Fred Thompson is the great white hope for the Republicans. If you look at him in just the right light he might remind someone (not me) of Ronald Reagan. However, his fundraising is half of what his supporters were hoping for and he's been through three campaign staffs before not announcing yet again. The more one gets to know Thompson, the less there is to like. Have you heard him give a speech or speak off the cuff? Not good.

Michael Bloomberg. He said he would launch a third party candidacy only if he's pretty sure he can win. Anyone could say that, what's the risk in that? A national run requires 'infrastructure' like 2-300 staffers and the ability to collect signatures and get on the ballot. No movement in that area means Chuck Hagel is likely out as well. Looks like he will announce he's out of D.C. and will not run for re-election to the Senate. Giving up a sure thing means he's either reading a run for prez as an independent or he's just had it. I'll vote for the latter. His replacement? Bob Kerrey has all but announced so that's a likely pick-up for the Dems.

That leaves us Al Gore who, if he is teasing, is doing a masterful job. It's either the best 'non-campaign' ever or he really doesn't want to run. Unless. Unless he sees the current Democratic front-runners as not able to win. Certainly all three have handicaps. If I were on the other side I could run effective (negative) campaigns against the current leading Dems and I think Gore knows that. He may not want in but he knows full well that with a Republican in the White House, the stalemate and partisanship, not to mention the endless war will be the order of the day. Climate change won't be on the agenda. Bottom line, I won't be shocked if Gore gets in this fall and I'll put $10 on the table to back it up.

In an interview to be broadcast tomorrow night at 8:00pm on HDNet, Dan Rather gets a direct answer from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on if he is going to run for President in 2008. The answer is, apparently, no.

Mr. Rather: Well, let's get it out of the way. Are you running for President?
Mr. Bloomberg: No.
Mr. Rather: Are you going to run for President?
Mr. Bloomberg: No.
Mr. Rather: Any circumstances in which you would?
Mr. Bloomberg: Oh, I don't know. Any - the answer - if I don't say no categorically you'll then read something into it. The answer is no. Look, I have my own beliefs. They're not tailored to what's politically popular. It's what my parents taught me and what I've learned raising my two daughters that are the love of my life. It - I believe that certain things and if somebody asks me where I stand, I tell them. And that's not a way to get elected generally. Nobody's going to elect me president of the United States. What I'd like to do is to be able to influence the dialogue. I'm a citizen.

Now, this is Dan Rather and we are dealing with Michael Bloomberg's ego -- so even if the above quote from Rather's interview is real (we'll see tomorrow night), we'll have to see what Bloomberg does. But it does sound pretty definitive. What is surprising is the Mayor's statement later in the interview that he wouldn't accept any Cabinet position, either. As his candidacy would have hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, I wouldn't put it past the Clintons to have offered a position in any potential Clinton administration to get him off the '08 ballot. We shall see.

There's been increased "chatter" in recent days from Islamist Web sites claiming that an attack on New York City is imminent. DEBKA, a source that has a spotty record on reporting, is waving the flag that something big is in the works:

DEBKA file - which attempts to report on the actions and chatter among al Qaeda cells - posted the story yesterday on its Web site, claiming that New York would be attacked in the coming days "by means of trucks loaded with radioactive material against America's biggest city and financial nerve center."

The threats were allegedly found in an exchange of messages over the terror group's internal Internet sites.

The fact that the city mobilized numerous officers indicates that there may indeed be something to this intel. Mayor Michael Bloomberg would not authorize the increased presence if he though the intel was dubious. DHS is talking this info down, yet the fact remains that something is making them take this serious and it appears as if it is the video released last week by American al-Qaida Adam Gadahn.

The Associated Press reports that a sexual harassment lawsuit that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg settled out of court in 2000 might come back to haunt him during his potential quest for the presidency. Details from the lawsuit and settlement are supposedly subject to a confidentiality agreement, as are details from two other earlier sexual harassment lawsuits that did not result in known settlements.

As Bloomberg's campaign would hurt the Democratix nominee more than the Republican, we can expect that there will soon be plenty of more leaks like this about Bloomberg's boorish behavior towards women. They will be hand fed to the AP to discourage the mayor from making a presidential run. I might add that it is clear from the dates of the lawsuits this this conduct occurred while Bloomberg was a proud liberal Democrat -- before he conveniently switched to the Republican Party to win the New York mayor's office.

Interestingly, the AP story from this morning has much less detail about the accusations than last night's AP story, which I read first. I find that somewhat curious. You'll have to go to both stories and read them all to get the details - I'm not going to post them here, although I briefly thought about quoting his viewpoint on abortion, which is, shall we say, interesting. Suffice it to say that Bloomberg comes off as an infantile, egotistical misogynist. Think Bill Clinton unplugged -- without the charm, his wife, and the White House Communications Office running cover for him.

Gallup has, for the first time during this election cycle, surveyed public opinion on a three-way candidate presidential race in a poll conducted July 6-9, 2007. Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate, Rudy Giuliani was the Republican candidate, and Michael Bloomberg was the Independent candidate. The results: Hillary with 45%, Rudy with 39%, and Bloomberg with 12%. Impressive for a first time polling of a potential independent candidate, but less that Ross Perot's first time poll numbers in 1992 at 24%.

The poll also measured Bloomberg's national approval ratings for the first time for that organization:

In contrast to Giuliani and Clinton, who have near universal recognition with Americans, more than a third of Americans (37%) don't know enough about Bloomberg to rate him. Among the remainder, he is viewed, on balance, more favorably than unfavorably, 36% vs. 27%.

Gallup's article also has this to say about who Bloomberg might eventually hurt, if he does indeed enter the race:

Down the road, Bloomberg could, in theory, pose a greater threat to Clinton than to Giuliani, given that he tends to be viewed more favorably by Democrats and liberals than by Republicans and conservatives. Roughly 4 in 10 Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) and liberals say they have a favorable view of Bloomberg. By comparison, only about one in three Republicans (including independent "leaners") and conservatives rate him favorably.

That's what many pundits have been saying about Bloomberg since he first started floating trial balloons about a potential candidacy -- and now there are stats to back it up. During his entire adult life prior to becoming mayor of New York, Bloomberg was a Democrat. He only became a Republican because he felt that he couldn't get through New York's Democratic Mayoral Primary. That's opportunism, plain and simple. As more voters get to know him, he will become indistinguishable from Hillary.

New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, may or may not run for president on an independent ticket in 2008, and suspense is killing Rudy Giuliani. Why? Consider the Giuliani narrative as put forth by the former mayor's supporters. Brusque and determined, Rudy took on an ungovernable city, lowered crime, reformed welfare, and generally raised the quality of life for the residents of Gotham. In fact, as one of those who experienced life in New York for the duration of Mr. Giuliani's term, these talking points are more or less true. The problem for Giuliani is that his successor, Mr. Bloomberg, has essentially done it all better, and without alienating huge swaths of the population. From today's Washington Post:

"Bloomberg shows it's possible to manage New York without offending," said Peter Kostmayer, a former Democratic congressman who is president of Citizens for New York City, a nonprofit group. "His entrance would be a complete disaster for Giuliani, because then you're able to compare. You have one mayor who was successful and turned lots of people an one who was successful and has turned on lots of people."

The more that people spend time comparing the legacies of these two mayors, the more it hurts Giuliani. In short, Rudy wishes that Bloomberg would go back to his media empire and leave him alone.

...Saying Nothing. That's the old James Brown refrain, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg leveled it at both the Republican and Democratic parties yesterday:

Bloomberg, who left the GOP and is asked almost daily about running for president, said Wednesday that neither the Republican nor Democratic Party "stands for anything."

"There isn't any philosophy" for either party, he said after a speech on improving public schools.

The problem, as Bloomberg sees it, is that politicians place partisan loyalty above everything else. In effect, party allegiance itself becomes a higher priority than actually solving the country's pressing needs. Does this not sound a tad like a man who is planning an independent run for the White House?

As to the question of underlying political philosophy, Fred Thompson delivered another in a series of his mealy-mouthed, wink-wink, I'm almost in, just a few more days of 'Law and Order' re-runs, speeches yesterday.

Fourteen thousand people will be participating in a two -year pilot program in New York initiated by Mayor Bloomberg. Poor residents will be receiving cash rewards for "good behavior " like for example attending a parent-teacher conference or holding a job. Forty three million dollars has been raised towards this program. This program is called Conditionally Cash Transfer and has been proven to be successful in countries like Mexico. Under normal circumstances the CCT should be a third of the monthly income of the recipients.

Every new idea brings some opposition. A teacher in this article opposes CCT. He suggests that a program like this would instill in our children that they don't have to study if they are not going to get paid for it. Margy Waller from the inclusionist is also against this program. Her focus is more on the community then the individual and according to her poverty is not the individuals fault. She calls on changing our frame of mind about poverty. She says:

It just reinforces the impression that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we could solve poverty in this country, and that's not reflected in the facts.

She also thinks the answers are in enforcing work laws, higher wages and paid sick leave.

I give Bloomberg kudos for trying something new and controversial in this country against poverty and I hope it works out for our poorer citizens. Hopefully the results will be positive and more programs can be established throughout the U.S.

While my fellow Stump bloggers Scott and Patrick bring the interesting news about Bloomberg going independent, I've been thinking about the impact on the 2008 presidential election.

This is not a trivial question. We only need to look back to the weird but election-altering candidacies of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader to see what an independent with some money or backing can do. In short, he can ruin it for somebody. The big question is whether a big money, self-financed (he has plenty of money) Bloomberg run hurts the Republican or the Democrat.

I've been thinking about it all day and reading some interesting blog posts and I still have nothing. On the one hand I can see a scenario where Bloomberg is the largest threat in his home area in the Northeast. This may force a Democrat to spend more money than they otherwise would have in New Jersey, New York, and New England. Also, Bloomberg's philosophy has been unabashedly liberal on most issues, leaving it unlikely that he would have much of a reach outside his home state.

On the other hand, Bloomberg was a Republican and he was chummy with Rockefeller, forgive me, "country club" Republicans. While not numerous, they do have most of the money and in a close election, enough of those swinging over from a Fred Thompson might put Hillary in the White House.

Key questions are whether he will indeed run as an independent candidate, whether he will use his own money, and whether he has any resonance outside, or even inside, his home state and city.

As I watch Democratic strategists on TV talk about how a possible presidential run by Michael Bloomberg would hurt the Republicans, I feel a need to point out this morning's "The Note" at ABCNews.com. Here's its sub-title: It's His Original Party, Not His Most Recent One, That's Most Likely to Suffer:

The big shock of the day, maybe the month, came from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who chose yesterday to announce that -- five and a half years into his tenure as mayor, and with his re-election campaign well behind him -- he has suddenly realized what everyone's known all along: He's not a Republican after all.

Bloomberg's a very rich, self-made billionaire who craves attention. He wanted to be mayor of New York, and realized that he's never get through the Democratic mayoral primary, even as a life-long member of the Democratic party. So he bolted, and joined the Republicans. After being elected as a Republican, he has ruled New York as a liberal -- instituting policies and bowing to special interests in a way that would make even the Clintons proud.

If he does run for president as an Independent, he will have no shot at winning. He will suffer the same fate as Ross Perot, who served as a spoiler for George H. W. Bush. Only this time he'll be a spoiler for the Democrats -- either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I encourage him to run.

It was always great listening to Phil Rizzuto announce Yankees games. Before the game was over, you always knew he was going to describe a wondrous event by starting off with the two words that he made famous: Holy Cow!

What better way than to kick off what happened yesterday: Holy cow, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York is now an Independent. Here is what he said:

"I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City,"

And if you are trying to figure out what the mayor might be thinking, here is some food for thought: "He did it because there are some states that require you not to be a Democrat or a Republican when you file Independent nominating petitions," political consultant Joseph Mercurio said.

Even though I'm a political junkie, not to mention the fact that I get paid to follow the election, I still sometimes grow exasperated by grand pronouncements about a vote that's 17 months away. The landscape could very well be unrecognizable by the time November '08 finally rolls around. But does that stop me from making such predictions myself? Heck no! And it's not stopping the National Journal's John Mercurio, who has a piece out today listing "10 things that will surely have a decisive impact on the presidential race."

Most of them are no-brainers, like Iraq, the debates and the fact that Bush has become the lamest of lame ducks. Others, like the energy bill, seem unlikely to have a "decisive" impact, as far as I'm concerned.

I was most intrigued by this notion:

Bloomberg/Hagel/Unity '08?: Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel generated buzz in early May when they dined together at the Palm restaurant. A few weeks later, Hagel drew a strong GOP primary challenger that could make a Senate re-election bid in Nebraska even less appealing. Will the two GOP mavericks team up to run as independents, perhaps under the "Unity '08" banner?

Hmmmm. Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel. First I've heard of that. Verrrrry interesting.

Anyway, read the whole thing here... and then chime in. Do you agree with the list? What issues do you think will dominate as the election heats up?

Let's face it. Besides Barack Obama, are any of the current crop of presidential candidates generating heat on the campaign trail? The GOP lineup features one opportunistic stiff after another. Hillary's only selling point seems to be that a lot of people like her husband. And the luster of the golden boy Obama is likely to fade once people realize that, yes, he's just another party politician.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: what this race needs is some good old fashioned third party spoilers. And now it looks like we might have one. The Washington Times says Michael Bloomberg could be ready to throw his ridiculously expensive bespoke hat into the ring (or at least have a servant throw it in for him).

And the filthy rich mayor of New York is prepared to hurdle all that difficult, time-consuming grassroots organizing stuff by spending some of his own money on the campaign. How much? Oh, about a billion dollars worth, say his friends.

"Bloomberg is H. Ross Perot on steroids," said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner. "He could turn the political landscape of this election upside down, spend as much money as he wanted and proceed directly to the general election. He would have resources to hire an army of petition-gatherers in those states where thousands of petitions are required to qualify a third-party presidential candidate to be on the ballot."

Senior Republican officials -- including those supporting declared Republican presidential nomination contenders -- and several top Democrats told The Times they take the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy as a serious threat in November 2008.

Why not run? What does he have to lose, besides a billion bucks? If he doesn't win he'll still have about $4 billion left over for incidentals.

I see David's already posted on Chuck Hagel's hints during his interview on "Face the Nation" yesterday morning. I think that Hagel realizes that he has no shot at running for President as a Republican - there's a reason why National Review sarcastically refers to Hagel as the Republican from France. Ironically, with the recent results of the presidential election in France, Hagel probably wouldn't do very well there today, either.

First dinner, then the presidency – Sen. Chuck Hagel dined with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg a few weeks ago, and the Nebraska Republican dropped a hint Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the two might be plotting a run for the White House as independents.

As much as Democrats and some Republicans don't want it to be, the main issue in 2008 will be Iraq and the War on Terror. With the apparent capturing of U.S. soldiers over the weekend by an al-Qaida front group, it is getting harder and harder for even the Democrat-friendly and Bush-hating mainstream media to take seriously the Democrats' claim that we have to get out of Iraq to fight al-Qaida. As that becomes more and more apparent, it will put Chuck Hagel even more on the wrong side of the fence in the fight against terrorism.