Obama Gets His Morning Coffee With Bloomberg

(Don't wait for Drudge to develop his story -- read it here, first!)

At 7:45 this morning, Sen. Barack Obama will set vice presidential speculation on fire with a brief stop to say hello to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, himself an occasional presidential flirt. The meeting appeared on Bloomberg's schedule, which was distributed to reporters last night.

An Obama aide said the meeting was scheduled because of "mutual interest" and did not know whether the two had met before.

More coffee than ticket talk, though -- and Obama had better be brief. He's due to speak at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Vienna, Virginia around noon.

Obama was in New York Thursday for a day of fundraisers, including a young professionals event at Harlem's historic Apollo theater. He also grabbed a burger or three at a local White Castle.

Comments

I don't want Obama to meet with Bloomberg! Someone stop this meeting!!!!!

Posted by Hillary Clinton | November 30, 2007 12:55 AM

He did meet him before.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/Bloomberg_on_Obama_Not_enough_experience.html

Posted by lk | November 30, 2007 1:23 AM

And some bad news for Obama as well: A new Massachusetts general election poll has him running poorly... and losing the state to McCain!

Posted by Daniel | November 30, 2007 1:34 AM

Grabbing only three White Castle burgers?
Obama is no Bill Clinton. It takes at lease
a dozen White Castle burghers to make one Quarter Pounder.

Where is the stuff Huffpo promised about the Chris Rock endorsement.

Posted by godlessclif | November 30, 2007 2:40 AM

Hey Daniel's here too quoting polls again...here ya go again buddy: Zogby has Hillary losing to all five top Republican candidates and Obama beating them all, mostly he beats them handily:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393

oh, and oops, here's the preemptive retort to your Mark Penn drivel of a comeback that you're going to post:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1394

Bad news for Hillary indeed...

Posted by MarkieBee | November 30, 2007 3:49 AM

Obama named "Person of the Year"

Posted by Ken L | November 30, 2007 4:29 AM

Why shouldn't Obama meet the mayor? Obama is going to be president, so he should meet some of these guys.

Posted by s woods | November 30, 2007 5:28 AM

The more interesting question is why Bloomberg is interested in meeting with Obama. According to the NYPost, the meeting was initiated by Bloomberg and had not been a part of Barack Obama's original schedule. Just to get to what everyone is wondering. Will Bloomberg endorse Obama and put NY in play on SuperTuesday?

Posted by smartdem | November 30, 2007 8:10 AM

I find it hard to beleive that Obama-Bloomberg has any future as a ticket. Mike's stil a Republican, after all.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | November 30, 2007 8:38 AM

Mike, you ignorant slut!

Hillary Clinton, choking on Rolaids

Posted by Elisabeth | November 30, 2007 8:51 AM

Actually Bloomberg changed from being a Republican and is now a registered Independent

Posted by cass | November 30, 2007 9:14 AM

An Obama-Bloomberg ticket would have a lot of appeal to independents and the financial implications could be astounding....though I can't say I love the idea of billionarie self-financing personally...at least you don't have to be beholden to all those bundlers.

Bloomberg would give a ticket an imprimatur of executive competence without overshadowing Obama. It would electrify the national media who tend to be very NY centric and seem to shower NY based candidates like Hillary and Rudy with disproportionate attention which Obama will start to get some of. If Obama faced Rudy, have Bloomberg on the ticket would neutralize and trump many of Rudy's arguments against Obama. Best of all, it would make the muslim plant undercurrent go away. It's promoters will have to say that Obama is a muslim plant with a jewish vice-president...and that turns the smear into pure absurdity even to the uninformed voter!

What's in it for bloomber?. The man has ambitions for higher office but has said himslef he is not electable as presdient at this time. Being Obama's Veep would be much better than being somebody else's Veep because Obama is likely to make use of Bloomberg's good government mangerial skills. And Bloomberg could one day reach the presidency though a major party vice presidency...something more likely at this point than him doing so with an independent run for president. Bloomberg is a smart man and playing kingmaker for Obama may well be his best move right now.

Posted by RKA | November 30, 2007 9:22 AM

I agree with RKA, my only question is are they close enough on the ideology chart to make an obama-bloomberg ticket actually viable.

Posted by Noah | November 30, 2007 10:06 AM

VP Bloomberg: very interesting. But I'm not sure that plays all that well in the Midwest - or other parts of the country that aren't the East Coast.

Posted by Gunnar | November 30, 2007 10:14 AM

I voted for Bloomberg twice, my first Republican ever and I cannot imagine it happening again, with the exception of a Dem ticket with Hagel.

I think Bloomberg is a great mayor (if I can forgive the GOP convention BS) and I would vote for him again.

But will flyover land like "the black and the Jew"
I wonder

Posted by lilybart | November 30, 2007 10:26 AM

I'm a Bloomberg fan but I don't think an Obama/Bloomberg ticket is the way to go. Obama/Hagel 08 would be clutch.

I am pleased as punch on a hot summer day that Mike is using his cache to annoy the heck out of Hillary.

Posted by Elisabeth | November 30, 2007 10:36 AM

Hagel? Hagel is a right-wing republican - check out his voting record.

Posted by Simone | November 30, 2007 10:58 AM

Obama-Webb'08 - it's going to have to be a military person and he or she is going to have to be southern. Clark won't work because it''s going to have to be someone with obvious cojones (and a deeper voice) to off set questions of Barak's experience.

Obama-Webb '08 - you heard it here first.

Posted by Josh | November 30, 2007 11:23 AM

Listen, folks...

The only way to get out of the political shithole that we are in is if there is a completely radical and game changing ticket, like Obama-Bloomberg, or Edwards-Bloomberg, or Clinton-Hagel, or Bloomberg-Powell, etc., etc.

Only something truly progressive and Bull Moose-like, will be able to transform our inadequate and dying system, so that we are no longer ruled by and beholden to the super wealthy class.

If not, I don' think we're too far from a class-based Civil War II.

Posted by Floomsey | November 30, 2007 11:31 AM

Hagel is a conservative fart, but if coupled with a strong Dem at the top, it could send a message of progressive compromise and forward movement. Think Clinton putting Cohen ahead of the War Department, but Cohen is not nearly as conservative as Hagel.

Webb would be awesome! I forgot about him, or maybe Tester, but they're both so new to the Senate - we need Virginia and Montana to stay blue (or at least purple)! Either of them would be incredibly strong and intimidating to the bully GOP bitches on the right.

I have supreme confidence that the Dems will win the White House, and make major gains in the House and Senate, but to make a real statement, they have to work with the so-called "middle", and think out of the box in terms of ticket balance, so they don't just pick among the top, second, third, etc. tier of candidates. Honestly, any of the Dems, including Biden (even though I'm not crazy about him), the Kuc Man, or Gravel, would be very good presidents, but the puplic, the majority of which probably don't identify with the old party system anymore, are DYING, STARVING, AND BEGGING FOR SOMETHING NEW.

If any of the DNC folks read this blog, please keep this in mind. No more of the old shit anymore! We need some ass kicking thinking for once! What happened to the party that came up with the New Deal, in spite of its occasional flaws?!!?

Posted by Floomsey | November 30, 2007 11:44 AM

RKA's analysis seems quite smart.

Obama-Bloomberg would definitely put to rest Giuliani's claims to superior executive skills.

Lieberman didn't kill Gore in the Midwest -- Iowa will tell us whether midwesterners think of Obama as a 'good midwestern boy' whose children are 'all above average' or a whiny city slicker. If they've bought Obama as a 'Kansas boy made good,' Bloomberg won't hurt him much.

Of course, the KKK would have a collective coronary. But they haven't voted democratic in a while, and would-be assassins would have to pull a hat-trick.

Posted by Carrington Ward | November 30, 2007 2:17 PM

Oooohh, Elisabeth, I'm with you. Obama/Hagel would be big. I also agree that Bloomberg doesn't seem like an obvious choice on many levels. Forget about party affiliation. Obama as the Democrat nominee would win New York, even against Guiliani. And Obama will look to use a running mate to shore up foreign policy/national security credentials, I believe.

An interesting deep bench pick would be Webb. However, I think an even more interesting deep bench pick would be Tony Zinni, former Marine general.

If you want a more conventional pick, its Bill Richardson. That works on an executive level (governor), geographic level (I've heard the talking heads a few times say the Southwest is this year's true battleground) and on an experience level. Richardson is a terrible speaker, so there is some downside. But there aren't too many governors who also have some foreign policy credentials.

So, what's up with this Bloomberg thing? My guess is Bloomberg offered Obama some information on Guiliani. Bloomberg as a running mate or as an endorser just seems too implausible.

Posted by Paul | November 30, 2007 8:08 PM

Remember, before Bloomberg was a republican, he was a democrat, voted for and donated to Al Gore's campaign in 2000. He only switched to republican to win the mayoral election. Bloomberg is really a democrat. And I read back in the spring that if Obama was the nominee, Bloomberg would not run for president.

I like the Obama/Webb ticket. Senator Obama campaigned for Webb last year and Webb does not think to highly of Bill Clinton, so if Hillary were to be the nominee, which she will not, Webb wouldn't be on her ticket.

New poll out today from Fox shows Obama just 7 points behind HRC in NH.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | November 30, 2007 8:27 PM

RKA, you state: Bloomberg would give a ticket an imprimatur of executive competence...If you truly believe this than the ticket should be Bloomberg/Obama!!!!!After all, our President is the Chief Executive. You have managed to render Obama executive-impotent.

Posted by Dieter Heymann | December 1, 2007 1:01 PM

what's that?

Posted by Percy H Florez | December 1, 2007 3:17 PM

Percy H. Florez askes: what's that? Fair enough. First notice the verb to render and you are almost there. By declaring that Bloomberg would give their ticket an imprimatur (= imprint) of executive competence.... RKA implied that Obama cannot now deliver the imprint of executive competence which I have playfully described as RKA rendering him executive-impotent. Impotence means, among others, that you cannot execute whatever. In modern English lingo that noun is no longer restricted to sexual impotence but has taken on a much broader meaning. Ergo, Bloomberg should be in the Presidential spot on RKA's ticket because it would be a disaster to have an executive-impotent president (Obama) who cannot execute without the assist of a real executorial spine(Bloomberg's). RKA's statement, albeit well-intended, is actually devastating Obama. One may even wonder whether Obama should be on his Bloomberg ticket as VP at all. After all, Obama will be only a heartbeat away from having to execute. Capito?
The overwhelming truth is that Obama is not interested in the VP slot. He wants to be President or nothing. Again, fair enough. Would Bloomberg want to move from the mayor of NYC to a job once described as worse than a cup of warm spittle? Only if he is a masochist.

Posted by Dieter Heymann, Houston, USA | December 1, 2007 4:34 PM

I think this is a perfect combination. Obama has the charisma, charm, and eloquence of what the people want in a President, while Bloomberg has experience and would attract many of the business class of America. After all, Bloomberg seems to represent what a lot of Americans want: conservative in terms of fiscal policies but socially liberal. He's still a capitalist but that doesn't mean he doesn't support important things like green initiatives. Bloomberg I think would be a great President, but he just doesn't have the charm or popularity. He's too much of a bookish number counter. He's efficient, and that's what our gov't needs: efficiency. But, on the end of charm,he's rather lacking. Obama on the other hand is young, charming, charismatic, handsome, and thus incredibly popular. Sounds to me as if it'd be a great match .

Posted by Andy | December 1, 2007 11:36 PM

Obama would be great, he would piss off all the rich white guys, and mix it up a bit. But being that the system as a whole is run by the republicratsl, little change would take place. Ron Paul, from the far right would be a good choice, if he did elimminate the Federal Reserve Bank ( Corperation), Federal, wages tax and lobbyists.
Other than him, well, its another four years of the same old tired political railroad, a steam engine, comming to a grinding hault, because of the money first, corprate first, and lining of pockets first. I have seen the biggest money grab in the history of the planet, what follows will not be suprising.

Posted by keith | December 2, 2007 11:25 AM

Hello,


great post..thank you for always putting so much information in your posts.

Posted by Children Furniture | January 26, 2008 6:28 PM