Elizabeth Benjamin has a more direct indication of a possible presidential run here . She writes there:

"A top aide to Mayor Bloomberg has met in recent months with the chairman of the state Independence Party to discuss a national ballot access strategy for the 2008 presidential race, party sources confirmed.

While the lame-duck mayor has studiously kept the press guessing about his next move, his chief political strategist, Kevin Sheekey, quietly met at least twice at a Manhattan restaurant with state Independence Party Chairman Frank MacKay.

Bloomberg aides declined to comment but did not deny the meetings."

It may seem like a big step from the NYC mayoralty to the Presidency, but if you look at the bigger picture it's not. Keep in mind that the population of NYC is larger than that of 39 states, and according to the City Council web site, the city's budget is larger than that of 48 states. If we consider governing over a state like Arkansas adequate experience to run for President, then why not elect a New York City mayor? And if we elect a President who had no experience in elected office before being governor of Texas, why not Bloomberg?

The flaw with this idea is not that he lacks experience, it's that he's from New York City. While his candidacy wouldn't affect Clinton to any great extent, Giuliani's and Bloomberg's core base overlap too much, which means that both candidates would suffer. Furthermore, Bloomberg should know that he is always, always going to be compared to Giuliani, and he simply won't be able to compete with the myth-like status Giuliani has had since 9-11. In short, he doesn't have much chance of winning.

This talk about running on the Independence Party ticket is strange, too. Republicans who are dissatisfied with the field are generally people who are very conservative and think most of the Republican candidates are too moderate. A third party candidate they would vote for would be a hard-line conservative from middle America. The people most likely to vote for Bloomberg already have plenty of similar options to choose from within the Republican Party. Democrats, on the other hand, are generally pleased with the choices they have and aren't going to contribute in any significant way to Bloomberg's base. So basically, no one would vote for him.

Or maybe he's another Ross Perot, a wealthy businessman who wants to run even though he knows he won't win, whether it's for the sake of vanity, because he loves having political power, to inject different ideas into the debate, or because he doesn't know how else to spend his time and money. Regardless of why, it's a stupid move, but if he goes through with it, all the better for the Democrats.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you glaukopis. I personally know many Democrats who aren't too thrilled with the Democratic choices right now and would be willing to look at another viable candidate - Republican or Independent.

As for Giuliani vs. Bloomberg - yes, I do agree that Giuliani rode to fame post 9/11 but the reality is any mayor would have done that. And I believe people realize that. He certainly seemed like a bit of hero post 9/11 but that was over 5 years ago.

I think now, most people remember Giuliani's pandering to the right at the RNC, his shifting stance on social issues such as abortion and immigrants. And it is becoming obvious that he is shifting his views to appeal to the right and he looks like a total hypocrite.

I do hope Bloomberg runs. He's qualified, he doesn't speak out of both sides of his mouth and he has demonstrated that he is willing to take initiatives that may be unpopular in the short term but good for us in the long term.

Now that's an admirable trait that is hard to find amongst politicians these days.