Looks Like Bloomberg will Support Obama

Hey folks,

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is NOT running for President. He wrote an op-ed in today's NYT. Someone told me that his decision was based on the fact that Nader got back in to this whole circus. They think that he will be supporting him. I don't think so. I'm willing to bet on Obama. Here is what Mayor Bloomberg said.

NYT - I’m Not Running for President, but ...

By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG

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.

Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.

In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?

More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.

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.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. 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.

The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.

These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.

Now OK, he HAS to be talking about Nader. Right? After all, he keeps saying "independent." That he doesn't like either party. But what I just read, as you did, I saw this. He kept talking about what? Change. He did not come out and say it. But that is what he kept saying.

Then he said this. "The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country."

That sounds a lot like he is talking about Clinton to me. Obama is new. He is talking about change. Never says how, but Change none the less. A lot of people in his own party do not like him. The steadfast die hard LWL members. Some, like Kennedy, are distancing themselves from Clinton, but some will never leave the Clintons at all.

Then he said this. "I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future."

A future of change and promise. Or at least the promise of such. No folks, I truly believe that Bloomberg will not say who he supports until AFTER the next two Primaries. If Hillary loses, well, she is pretty much out. But if she wins, then Obama will need more money to continue, and the Convention will then mean EVERYTHING. It will decide who the Democrat Candidate is.

Now why would I not believe he will back Nader? Simple. He is a businessman. He knows a sure thing when he sees it. He knows a waste of money when he sees it. Nader cannot win. As much as people are, and they are, fed up with politics as usual, there are not enough people that are willing to throw their vote away on Nader. I truly do not believe Bloomberg will invest in a no win scenario. he is too smart for that. We will just have to wait and see what happens in Texas and Ohio.

Peter