wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

"Businessman" Bloomberg had nothing to say in his op / ed piece about universal health care / health insurance reform (and it's impact on business issues such as competitiveness of American businesses) or the current mortgage crisis. The set of "business friendly" de-regulating decisions that the sub-prime mess is very much affecting the lower income middle class that is struggling to maintain an economic foothold in our ever epanding urban areas. Blooomberg also took a shot at NAFTA bashers which may not sit well with Obama's friends in rust-belt labor.

Nice little poem, Leon. That was good (although that is one reason I support him since Dems and Reps are the same on this).

NOT TO BE PASSED OVER

He's chilly toward the Israelis

And won't be at my seder

But he blasts the Gospel of Greed

So I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

Boring. Who is this political hack you have on? Bloomberg should run for cheif of monotone voices.

I have lived in NYC for two years. I have yet to understand why and continued to be amazed that New Yorkers ever took Bloomberg or Giuliani as potential presidential material. They are simply not "national" candidates. They have made names for themselves in NYC, and nowhere else. People in Texas, Montana, Indiana, etc have little to no idea who Bloomberg even is. This is in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama who, despite being senators representing singular states, both transcend their locales. Giuliani barely did and Bloomberg NEVER has. New Yorkers really need to wake up and smell the coffee. This may be the economic engine of America, but we're still talking about a mere 8 million people in a country of 300 million!

Brian - I love your show. I am a registered no party affiliate, and I believe in third parties. Today I take great issue with what you said about a third party swinging the election. You said "Nadar is running again and we saw what happend in 2000." I voted for NADAR in 2000, not GORE, not BUSH. If I wanted GORE I would have voted for GORE! If people want to blame someone for costing Gore the election, blame those registered democrats who voted for Bush! This idea that the 2.6 % who voted nationally for Nadar cost Gore is very dangerous, because it talks down those informed voters who want to vote third party and belittles those vote for WHO THEY WANT TO BECOME PRESIDENT, NOT WHO THEY THINK WILL WIN!!!

You raised the question on air about Bloomberg as the VP for Clinton. The Constitution makes this difficult, but not impossible. Since both are from New York, the NYS electors would be unable to vote for both of them for office. From the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves"

Once again - the electoral college steps in to confuse the issue. :)

This seems to be a bit of NYC, or Mid-Atlantic narcissism... no matter how much I like him.

Obama/Bloomberg, what a seachange that would be.

Obama adapted Bloomberg's infrastructure message.

Bloomberg will be irrelevant like all the other politicians endorsing candidates. Bloomberg teased the electorate for months and decided to do nothing. He missed his window of opportunity. Unfortunately, he would have been the best President of the bunch.

Contrary to the CW, Obama does not NEED to pick as VP someone with particular military or national security background.

He needs simply to provide the American people with confidence that those bases are covered.

When and if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, I would urge him to announce, in advance of the general election, not just his running mate but a full foreign affairs SLATE -- including his VP, Secretaries of State and Defense, and National Security Adviser.

I think this discussion reflects a poor understanding of the US electoral system.

The problem with third party or independent candidates in the United States is related to the kind of system we have. Our electoral system is a winner take all, or "first past the post" which means there can only be one winner to any political contest. Amassing as big a supporting organization or party as possible is the only way to win. Small parties have very little chance at winning so the incentive is to align with a larger party. For larger parties the incentive is to appease members who might break off and join the independent's bid, and to identify independent voters and pull them into your party.

Organizing an independent candidacy is unlikely to work unless one of the two major parties is in such disarray that you can effectively take their place. Or you can highjack a disorganized party in order to assume their organizational resources - which is probably why Bloomberg got elected twice in NYC as Republican.

If you want greater diversity in the system, you need a constitutional change towards a parliamentary system based on proportional representation. There may be other ways that involve dual party endorsements like in New York, or building broad parallel organization that then turns into a party with ready-made strength. But even in those cases, under our current system you'd probably end up destroying one of the two current parties and creating a new two party system.

Bloomberg's biggest stumbling block will be the NRA - they would fight tooth and nail against him as a VP...which is sad because I think he'd be fantastic.

This country needs a third party because the Republicans and Democrats are turning this country into a third world nation.

The US exports raw materials and buys manufactured goods from China and India.

Bloomberg or Nader or someone else needs to run every time because they are addressing the issues the Democrats and the Republicans refuse to talk about.

Obama, Clinton or McCain are the same. There is no change between the three. Obama talks a lot about change but you'll see there will be nothing different. And of course Clinton & McCain will be more of the same.

The third party will can make it easier for the Republicans to win so be it. When things get bad enough and the Republicans do more damage to this country then maybe the American voter will finally wake up!

Bloomberg as Head of EPA!!

He will be remembered most for his contributions to getting NYC to be greener.

Bla bla bla bla bla, GOOD I'd rather he not run. Anyone who supported Joe Lieberman is NOT anyone I want for president, nor, for that matter, vice president.

#10 Mr Milkman,
It's not that he tried to run as a Dem but he was a lifelong liberal Dem (the big business kind at least) and he never had a chance in the Dem primary so he switched partieds and bought the Republican primary since that was a much easier path. And he funded Republicans in the state big time so they would overlook his liberal policies.

bloomberg won't woo southerners. Obama will pick Edwards.

There's been concern about assassination of Obama. A Jewish VP would be a great life insurance policy for Obama.

Didn't Bloomberg initially attempt to run as a Democrat then when he couldn't he paid his way into the Republican party?

If Mayor Bloomberg is so influential as an independent, then why didn't he / doesn't he change NY legislation to allow registered independents to vote in primaries? They allow registered independents to vote in primaries in Ohio. Furthermore, how can we trust a man who is courting both national parties for his own personal political gain to become a veep? He's a political poser.

I love Bloomberg. He is possibly the greatest Mayor of NYC - except for his troubling NYPD Commissioner. Police Brutality under Ray Kelly, from the Bell shooting, the RNC abuses, and the continuing silly persecution of bicycle activists mars his administration and troubled me about him being President.

Bloomberg would make a great Secretary of Health Education and Welfare, HUD, or EPA -- or all of them at once.

I don't see him as a VP.

And Obama needs a General as VP to bone up his international and military and patriotic bona fides.

Brian, you should read Hugh's comment - it's spot on. Also, bloomberg is similar to Spitzer - when they don't get their way (e.g. congestion pricing in Bloomberg's case) they stomp their feet like little rich kids instead of trying to work with the people they have to convince. Bloomberg should go back to the private sector where people will just follow his orders.

I think this idea of Bloomberg as the best thing since sliced bread was created by journalists with lots of time on their hands and a consultant with a book to hawk. American cities tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic-- why in the world would an urban agenda crafted by Bloomberg and other mayors sway the McCain campaign to go after votes in one of its toughest demographics?

Bloomberg's "run" had about as much chance as Guiliani's. All his candidacy would have done is ensure a Republican victory. I have a very favorable view of Bloomberg overall who did he think was going to vote for him? To the extent the word "liberal" means anything anymore, he is very liberal. Hence, no Republicans will vote for him. Plus, Obama and Clinton are generally viewed very favorably by Dems so very few Dems would vote for him. And same with Edwards, who may have scared the DLC folks etc., but still most Dems would want him over Bloomberg.

While Bloomberg's candidacy surely would have had an effect on the election, it is impossible for me to see him getting more than 20% of the vote. And virtually all his votes would have come from the Democratic nominee.

If Bloomberg wants to be a positive presence on the national stage, perhaps he should try to be a little less of a New-York-centrist and wealth-supremicist. His policies have consistently supported rich developers at the expense of regular New Yorkers.

As Nat Hentoff has pointed out in the Voice, Bloombergs record on civil rights is appalling. In schools and on the streets on New York, Bloomberg has defended and endorsed gross police intimidation tactics, most notably in the criminal conduct of police during the 2004 Republican convention.

Is his "influence" a function of his ability to finance it?

Please explain Bloomberg's relevance on the national stage? I never took his prospective campaign seriously. Why has the media?

Why would he allow all the speculation about himself, and why would he grandstand by rejecting it now?