Back and forth, up and down, three ways to Sunday: Michael Bloomberg has been teasing City and nation for over a year with hints he might be willing to offer his services as President, provided there was an ideological opening in the race.
Problem is, over the last year, the race has been turned entirely on its head. Instead of Clinton and Giuliani, the nominees will now most likely be Obama and McCain. Instead of hyper-partisan division, we have two nominees that appeal beyond their party's respective bases. In part as a result, Americans have consistently told pollsters that they're happy with their choices in this election (a satisfaction far more pronounced on the Democratic side, obviously).
Today, Mayor Mike drew the inevitable conclusion and announced he would not enter [1] the race.
More, over the fold.
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. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. 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.
This is one of those shibboleths so beloved of the Broder class: that partisanship is icky and must be replaced by a bland mix, taking this from the Rs and that from the Ds. This in spite of the demonstrable fact that republican ideas - Yay, let's invade Iraq! Yay, let's cut taxes on the top 0.5%! What deficit? Woot, let's deregulate the financial sector, lower interest rates and stop enforcing any rules on the mortgage sector! - don't work, have never worked, and will never work.
Bloomberg's decision was probably inevitable some time ago. What is clear, however, is that he himself, far from offering fresh new approaches, is still trapped in the thinking of his class, that bi-partisanship is a thing of value and interest to the nation. It's not. We need more partisanship - Progressive partisanship.
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10]