Bloomberg Says Nay

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not, not, not running for president, according to an op-ed he's written for tomorrow's New York Times.

His shots aren't parting, though:

WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them. The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.

Comments

Marc:

I think no one in the press is talking about VP for Obama. I think you can break ground by having a piece on this issue.

- a former/current Red-state gov. not affiliated with Clinton

- a former/current Red-state gov. affiliated with Clinton

- a former/current senator (with more experience than Obama)

- a former/current House member

Go for it Marc.

Posted by eorse | February 27, 2008 10:55 PM

Could Bloomberg be VP on Obama's ticket, or is it out of question?

Posted by Lobelio | February 28, 2008 6:51 AM

The timing of this announcement makes me wonder, though: is Obama's increasingly inevitable-looking lead the deciding factor here? It's an intriguing theory, but I think he would've done equally miserably in a McCain-Hillary election as he would in a McCain-Obama election.

Maybe if it had been like Paul - Kuchinich, Bloomberg's plan would've made sense. In basically any other scenario though, it seemed like a Steve Forbes-esque vanity run.

Posted by Michael T Sweneey | February 28, 2008 7:59 AM

Its my opinion that MB may have jumped in full force in a HRC-Romney general.

Like many others in the country, he is tired of the liberal-conservative idealogical bickering, when the end result is to do nothing of consequence.

That a McCain-Obama general wont be entirely about idealogies is a refreshing change.

Personally, I'm still concerned that with these guys there will be an obsession with foreign affairs at the expense of a much needed domestic reform agenda.

Posted by Kim | February 28, 2008 8:11 AM

It seems to me that Bloomberg vastly overestimates what the American public knows, believes, or wants to believe. Certain people believe what he believes, many others quite certainly do not. Since he has the luxury of speaking as someone who doesn't have to win the votes of the people who quite vehemently don't believe what he believes, he can say these "reasonable" things. I don't think anyone won a presidency by "educating" or changing the mindset of a large chunk of voters. It may be possible to do so AFTER one has won a presidency, however.

Posted by JMS | February 28, 2008 9:02 AM

"It seems to me that Bloomberg vastly overestimates what the American public knows, believes, or wants to believe."

Good post JMS, right to the core. For plenty of people the evening news is an extensive education. People get so upset at the rhetoric that they never get to the substance.

Bloomberg probably doesn't spend much time with those kind of people; still thats a fairly big impasse.

Maybe as a final hurrah of the HRC campaign, frustrated Ohio voters who neither know nor care much about policy will give Clinton one last win.

Posted by Kim | February 28, 2008 10:45 AM