where others would join them? What was that strategy, exactly? Answer, there was no strategy. If anything, the last 3 decades have seen the middle class stagnate while the Romneys of this world widened the gap between themselves and the middle class. It was Trickle Up socialism, with the money and perks going to the Adelsons of this world courtesy of conservative government policy. People don't sympathize with the wealthy claiming they are victims, unless they drink the rightie Kool-aide courtesy of the Murdoch Lies and Spin machine ( Millie Dowler, anyone?).

    November 15, 2012 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  17. Tim Rigney

    I'm a Democrat but I don't think I could ever vote for her. Not after the comment about being "under fire" in Afganistan when it turned out to be 100% untrue. Next candidate, please. I'd vote Republican first.
    They're off and running, folks. ;)

    November 15, 2012 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  18. Rick McDaniel

    That would be, literally, like going from the frying pan, into the fire.

    I would oppose Hillary, just as much as Obama, if not MORE SO!

    November 15, 2012 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  19. ffortnightly

    "I don't see how you could have anybody better qualified,"

    A LOT of people felt the same way when she ran against Obama in the primaries way back when. Who knew the card would work on the Clintons?
    Grobbbbbbbbbbbbbb

    November 15, 2012 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  20. Blunttalk

    And you though only big money was behind the Republicans. Both parties amount to leagized mafia. Despite what any candidate says about 'hands across the aisle', they are all controlled by their respective national committee and the super PACS. They purpose is to keep their party in power. Our elected officals are in the 1%, all of them, don't kid yourself. Until the public wakes up and forces themto live by the same rules they impose on us, the American will continue to be out of reach for the vast majority. Check their health care against our new 'insurance reform', (certailnly did nothing to curb the rising health care cost, my health insurance doubled in out of pocket and I actually have less coverage), their pention plan, (which is a major reason for bad economy), and all the other 'little' perks they give themselves. Let all the billionares give only $100 million (a tenth of a billion) to higher education in the form of an scholarship endowments so that student loans would not be nessecary. If they are really interesting in 'investing' in America's future, I can not think of a better way.

    November 15, 2012 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  21. Wilson

    @The Real Tom Paine

    Wilson

    @Aww u lost

    @ Wilson.....what you and some others don't get is simple..America not is ...has changed. minorities blacks, asians, and latinos.....bonded together become the majority! They voted for the president that represents them...the GOP was not smart not only not appealing to the so called minorities...they insulted women...who make up 2/3s of the population.....LOL How smart is that? people voted for their own interest...and unless you're a millionair..if you voted for Romney you are a complete and utter idiot.
    -----–
    Oh, we get it. Romney offered a "hand up" an opportunity for the minorities to make thier lives better, instead of the "hand outs" Obama offered. My statement stands, they voted socialist against their own self interest, they won't get the chance to make their lives better now. Socialism, as it is really done, not as defined, keeps all power and wealth in the hands of the few "elite," i.e. the Buffet's, Obama's, Clinton's, Kerry's, including the "hollywood elite," of the world. Some, "Obama gave me my phone!" are just as happy to simply exist on the government handout.
    ********************************************************
    And the GOP with the rich screaming " Give me my tax cut" were supposed to craft a strategy where others would join them? What was that strategy, exactly? Answer, there was no strategy. If anything, the last 3 decades have seen the middle class stagnate while the Romneys of this world widened the gap between themselves and the middle class. It was Trickle Up socialism, with the money and perks going to the Adelsons of this world courtesy of conservative government policy. People don't sympathize with the wealthy claiming they are victims, unless they drink the rightie Kool-aide courtesy of the Murdoch Lies and Spin machine ( Millie Dowler, anyone?).
    -------------------------------------------
    My statement still stands as fact. I have read your posts on here and you always come back with some argument that does not really address the facts you are arguing against. No credibility.

    November 15, 2012 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  22. Jennifer

    I thought nothing could ever happen to make me vote Republican for president again. A Clinton nomination would likely cause that however.

    November 15, 2012 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  23. Larry in Houston

    Hey there, Mr. Warren – IF u really want this country have a Democrat as your next pres in 2016 – How about sending around 50 Million down here, about 6 months before the election ( in 2016 ) for a super duper ground game !
    I mean Houston went BLUE for the very first time, and so did some other big cities,( but only by a slim margin) but
    if we get a good ground game going about 6 months before the election, we may be able to pull it off . Right now, the republicans have suppressed the vote so bad, that the minorities are afraid to Vote their conscience.

    November 15, 2012 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  24. TX Guy

    I want some one who does not redistribute wealth. However my belief is that in this country, the wealth mostly is distibuted to the rich from the middle. Rich and greedy is worse than poor and lazy.

    November 15, 2012 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  25. Rachel

    To Nick, would obviously cant add, she was born 10/26/47, so if she ran in 2016 she would be 69, not in her mid 70's.

    November 15, 2012 11:38 am at 11:38 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10