Sadly, as almost always, you have it totally wrong. The assessment of Bloomberg seems fine, but everything else in the post is off the Eastern Wall (the West is in Jerusalem and is always left of center).

Going towards the middle is not a negative; it's what democracy wants you to do - have a grand coalition of positive factors. The center is NOT the enemy of America or the world, the fascists of the right are!

As of now, the center wants the war to end, it's therefore reasonable to assume that a decent Democrat will end the war in January 2009.

Of all the serious candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Dodds and Richardson) the only potential wishy washy one is Hillary, because she seems too scripted and too guided and constraint to have opinions of her own conviction left. This picture, although quite genuine, is probably quite wrong looking back at her political history. Thus, all you do is fighting a straw man with a straw mayor.

There are other blunders in the same post, but that all folks.

Great post.

I feel similarly about Bloomberg, and a good friend of mine and I had this same conversation last night.

Ridiculous. Bloomberg is a contemptible non-entity. What precisely are his great achievements as mayor of New York? His failure to build the stadium? His myopic focus on Manhattan below 116th street? His obsession with the Olympics? His paralysis with regards to Ground Zero? His power-grab described as school reform? His harebrained effort to create non-partisan elections (which would benefit the wealthy and Republicans, of course)? The meals-on-wheels and filtration plant fiascos?

And then there's Bloomberg political amorality. He encouraged the GOP to exploit 9/11 and New York with their Convention (using none of his leverage with the national party to help NYC with the aftermath, by the way) and displayed an outrageous contempt for civil liberties with his treatment of peaceful demonstrators. He condemned Pataki for the vetoing an emergency contraception bill after he had vetoed identical legislation. I could go on and on and on.

Bloomberg is not a great mayor or a great political leader. He is an arrogant billionaire playing with politics out of boredom. He certainly doesn't need to be President.

What planet?

What makes you think Bloomberg would disengage from the middle east? He supported Lieberman, for heavens sake.

He's my mayor, and he's best mayor we've had in my time in the metropolitan area. But I don't want him anywhere near mideast policy.

Bloomberg? Bloomberg? I've heard that name. But I live out here in Oregon so I don't know much about him.

Your post reminds me of a thought I've had about national politics and the race for the Presidency. Maybe every four years they should just put the office up for sale on Ebay. Ebay has this little feature where you can get regular updates on the progress of the bidding. We could all use that to follow the contest. Ebay could rename that feature "participatory democracy."

Haber, ya see, if he's a great mayor -- as you concede he is -- that means he could be a great President.
But the Democrats, with the exception of Obama, are decidely not great senators because they supported a war that has resulted in the worst foreign policy disaster in our history.
So gushing is relative, isn't it.
Great mayor versus supporters of the war.
Great versus people who knowingly voted for a disaster.
I exempt Obama and Kucinich.
Excuse my outrage on the war. I was at Walter Reed over the weekend. No wonder they don't let the public in!

Second, it cannot be the case that it is easier to run NYC than it is to run the US.

Why?

It's certainly better training than being a Senator.

My main requirement for President is that he or she is smart. Extremely smart. Smart enough to grasp complex issues quickly, and smart enough to pick the right people around him or her.

Definitely not someone I would want to have a beer with. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Bloomberg's not going to win.

The real question is, are there more Democrats (like MJ) that are going to vote for him (and put a GOP in office), or is it the other way around? 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Who is Bloomberg going to put in all the second-and-third level jobs in the federal governments--the undersecretaries and deputies? With names like Feith, Cambone, Wolfowitz, Hadley, or Libby, one should recognize that the power to shape the country does not begin and end with the cabinet level officers.

After the last eight years of GOP agency-stuffing, we need to elect someone who as a matter not only of good governance, but as a personal matter of pure vengeance and spite, will work to rid the agencies of the GOP incompetents and replace them with competent people.

I trust Democrats to do that, but not the "good GOP'ers" or "unaffiliated" people Bloomberg might choose. Honestly, they'd have the meritocratic motivation to do it, but they'd lack the partisan fire to persevere through the pain of actually carrying it out.

Bloomberg will end the war? I guess that's why he's supported Joe Lieberman so much. That makes a lot of sense.

Hey, maybe he can 311 up and working in Iraq. If the Iraqi people could get accurate information about alternate side street parking, maybe they wouldn't be so angry all the time. That could lead to a decrease in sectarian killings, I suppose.

please I am so f*cking tired of all the whining and complaining from people liek you. STFU. Enough has been said already.

Go vote for Rudy. MOFO.

You talkin' to me sport?

Sounds interesting. Thanks.

But I intended sarcasm. To consider Bloomberg is to abandon political discourse and to join the cult of American exceptionalism. The argument that an independently wealthy man would be “utterly free of the pressures that most Presidents have to respond to” rests on the deeply rooted Calvinism of the American character, namely that success in this world is a sign that one is a winner in the pre-destined lottery for eternal bliss. It comes down to us today in the form that we are a good people because we are a wealthy people. And therefore the wealthiest are the embodiment of that goodness.

In a democracy politics is about policy. To abandon policy arguments in favor of a search for “a leader” is to abandon the demos themselves and thereby the whole notion of democracy. We are left to comments on the “cut of his jibe,” to how well the white toga hangs upon his shoulders. If your think mine is some overwrought rhetoric, then in your imagination take away “… his billion (sic) comes with far fewer strings (i.e. none)” and ask yourself what is left. Is it not the same policy debate that obtained before the name of Bloomberg was introduced?

I lament as much as anyone the lack of a Democratic policy position on Iraq that clearly stands in opposition to the status quo. However I am not prepared to surrender my citizenship and withdraw. And I am certainly not prepared to endorse some bourgeois “Il Duce.” As I suggested in my original comment, if that is the proposition then why not just sell the office to the highest bidder.

I not only COULD vote for Bloomberg, I WOULD vote for Bloomberg over any Democratic candidate currently announced. Bring on Al Gore, though, and things would change.

I don't really understand the fascination with Bloomberg. Consider the no-smoking law. Very much Giuliani in nature. I'm a non-smoker. Never have and never will. The people that hate smokers the most are most often former smokers. Like Bloomberg. A personal peccadillo made into a law affecting millions of people and thousands of businesses. However you feel about the smoking law it was brought about for primarily personal reasons of one person. Same with an attempt at noise regulation. No ice cream truck jiggles. I'm all for $25,000 fines per song I have to endure from a boom box or car stopped next to me (if that's an acceptable fine for "pirating" a song why not for "bird shitting" a song. Which reminds me of the time I stopped at a strange looking horse shoe shaped building on East 58th Street and took out my camera to photograph it. A guard came running from about thirty yards away and told me I couldn't take any pictures. "It was Bloomberg's building." I asked if Bloomberg lived there or was there at the time thinking maybe it was a security issue. "No" on both counts. I was on the sidewalk, a public place, so I knew I could photograph as I pleased and if the building owners claimed copyright as some do (along with graffiti artists by the way) my attitude is the same as with forced music. If I have to endure it I should be paid, otherwise protect it from the public consumption that's supposed to be so precious. This public intimidation was another extension of the Giuliani-Bloomberg nature.

But those are just trivialities. Again remember Giuliani and his authoritarian nature as mayor? Remember the 2004 Republican convention in midtown with Giuliani saying "Thank God Geroge Bush is President!!!!?" Now remember all the thousands of cops with their plastic fencing used to snare, arrest and then imprison innocents and those who might dare to voice objection to the Republican party. Remember the guy who was accused of assaulting a police officer and had some excerpted video used against him until it was found that the entire video revealed that he never assaulted anyone but was actually abused by police. Both police and prosecutor had wrongly testified against and prosecuted a citizen involved in legal protest. Remember the hundreds who protested or might have protested or were in the vicinity of people who might protest against the Republicans - netted and brought to a converted parking area on West Street and left there for days without charge, long enough for the Republican convention to end. Habeas corpus shmorpus. This wasn't under Giuliani. This was Bloomberg. This was Bloomberg getting personal in protecting Republicans.

I saw lines of police on Sixth Avenue smacking bats against their hands in hopeful anticipation of using those bats against average citizens. Bats, as in stick ball bat sized batons. Not night stick sized. Remember New York City has a law that people in protests can only use signs with support poles made of cardboard tubing. But the police have stick ball bats (and M-16s for the convention - saw those too). Bloomberg protecting Republicans that he now tries to disavow. When the chips were down Bloomberg was pulling his version of "Thank God George Bush is President!"

And speaking of machine guns. It was at that time that I noticed the new Coast Guard patrol boat dinghies circling Manhattan with large machine guns fore and aft. Another measure brought in just in time for the Republican convention. Those boats are still patrolling though they usually keep the guns away or have just one out for "fleet week." Tell me it's about 9-11 when it seems to be special for Republicans.

Bloomberg showed very much a Bush attitude about law and enforcement when it came to protecting Republicans. Don't ever forget that. "Get a life" indeedy.

Arkansas.

New York's not that special, people. It's a city. Like Omaha, like Little Rock, like Dallas, like Minneapolis, like Oklahoma City.

If you're not happy with those examples, I gave some others. Would you want the Mayor of Houston running for Pres.? Houston is the 4th largest city in the country. The mayor probably has a better handle on illegal immigration than the Governor of New York.

How about the Mayor of Chicago? Third Largest city. Better grasp of problems caused by industrial decline and of labor issues.

How about mayor of LA? Same as New York right? Would you vote for Mayor Villaraigosa to be president?

I agree with cscs that it is the right type of experience, but it's not the right scale.

I don't understand why people are so willing to discount the "hinterland."

J. McCutchen

I'm a Democrat and have voted Democratic in every Presidential election since I was 18.

Me too! Actually, I've voted demo in every election since I was 18 and I was 18 long before you were.

Not only could I vote for Bloomberg were he to run, I would do so in a heartbeat if Hillary were the democratic nominee and yes regardless of who the GOP nominated..Tancredo, Gingrich, Hunter, Brownback..you name it, Bloomberg would get my vote over Hillary Clinton.

NO sir, My response to the whiner Rosenberg. Who the f*ck need your vote Rosenberg?

I think it's pretty obvious that Bloomberg running hurts the GOP. Why is that every time somebody starts out by telling you how long they have been a Democrat they end up posting like a Freeper?

THANK YOU THIRDESTATE!

I'm not quite as down on him as you, but the idea of Bloomberg as reasonable candidate for democrats is way off base.

I'll admit that in the current political context his straightforward and reasoned demeanor is appealing, and I'm certainly a hell of a lot happier living under him than Giuliani, but there are some very serious flaws with Bloomberg that should be troubling to anyone concerned about the current state of economic inequality in this country.

In my book, his fundamental flaw is that he has no regard for New Yorkers as they exist, but only governs with an eye towards a New York that's entirely developed, owned, inhabited and run by corporate capital.

Despite talking a lot of game, he's done absolutely nothing to stop the rapid loss of affordable housing in this city, because in his mind, a New York where only the super wealthy can live is a better New York.

He was a rabid cheerleader against the Transit Workers Union strike, and hailed their draconian punishment as just dessert.

He can't imagine paying firemen, cops and teachers a decent wage, but it's no problem to spend $650 million of taxpayer money on subsidies to Goldman Sachs, and another $200 million to JP Morgan.

In an America where 1 in 8 of us lives below the absurdly low federal poverty line and corporate interests have run roughshod over the interests of the people, such a mindset is exactly the opposite of what's needed.

I think he's a great option for Republicans, but MJ, I must say, I'm a bit shocked and suddenly a little bit wary of you.

--Andrew Hiller

amen

First of all, it's not a war, it's an occupation. Second, all of the Democratic candidates supported Feingold/Reid, which would end the occupation, but not our involvement in the Middle East. And as far as not voting for any Dem you suspect will do or not do something, is your commitment to that principle as firm as it was to voting for Bloomberg?

Thank you for informing me that he supported non-partisan elections. This is one reform that would help elections to be fairer in all jurisdictions as long as the winner was required to have a majority. He just keeps getting better in my eyes the more I learn about him. If he runs the only currently running candidate I would chose over him is Obama.

He could win if both parties nominate a candidate that has high negatives. If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination and Bloomberg does not run, I will not vote, because I cannot in good concience vote for any of the Republicans or Hillary.

You have excluded the middle from your calculations.

Why thank you. But I must tell you that I am too infatuated with myself to allow any rivals.

I do appreciate the posts pointing to Bloomburg's weaknesses as mayor.  I'm not that down on him.  While the West Side Yards and support of ballfields were mistakes, the first died happily, and I'm actually in favor of the Brooklyn development.  Besides, Giuliani spent his whole time trying to back business and a stadium in Manhattan, so this seems a relief. And while the middle class keeps fleeing, he does seem to have worked more on housing that previous mayors.  While the smoking ban was high handed, we'd have one now from the state anyhow, and they're spreading. And while the handling of convention protests appalled me, especially as myself one of the (not arrested) protesters, I hoped it was an abberration, especially since he doesn't seem as resentful of others as Koch and Giuliani and as his shrug attitude to the last terror threat was a great counter to Bush. 

But anyhow, thanks for pointing out those limits. We're a great city because we can deal with interesting times. Anyhow, I still have no idea why he's so especially qualified to be president that one would look to him as a savior, especially with a crop of candidates better than we have had last time.  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

But non-partisan elections ALWAYS favor wealthy and/or conservative candidates. ALWAYS. Is that really what you want? And I suppose civil liberties don't matter very much to you, do they? Or having a political conscience? What exactly other than his preference for an elitist, ego-driven politics do you like about him?

Thanks, Haber. You have un-closeted me. I "worship" Michael Bloomberg.

No problem.  I wasn't sure if it was something I was supposed to reply to.  MJ can address it if he chooses to or then again maybe not, but that's up to him.

I think the middle will be mainly split between Bloomberg and the Democratic Party's nominee...just enough to throw the election to the R's candidate.

Come on MJ, I am disappointed in you.  This is a very important election.  Disestablishing the republican hegemony is a major public goal.  The republicans have been undermining our civil society in some substantial ways over the last 13 years and particularly since the year 2001.

Bloomberg has demonstrated that he is an opportunist who will wear whichever jersey he needs to get to the next goal post.  That is fine for him, makes him a fine Hilary twin.  But it does not give me much confidence that he is in this for anything but the power.

He may be NYC's benevolent and nice dictator, but make no mistake, he is a dictator.  In that respect, he is no better than Bush.  Changing jerseys doesn't change the facts.

The democrats need to focus on restoring constitutional democracy along with pursuing policy objectives.

I am truly disappointed that so many people I have come to respect over the years would sell out in a minute for a dictator with integrity. 

I think it's pretty obvious that Bloomberg running hurts the GOP.

I don't see it's obvious at all.

Mike's a Dem, and GOPs aren't going to vote Dem.

(No one is really an Independent. People just like to say they are...) 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I must be missing something. How is it that you find Bloomberg any less "piss poor" on the issue of the war than the Democratic candidates you mentioned? And what on earth makes you think he would pledge to pull the US out in 2009 when he backed Lieberman's run against Lamont in Connecticut, and has been quite critical of Democrats who proposed pulling the troops out?

Good points...

I am basing everything on the assumption that the R's will nominate someone from the far right seeing their primary process is dominated by voters of that ilk.  But until we know who the candidates actually are it is like trying to read tea leaves.

And I am on record saying I would have serious issues in casting a vote for HRC too.  Her support for the war and her very hawkish foreign policy positions are what bothers me the most about her.  I am not sure what I'd do in that case...an undervote maybe.  Because as long as I have been voting I have NEVER voted for an R for POTUS and I am not about to start now. 

But a system that was either a non-partisan election that required a majority or even better non-partisan porimary where the top two votegetters regardless of party stood in the general seems to be a great system to me.

Isn't "non-partisan" primary the system they have in Louisiana? And what a well-governed state that is!

Some recommended reading, since you say  you have never heard this argument against "non-partisan" elections before:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=1039

http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/press/testimonies/03-05-28-charter-revision.shtm

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20030526/202/423

smacfarl appears to be a ratings troll.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out.

What are those messages? Obama wants to make politics nicer. He wants to "turn the page". Laudable, but how does one do that? We need more urgency than this. That's why I'm going with Edwards. He's got both the clarity and the conviction. Poverty keeps him "up at night". Both here and around the world. He's got clear policy ideas to get this country back on track and get us out of Iraq. This is what he just said at Cooper Union:

"And you should not be president if you do not
acknowledge the divisions that threaten our economy,
our society and our soul."

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation intemper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

Guess you're one of the commenters doesn't think this poll makes sense.

Here are the ways Bloomberg's entry would impact each state, according to the polls:

Alabama: Would flip from red to blue in the case of Romney vs. Hillary vs. Bloomberg. With Romney vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg, the state would tie at 36%-36%, with 18% for Bloomberg.

California: If it's Rudy vs. Obama, this state could potentially flip from blue to red: Rudy 42%, Obama 39%, Bloomberg 11%.

Iowa: Flips from red to blue no matter who the GOP and Dem nominees are.

Kansas: Would flip from red to blue if Romney is the GOP candidate — Bloomberg apparently eats into the Republican column the most with Romney.

Kentucky: Would flip from red to blue under Romney.

Massachusetts: Would flip from blue to red with Rudy vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg.

Minnesota: Stays blue by a very strong margin, no matter what.

Missouri: Flips from red to blue for all match-ups.

New Mexico: Flips from red to blue in all caes — except Giuliani vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg.

New York: Flips from blue to red if it's Rudy vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg.

Ohio: Flips from red to blue for all match-ups except Rudy vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg — then it is tied.

Oregon: Dems leads by a good margin no matter what.

Texas: Flips from red to blue if Romney is GOP nominee.

Virginia: Flips from rid to blue if Romney is GOP nominee.

Washington: Stays blue in all cases.

Wisconsin: Stays blue in all match-ups.

I think I accidentally gave it a low rating too. Sorry about that.

But, seriously, just get over it and vote for HRC in the general if she gets there.

I'm actually in favor of the Brooklyn development.

Why? You think creating the highest density area in the United States is a good idea? Or is it the fact that taxpayers are getting bilked out of half a billion in bonds?

The thing's a disaster.

Um in what fashion?

When I comment I go and rate the group who commented before me.

Your response was at best unproductive, and is typical of the beginning of back and forth flame wars. Since your initial contribution to the sub thread was marginal and poorly thought out, I just pre-emptively trolled you.

On Reddit when you down vote some one very often the flame wars can become invisible, thus clarifying the rest of the thread. Obviously it doesn't seem to work that way here.

Nothing personal.

My statements relating to the actual argument are below.

Common. Facts please, not snipe.

Intrade/tradesports has Hillary at 48.5% Most polls have way ahead of other dems.

Her "negatives" if they exist are a very fringe effect, when directly measured.