GOSH! Mikee's going to sit this one out!
In an interesting NYT Op-Ed (probably restricted) None other than the redoubtable, or is that doubtable, Mike Bloomberg has grandly announced that HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
Or is he? I found some of his pompous statements ambiguous, to be kind. He begins:
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. holding himself both distant and above the fray while he feeds some Republican talking points to the "little people" reading his screed.
Then he throws some meat to (his future Dem supporters?) 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.
So far, so good. What's not to like?
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 [MY WORD! What a far traveling Mayor of New York] — 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.
Oh! if only they had Mike's VISION!
More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership.
Gee! I love that kind of talk!
I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. Go Ralph?
But then, the disappointing statement. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, (in my mirror every morning) but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president.
But we NEED you Mike! Show us the way!
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.
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.
What a Mensch! I wonder IF it just so happens that no nonpartisan candidate of a political party happens to satisfy his discerning demands, he'll sadly, reluctantly whip out his billion dollar wad and work selflessly to steer the country in the right direction himself?
Move over Ralph Nader! It seems there's likely not to be enough room on the planet for TWO such egos.
DemnNewJ, That was funny!
Posted by Seven of Six at February 28, 2008 05:13 AMhe's said he's not running maybe half a dozen times, now, then dropped more hints that he might. it's good to know that if the world needs him, he's always there, poised to help...
Posted by Turkana at February 28, 2008 05:29 AMExcellent article: Obama's Mercenary Position - Jeremy Scahill
"Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue."
Posted by Seven of Six at February 28, 2008 06:01 AMThanks, So6!
The article on Obama's Mercenary Position is interesting. I'm not sure I would call any article excellent when it relies entirely on anonymous, campaign staffers amd even senior campaign staffers to define the position of a potential President Obama.
Scahill may have good, progressive credentials as a writer, but the article seemed to me to begin with an anonymous quote and then proceed to explain the situation as if the words are coming from anonymous' mouth, rather than his own.
I'm very sensitive to the some people say syndrome and I note that he is actively promoting a book on Blackwater. Certainly I am very concerned that Obama would, in any way, help perpetuate the mercenary industry, however "reluctantly". This article just didn't convince me of that - yet.
I'm not sure what it means that the Clinton "campaign" won't talk to him on the issue. It may be that they're distracted and wary, or it may have more disturbing overtones. I have no way of knowing.
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 28, 2008 06:54 AMRight on several accounts DeminNewJ. Especially Scahill wanting to promote his book. I think his bringing awareness of mercinaries are honorable though.
I was impressed that Obama had one of his advisors even address an issue that concerns me. I'm sure that the staffer had to discuss this topic with Obama.
Obama sponsoring "...a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts..." will be news to a lot of people.
Scahill continues, "Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives." I whole heartedly agree.
The comment, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law." Was an important statement. However, I wish he would back Bernie Sanders bill, "...Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act, which mandates that US personnel undertake all diplomatic security in Iraq within six months of enactment."
But hey, Obama is aware a problem exists.