  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Bloomberg Says He Won’t RunPosted on Feb 27, 2008New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg writes in a New York Times op-ed “I am not—and will not be—a candidate for president.” Thus ends months of speculation on whether the multibillionaire would jump into the race as an independent candidate. Bloomberg writes that he may endorse a candidate who “takes an independent, nonpartisan approach” and “embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy.” Is he talking about Ralph Nader?
Previous item: McCain Chastises Supporters, Again Next item: Prince Harry on the Front Line Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Maani, March 3 at 7:21 am #
Hmmm…
There is now some scuttlebutt about an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. Comments?
Peace.
Report thisBy Expat, February 28 at 8:03 am #
^ your comment rocks (to use the vernacular). You go guy!
Report thisBy jackpine savage, February 28 at 4:16 am #
Independent runs for the Presidency are a much different thing than building viable third, fourth, or fifth parties. The former is rather banal, while the latter is a worthy enterprise.
Unfortunately, neither the American political mind nor our voting system is conducive to third parties. How many times have we already hear “I hate Obama/Clinton so i’ll vote for McCain”?
I call it “the Simpsons electoral theory”, based on the last segment of “Treehouse of Horrors” in 1996. If you don’t remember: the aliens - Kane and Kodos - kidnap Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, taking over their bodies. On election eve, Homer unmasks them. One horrified member of the crowd proclaims that he’ll vote third party...to which one of the aliens responds, “Go ahead, throw away your vote.” Kane wins the election and the final scene shows the Simpsons family in chains, slaving to build a ray gun to destroy a planet for the aliens. Homer quips, “Don’t blame me, i voted for Kodos.”
Americans hardly bother to vote in presidential elections, and the turnout percentages go way down for any other type. That’s the real problem in this country. Moreover, a third party (or independent candidates) would be far more successful at more local levels...but to the American mind, all that really matters is the President (and maybe Congressional seats, at least those that coincide with a Presidential election).
Report thisBy Outraged, February 27 at 11:35 pm #
Quit grandstanding or at least attempting to, for your holier than thou, warmongering candidate. The writing is on the wall.
Modest...?!!!! Give me a break.
“By the way, I just came across this piece from Murdoch’s home newspaper in Australia on the Obama/Clinton issue.....”
**Douglas Chalmers....there is NO ISSUE, other than the Clinton’s trying to retain their dynasty.
“ It would help straighten things out like Obama’s cult following phenomena...”
cult..?!! phenomena....??!!
**you’re joking, right.?
Let’s leave it at “RUPERT MURDOCH SAID” That’ll be enough for MOST people. Again, check out the video:
http://www.bushflash.com/y2.html
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 27 at 10:34 pm #
Link http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,232 86699-7583,00.html
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 27 at 10:33 pm #
Its about time someone started supporting independents - and it is about time that there was an independent (or more) in this election. It would help straighten things out like Obama’s cult following phenomena and the relevancy of experience and qualification and much more.
By the way, I just came across this piece from Murdoch’s home newspaper in Australia on the Obama/Clinton issue.....
This is no time for a celebrity in the Oval Office -
Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor | February 28: WOULD a Barack Obama ascendancy in the US presidential election lead to a new war in the Middle East? There’s quite a respectable case for thinking it might. Would it also lead to catastrophe in Iraq.....
The case for Obama is that as president he would bring the maximum brand for the US from George W. Bush. There is something a little weird about the Obama phenomenon. It’s a bit like the Princess Di obsession. His is a candidacy of celebrity and identity......
Obama does have a record and it places him generally on the Left of the Democratic Party, although he has often used centrist and sometimes even hawkish rhetoric. But his closest advisers all come from the Left of the party.
This is bad for Australia in four ways. It has led Obama into protectionism, he campaigns against Clinton because her husband passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Second, the Left of the Democratic Party has no interest in Asia and can barely find it on a map.
Most important, steadily increases the stridency of his opposition to US troops in Iraq..... Obama, playing not least for the Hollywood Bush haters, has left little room to manoeuvre as president on Iraq. A sudden US withdrawal from Iraq could be catastrophic for the Middle East, and for US standing generally. Obama is all over the place on foreign policy. He has threatened to bomb Pakistan to kill terrorists (imagine if Bush or McCain had said such a thing)......
The case for Clinton is a more modest version of Obama. As the US’s first woman president and a partisan opponent of Bush, she would also be a big brand change for the US. The world would be much less hostile to her than it is to Bush. Moreover, while she has tracked Obama on protectionism, she has not gone as far, and her husband had no protectionist instincts in office. Similarly, though promising to withdraw from Iraq, she has left herself much more wriggle room.....
Report this