From where I sit far from New York, Bloomberg represents the compromised middle, which is very well characterized on another Huffpo blog this morning.

These folks who got together to support the "middle", led by former Secretary Cohen and Senator Sam Nunn,
will be supporting the status quo.

Competent "managers" are not what we need. We need someone who loves America and her ideals. Sometimes these people are found on the left and right, rarely in the "middle."

I am very anxious that this rich man not buy the election.

The one concern I have about Bloomberg's buzz is the it seems to fulfill some desire we as Americans have about leadership -- some strong undercurrent of authoritarianism, control, and autocratic decision making -- that "strong father" motif that Christian, white supremacist, patriarchs appeal to. Somehow we have this unfulfilled need to be led, and its often into the abyss of war, exploitation, and corporate greed. Rudy exemplifies this desire we have, and his appeal to our basest instincts of fear and terror fulfills this desire.

I think America needs a strong leader, but someone who can build coalitions, focus on improving public good (roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure), focus on alleviating poverty (both here and abroad -- frankly our only hope of fighting terror), and reach out to the rest of the world to lead into the next Century.

China, with all its problems and political oppression, is focusing on becoming a global leader. While we have blown our good will, they are building it up. We need to counter that, not by blowing up its neighbors and trying to surround it all the while buying their cheap goods and selling them our dollars, but by increasing our competitiveness, focus on growth, building bridges for democracy and individual liberty.

Its hard, but not a panacea. We just need the right type of leaders.

At about 10:35 Chicago time, Bloomberg was on the ABC New Year's show in Times Square.

He was asked directly, "Will you be running for president?"
He very quickly replied, "No."

Since few of the current list of hopefuls have said much that is new or different, nor have they told us much that is interesting in what they would do as President that is far different from what we now have.

It would be nice to know what Mr. Bloomberg would suggest. I'm open to the idea and don't why there is so much opposition to hearing from someone else.

The more the merrier?

The media would support him BIG. Or he would fire them.

Bloomberg's past will haunt him on the campaign
trail.

Several allegations of sexual misconduct have been filed against him and were
settled out of court.

He, also, divorced his wife of eighteen years.

Family Values?

He should rethink ever stepping into this political cycle.

Bloomberg ought to be able to find something better to do than mess up things worse than they already are. What ever his motives are you can bet they include more of the same old crap we've been dealing with for 20 years or so.

If it's non-Hillary vs. Huckabee... no brainer.

Other combos, TBD.

You gotta love it. First Mike Bloomberg was going to run an independent candidacy for president if the Democratic and Republican nominees had "high negatives," i.e., when the conventional wisdom was that it would be Clinton vs Giuliani. Now he's going to jump in if the nominees are "poles apart," i.e., now that it looks like Huckabee vs Edwards or Obama.

So it's safe to say, he wants to run, and he'll find a reason.

The thing is, though, a campaign against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani made some sense; they are divisive figures with stratospheric negatives. An independent candidate in that situation might hope to be more than a spoiler, as Ross Perot was for George H.W. Bush in 1992.

On the other hand, in many ways Mike Huckabee and John Edwards aren't poles apart, aside from that 40-point IQ spread: for example, both have made ending poverty central to their campaigns, and each inclines naturally to positive campaigning. Both are well-liked, and it is difficult to imagine an independent succeeding against attractive red and/or blue party candidates, as Ross Perot found out when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992.

Plus, Barack Obama is a bigger conciliator and compromiser than Bloomberg will ever dream of being, so why oppose him?

Anyway, what's really happening is that the Establishment that was displaced by the Bush radicals intends to use Bloomberg to restore the ancien régime.

So much for the principled moderate.

He changed parties to run for mayor of New York, now he is talking about running in ANOTHER party. The word "Lieberman" does come to mind..............

I understand that Mr. Bloomberg proposes a "government of national unity" and has called for a sort of pow-wow on the subject. Can you imagine what the response would have been to a politician who called for a "government of national unity" prior to our civil war? Bloomberg deserves the same response for his crazy idea.

Cool!

If either Obama -or- Hillary gets the Dem nomination, and Hagel -&- Bloomberg run, I will vote for a Hagel/Bloomberg ticket. I will not vote for either Obama -OR- Hillary.

Edwards '08!

.
Edwards vs. Romney vs. Bloomberg - now that's a campaign I'd find very interesting. Otherwise, I may just sit this one out.
.

Bloomberg is so irrelevant.
Progressive democrats will never vote for a billionaire corporate pig and Republicans will never vote for someone who is as anti 2nd ammendment as they come.

Yeah, they are scared. What if Ron Paul gets the nomination? Talk about a non-corporate robot that is a wild card.

If Paul would get the nomination and if he's not assassinated, he'd pull votes from all over the political spectrum.