Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
Sure, Bloomberg doesn't have necessarily the foreign affairs experience that Hilary has and he isn't as loud and over-whelming like Guiliani, all in all, he has quite a respectable background, a good business accumen, sound moral judgements and has done a great job being the Mayor of one of the largest if not the largest city in America. Aside from all that, I love the fact that he is completely a self-made man and acts like it with riding the subway or biking to work and not taking a salary. There is something to admire there. He certainly doesn't have the baggage of the other two candidates. Rudy is a fear-mongering, scare tactician who frankly, scares the heck out of me. While I think Hilary would make a good president and is quite smart and knowledgable, I think unfortunately, she has this image, albeit some of it built by external forces, that make her such a polarizing figure (I almost cringe using that word but thats what it boils down to).
And as for the comment from a prior entry, stating that people are not ready to vote for a Jewish, Black or Woman, why not add Hispanic, Asian, Indian, African and anyone else that ANYONE can think of to keep people from voting for the person who is right for the job regardless of their background, sex, color, race or creed (yes, that is sarcasm there). If we do this, if we continue to do this, we will find ourselves once again faced with a choice of only white, Christian men. Frankly, it is time for a change.
I really like Bloomberg, but I don't know if his religion -judaism- will be a problem if he runs for President, this country is basically Cristian and that seems to be an important factor to win the elections. Please, I would like comments about this topic. Thank you.
I am a big fan of Bloomberg. He deserves just as much, if not more, credit for NY's resurgence as Guiliani does (i'm not fan of Guliani's). I think Bloomberg is the perfect "post-partisan" candidate, which is really what this country needs.
However, I'm voting for Hillary. While I have no doubt Bloomberg could be an effective candidate and President, my primary concern is electing a Democratic president. While Bloomberg would siphon away votes from both Dems and Repubs, I think he'd siphon more votes from Dems. That could embolden a weak republican field, subjecting us to 8 more years of mismanagement and terrible leadership.
Gosh, I love Bloomberg.
Bloomberg, hands down.
without a doubt, the only one of the three with a shred of integrity is mayor mike. he has many flaws and i wouldn't support him over certain democratic candidates, but his record of competence and efficacy represent a stark contrast to other officials elected to executive posts across this country. the allure of president mike is that, beholden to no one, he could steer clear of special interests and make this nation a functioning democracy once again. A record that includes the visionary planNYC, municipal campaign finance reform, and an impressive managerial style make for an intriguing candidacy to say the least. prospects of victory, well that is another matter altogether...
I disagree with Bloomberg on numerous policies and initiatives he has promoted, but do admire his willingness to take a chance and move forward. He is not truly in touch with the challenges the alleged middle class face, but he tries in his own way to effect change he believes will help. I think some business focused projects are mis-guided, i.e., a stadium on west side, and I fault some of his advisors. Rudy ran a polce state and should be held accountable for the disasters of 9/11 instead of being wrongfully credited with ex post facto leadership. Hillary has become too much the empty politician lacking a core. I would rather vote for someone who has a good problem solving business approach, and will take the risk to try something, even if I don't always agree with how that plays out. If Mike could learn to manage his ego, he could be a truly great leader. I do fear his cost/benefit equations applied to government but will hope he can grow in his generosity of spirit to reach the iconic leadership status I believe he would like. To alter his attitude toward bicyclists would be one leading indicator that he is capable of this. In the meantime I will donate to bicycling advocacy groups while pulling the lever for Bllomberg.
Giuliani is a dictator who could never take an oath to support the Constitution. He would be worse than Bush.
Bloomberg is a good manager, but he is not a leader. He seems obsessed with his own self-aggrandizement.
I really dislike Hillary and consider her a typical politician. I'm on the left, and I voted for her for her first term in the Senate, but I did not vote for her for a second term (choosing a third party candidate instead) because I feel she has done an terrible job of representing the interests of New Yorkers. Her entire Senate career has been soley to advance herself towards a presidential run. She has been completely out of line with public opinion in New York State on the War, Health Care, and most other issues, choosing to vote far more towards the middle than New Yorkers desire.
However, I would reluctantly vote for Clinton (out of these three choices) because she would do the most to advance National Healthcare once she is in power. And the alternative of Giuliani is simply frightening, while Bloomberg is too unpredictable and unresponsive to the public. He has his own agenda. Some of it's good, some not. But he's a little to autocratic for my tastes.
I hope that Guiliani wins the Republican primary because -- lets be honest -- he's unelectable in the general. He can't win the moral conservative base. He's far too much of an authoritarian to win the libertarian end of the GOP.
In a general election, I would choose Bloomberg over Senator Clinton. He's a candidate in the style of Dwight Eisenhower, more or less. He's a fiscal Republican and a social progressive, which is exactly what I want.
My dream ticket is Al Gore/Bill Clinton.
WHY do we have a system that does not encourage real talent to come to the fore? Bloomberg is an excellent executive (voted for him and Hillary) and would probably do the "best" job if allowed to work, as opposed to keeping other politicians happy.
But he won't win - and neither will any other candidate who is simply sensible, problem-solving and smart.
I would vote Mayor Bloomberg in a heartbeat. He is honest, hardworking,clear in his views, and abcve all else he puts the public first. I am reminded of two others like him Teddy Roosevelt and Franklyn Roosevelt.
I don't know if Bloomberg will run or not, but I wish that other candidates could learn from his example -- he is actually working, as opposed to abandoning all else to follow the campaign trail.
I voted for Bloomberg and Clinton and would vote for Clinton for pres., she has more experience and who do great. Not to mention, a highly qualified woman pres would be breathtaking!
Absolutely Bloomberg. Both Giuliani and Clinton are in the pockets of deeply rooted politcal interest groups. Bloomberg would be beholden to no one.
I've voted for Bloomberg and Clinton. At the moment Bloomberg is the one candidate who can change my current Barak Obama vote.
I would vote for Giuliani. I have voted for him before. I also voted for Bloomberg before. Bloomberg should run for Govenor or Senator, before he runs for President.
I've vote for all. And i would vote for Bloomberg.
Unfortunately, those who crave power enough to submit to the nastiness of an American presidential campaign are probably the least likely to use that power wisely. Therefore, while Hillary is smart & capable, and I could vote for her based on those qualities, it's hard to believe she will always act in the best interests of the greatest number of Americans regardless of the political consequences to herself. Voting for Rudy would be voting for 4 more years of ignorance, bluster, cronyism, and "I'm the decider and I don't have to take anybody's advice" governance. Bloomberg could have my vote if he has some wisdom to offer on foreign policy. In today's world, Americans can't afford to concern ourselves only with matters inside our own porous borders.
I can tell you exactly what hillary will do mon Iraq. Becouse whoever ends the war would be labeled as the one who "lost Iraq" hillary will follow the Rumsfeld stratagy. This is the only way she could hope for a reelection
Bloomberg has a point. Voting within a party line supports the two party farce of a representative government. On the sole basis of being unaffiliated, I'd go Bloomberg.
Really anyone who doesn't want to run is a fresher and more honest candidate than those that do, since we are talking about politicians.
I have to echo Rita's post. I would vote for Bloomberg because his agenda would be to make the country better. He seems like the perfect candidate. While Republicans and Democrats in Washington are waffling on issues like global warming and gun control because they want donations from ExxonMobil and GM and wouldn't want to alienate the NRA, Bloomberg is actually getting something done. Bloomberg is exactly we need to shake up Washington and restore America's standing in the world. My father, a North Carolinian who has never not voted for a Republican said 2 years ago that he wishes Bloomberg would run for president. If he can unite my father and me, he'd be the first person since Reagan to have such broad appeal.
Hilary and the other senators didn't feel the need to read the fine print before voting to go to war in Iraq, because all of the legislators were under tremendous pressure from Aipac to vote for war. Much intelligence was "provided" by the Israeli military to show that Saddam had WMD, and Aipac put a lot of pressure on US policymakers and senators/congressmen/women to vote pro-war.
If the election were held today, I'd vote for Hillary. But if Bloomberg were to get into the race, articulate an effective foreign policy, and demonstrate more of the leadership he's been exercising in NYC, I'd be very inclined to consider his candidacy.
Bloomberg. He's brilliant; he's a diplomat; he has spectacular business skills; and, given his wealth and the fact he has no political agenda other than to make the country better, he's incorruptible.
DON'T RUN MIKE!!!!!
I would vote for Bloomberg. At this point, Hillary is talking like our only interest in Iraq is bringing the troops home safely and Giuliani has no clue that nonkinetic actions are required in order to win today's wars. While Bloomberg does not have any more of a military background than does Giuliani, he does not share Giuliani's belief in the supreme power of kinetic action that would get in the way allowing someone who does understand military affairs to act prudently.
(I have voted for Hillary and Bloomberg in the past.)
I would deliberately not vote for Bloomberg out of spite, because he will not win (regretably, this country does not understand the potential for good that a third party could bring), but he would likely be the cause of the democratic party's loss. If he had forsight and patience, he should have switched to the Democratic party, lobbied for the vice-presidency, and worked toward a future presidential role. Instead, he's deluded and egomaniacal, and probably running. That said, and given the remaining candidate options I have to pick from, Hillary would be it. Giuliani seems like a child, and Hillary a traitless politician, so I guess I'd rather have an adult in office. Thanks.
I have voted for all 3 at some point (although after Rudy changed in his second term, I regretted that vote). Although I think Hillary is really smart and could be very effective, after watching Bloomberg govern, I cannot think of anyone who would be a better President.
When I heard this news yesterday, it was the first time I've gotten excited about a candidate since the campaigns started. Bloomberg would be an excellent candidate and I'd give him my full support.
He's socially liberal, economically conservative, and pragmatic more than anything. That combination counts with a lot of americans, especially in Urban areas.
Bloomberg is the perfect 'purple' candidate. How about Bloomberg-Gore!
If I had to choose between Hillary, Rudy, or Michael, I would choose Hillary. I did vote for Michael Bloomberg for Mayor the first time around even though I'm a democrat, but he is a business man and I don't think he has what it takes to run the country. And, just to set the record straight, if Rudy were to ever win the presidential election, I just might move to another country, because I just couldn't deal with another mindless idiot in office.
I think that all these political discussions are far too New York-centric. I don't think the rest of the country is ready to vote for a Jewish, Black or Female President.
I would vote for Bloomberg. I have voted in the past for Hillary and Rudy (written in Rudy's name twice), and I think they both have a great deal to offer; however, Mike Bloomberg is one of the few people in public life who has my trust and confidence. I think he's wise, fair, and makes thoughtful decisions.
if Bloomberg is going to run, maybe now's the time for Ross Perot to make a comeback (he's only a year or 2 older than John McCain. Here a recent quote from Wikipedia (so it must be reliable):When asked by CNN, Ross Perot asserted: "I see no political fortitude in any of the candidates. I think I might just have to run".
If I had to pull the lever today, it would be Hillary, if only because Bloomberg has never been pressed to say a word on foreign affairs, especially Iraq. But if he does address Iraq, as would be necessary if he ran, and he makes sense, then the great record he has running both a business and New York would make him the choice.
A word about Rudy. He is completely unacceptable. He is running because of 9/11, but even his expertise there is a complete myth. He was completely brilliant in the weeks after the attacks, when the right words were needed to soothe a wounded city (at least until he made noises about becoming Mayor for Life). But whenever the talk has turned to terrorism and foreign policy ... which is very different from setting the right tone as mourner in chief, he has been as dumb as Bush. As Bush has proven, bluster can be disastrous, and that is Rudy's sadly unsophisticated approach.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
Brian Lehrer Weekend: The Nation Magazine, Des Bishop & Eva Moskowitz
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.