Michael Bloomberg

From CBS News we learn:

Mayor Bloomberg will stand side by side with Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for the second time in four months Thursday. Bloomberg will introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at Cooper Union College.

They have spent time with each other in the past, but Bloomberg's latest appearance with Obama is fueling speculation about whether the mayor will officially endorse the presidential candidate.

Does it matter who Bloomberg endorses? Clinton supporters, on the count of three... If the notoriously coy mayor of New York does give Obama the nod, no doubt Clinton fans will quickly add him to the list of "traitors," just one more "Judas" in our midst. We loved him yesterday, but hate him today. He's no better than all those other prominent liberals who had the audacity to express a preference as to who they prefer in a Democratic election. The nerve!

So will he endorse Obama? Beats me. Certainly, however, the billionaire likes what he sees about Obama's economic plan. In a scathing speech back on February 15, Bloomberg singled out Obama while excoriating most everyone else for what he sees as a short-sighted approach to rebuilding the country's infrastructure:

"I don't know whether Senator Obama looked to see what I've been advocating, or not--you have to ask him--but he's doing the right thing," Bloomberg said.

So tune in next Tuesday for another episode of "What Will Bloomberg Do?"

It's a shame Mike Bloomberg has decided against running for president. He's a smart guy and would be a strong candidate. I'm still holding out hope that Ron Paul will throw his hat in as an independent, or maybe as a Libertarian.

And I'm thrilled that the much-maligned Ralph Nader announced he'll be around making a stink for the next eight months. (I'm not one of those weenies who blame Nader for the woeful Bush administration. They are too cowardly to admit that Al Gore ran a crappy race in '00 and probably didn't deserve to be president.)

Here's hoping the Natural Law Party and the Marijuana Party and the Greens and the Whigs all run somebody for the White House too. We need more presidential choices, not fewer. Obviously all third party candidates are looooong shots, to say the least. But winning isn't the only point. The idea of this democracy is to find the candidate that best represents my views and positions. What are the odds that person is always either a Republican or Democrat?

In a New York Times op-ed piece running in tomorrow's paper, but online now, popular New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announces he will not run for President in 2008:

I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation - and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not - and will not be - a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.

Bloomberg goes on to hint at whom he might endorse:

If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach - and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy - I'll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

Of the three remaining candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama enjoy the widest support across the political spectrum, but it seems unlikely that McCain will buck "party orthodoxy" after he's spent this entire primary campaign trying to convince voters that he is a "true conservative."

John Derbyshire at NRO puts together a fascinating and fun scenario, and a way out for Democrats if the front-runner stumbles before the convention:

I assume that the folk at the DNC, who are not fools, have thought things through to this point. What comes next?

What do you think? I've been telling you for months, but you just won't listen. I told you right here back in May last year.

Some weeks before that I had told attendees at a private lecture the same thing. The organizers of that event had asked me to give a talk on the 2008 field of candidates, which was at that point very large. At the end of my talk, they said, I should offer my opinion as to who would actually be the next president. Preparing my talk, I mulled over the matter carefully. At the very end of the lecture, after 40 minutes of surveying the entire field, both parties, I said "Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States," pressed the key (it was a PowerPoint presentation), and up on the screen came Al Gore. There was a chorus of boos and jeers - it was a conservative crowd. Derb: "Look, this is not my guy. I'm anti-Gore, and have a paper trail to prove it (see here, here, and here). But as an analyst, it's my job dispassionately to weigh the probabilities. I weighed them. This is what they told me."

It's not impossible, but it's close.

When it comes to the economy, there is near unanimous agreement across the political spectrum that we are in trouble. While there is disagreement about whether we're in a recession, heading there, or only temporarily stuck in the sub-prime mud, the overwhelming consensus is that things have gone south. Proof of this could be found earlier in the week, when congressional leaders met with president Bush and uttered words seldom heard over the past six years, "We all agree."

This brief partisan detente comes in the form of a stimulus package which promises to put $800 of monopoly money in the average citizen's pocked in the form of a tax rebate. Consumers will then rush out en masse, hit the stores and spend, spend, spend our way out of this mess. Call this theory Trickle Up Economics. Spending means business profits and dividends, which eventually may translate into re-investment and job creation.

Good-bye, Iowa and New Hampshire. Thanks for leaving us with about a dozen "winners."

Now the National Press Corps has got to act like they care about South Carolina, and even Nevada. There are rumors of people actually paying attention to the GOP primary in Michigan.

Assuming different people win the different upcoming primary/caucus contests, we'll still be left with Hillary, McCain, Barry Obama, Reverend Huckabee, Rudy "9/11" Reagan, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul and that one guy, the liberal from Massachusetts. Then it will be on to "Very Super Tuesday," when twenty states will join the primary fun and even Dennis Kucinich will probably win something, possibly Guam.

What does this mean? It means it's time for an all-new candidate to rise above our petty partisan politics or whatever and truly represent for the "little guy" and the "average American Joe." Obviously, we are speaking of multi-billionaire New York divorcee Mike Bloomberg.

Michael Bloomberg has made a boatload of money, and with a net worth well in excess of $11 billion could run a campaign without feeling pain or needing fundraising. But the question remains, who is he and why should anyone care?

In an election where everything remains up for grabs, someone with his resources would have to be taken seriously, I suppose. Here he is on health care, where his reputation as the Nanny is borne out. If he's serious about running, I suggest ditching the French cuffs, and, heavens, is that a pastel pink shirt? Never gonna win Ohio in that get up.