It’s Slippery Saturday (in these northern climes) following Tsunami Tuesday. And we’re wondering where Michael Bloomberg fits in the election puzzle.
As faithful reader knows, we’ve been following the non-candidacy of Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, since we staked out this nanocorner of the ‘Sphere©. As a review, you might consult the following:
As this has been an eventful week in the endless saga of Campaign 2008 (began the day after the November, 2006 elections), we wondered how Mike’s plans (or non-plans) might be affected by the tumultuous events.
On the one side, the very even positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — a delegate count and popular count virtual dead heat after Tsunami Tuesday.
On the other side, Tuesday’s bloodbath ratified the startling reemergence of John McCain, such a front runner that Mitt Romney has departed the field, purportedly $50million in personal funds the lighter for his trouble. Someone on Public Radio’s “Wait, wait don’t tell me” this morning cracked that, when interviewed, Romney angrily denied ever being a candidate. 😉
In a race McCain vs. either Obama or Clinton, is there room for Bloomberg? McCain, after all, is the conservative Republican that even liberals like (and yr (justifiably) humble svt pleads guilty – starts with his answer to “what did you do in the war, Daddy?”). Obama is rather out there, from a conservative’s perspective, but his messages of non-partisanship and reconciliation play surprisingly well in red states. And of course, Ms. Clinton comes from a centrist tradition.
So, if McCain, Obama and/or Clinton are the choices, where would Michael Bloomberg fit. Were the Republican candidate preacher-governor Huckleberry or changeling-Mormon Romney, Bloomberg might have an easier time making a case for a third alternative.
Or, perhaps there’s a better idea. We picked up on Jon Taplin’s proposal for a Obama-Bloomberg ticket several weeks ago.
Now, via the Huffington Post, and published just before Tsunami Tues., is a version of the same tune.
Obama/Bloomberg: A Can’t Miss Ticket?
|Bruce Yaffe | Posted January 31, 2008 | 05:02 PM (EST)
…There is a legitimate option requiring immediate action that significantly increases the likelihood of a Bloomberg presidency. Though Mayor Mike is a CEO kind of guy, it is not unreasonable for him to team up with the other non-polarizing candidate in the race, Barack Obama, forming a real bipartisan coalition. Michael Bloomberg as Barack Obama’s endorser, supporter, and eventual running mate!
Michael Bloomberg is 65-years-old, and his best and perhaps only shot at becoming president of the United States is by being the VP in a successful administration. Mr. Bloomberg would be a ‘most senior advisor’ for eight years, adding significant ‘gravitas’ to the executive branch, providing superior managerial expertise, economic expertise, and a large cadre of intelligent loyalists. He could legally provide enormous campaign funding and prevent the need for President Obama to kowtow to special interests or to waste time fundraising….
What we’ve been thinking for a while, Bruce.
A successful eight year Obama-Bloomberg administration would, at age 74, perfectly position Michael Bloomberg to be the next president of the United States. A viable option for a healthy man with a fully functioning 98-year-old mother.
[Please click the link below for the complete article — but then please come on back!]
Huffington Post – Obama / Bloomberg: A Can’t Miss Ticket?
One would have to imagine that, after the bloody primary season results in victory for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, it would be difficult for either to accept the other as a “kiss and make up” running mate. Too much vitriol caught on too many YouTube vids.
But a ticket of Obama-Bloomberg makes such sense: no ugly charges, no further fund-raising problems, and someone to choose from on a ticket with actual managerial experience.
What do you say, Mike?
It’s it for now. Thanks,
|Share this post :||del.icio.us it!||digg it!||reddit!||technorati!||yahoo!|
According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I’m a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I’m voting for Obama. I’ve waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
She rode into power with her husband, and together they’ve acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater. She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, “Oh, but that’s how you get things done in Washington,” I literally cringe.
I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; she cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope–and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience.
Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.
You’ve put into eloquent words what many people are thinking (and, apparently, voting).
Thanks for gracing this space.
[…] What a ticket that would be! […]
[…] But, hey, Frank Rich! I want Michael Bloomberg for the good guys. […]
Appreciate your yet another good post, It’s my job to enjoy reading through what we should declare even though I would not usually agree. It’s not necessarily exactly the same we have found Asian countries. The natives it’s possible see it a little otherwise. Which i wish to search for a Western girl’s view.