Billionaire Warren Buffett probably won’t be making any contributions to Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign, if there is one that is.
In an interview on CNBC yesterday, Buffett chided the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts for coming across as angry in expressing her views about Wall Street. At the same time, the world’s third richest man admitted that he votes Democrat most of the time and, as such, agrees with Warren on social issues.
Last October, the Berkshire Hathaway CEO predicted that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in 2016, a position he evidently still holds.
During his TV appearance on the financial network, Buffett offered this assessment of Warren.
“She would do better if she was less angry and demonized less. I believe in ‘hate the sin and love the sinner,’ and I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category… I think it’s a mistake to get angry with people that disagree with you. In the end, we do have to work together. I think the whole nature of governing is, particularly when we’ve got divided government like we have now, is that you’ll end up with bills that each side doesn’t like but they like it better than doing nothing. That’s the way government has to function. And it does not help when you demonize or get too violent with the people you’re talking to.”
The liberal website ThinkProgress claimed that Buffet was engaging in a form of gender bias in leveling such criticism at Warren. “But Buffett’s use of the emotional word ‘angry’ may be a sign of some subtle sexism. Women are far more likely to be described with negative words describing personal attributes.”
Buffett, 84, recently revealed that he patterns his diet after a six-year-old, including drinking five Cokes a day, as part of a strange, strategic plan to keep himself healthy.
Separately, according to the Hill, some Democrat movers and shakers are apparently trying to clear the field for Hillary Clinton and preempt any potential White House bid by Elizabeth Warren, who still insists she isn’t running. “Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the ‘Elizabeth Warren wing’ of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections. For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality, and the ‘rigged economy’ thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach. But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda.”
Hillary Clinton reportedly also intends to make income inequality as a cornerstone of her national campaign. This task has been complicated, however, with, among other things, reports that the Clinton Foundation rakes in millions from foreign governments, including those with sketchy human rights records, as well as large corporations, that she paid female staffers in her U.S. Senate office 28 percent less than males, and that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have also amassed a personal fortune in the range of $100 million to $200 million, mainly from corporate speechmaking.
Do you agree or disagree with Warren Buffett that Elizabeth Warren comes across too much as an angry person to be a viable presidential candidate?
[Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images News]