>I don't think it matters whether Bloomberg gets in or not. Not electable.
>
>You're just joking with that Vince Foster stuff, right?

Yeah, I don't think Clintons had him whacked ... anymore than I saw Tony explicitly say to take out Phil Leotardo <g> ( no, there is a lot of mystery about the Foster thing, and while I think there is a lot to it the Clintons would not like public I don't think they killed him - though I think they know a more about it than they'd like to ) I like Bill Clinton, for all his roguishness, and I even see a lot to admire in HRC. I just don't want her anywhere near the White House ever again.

Seriously, the issue isn't Bloomberg being electable ( though he is probably more electable than Hillary ) but what his candidacy would do to the election. Remember, this guy has the money to launch a better funded campaign than either party and he's not Perot-crazy. He could definitely frame the whole election in whatever image he chose. And I believe he just might do that. This could get really interesting. When Bloomberg talks people tend to listen. From a sheer administrative point of view he might not make a bad president. We could use some executive competence ( can't remember the last time we actually had any in that office )




>
>
>>Just saw this today. Very clever. It will even get free play on Fox News <g>
>>
>>Glad they didn't include a shot of Vince Foster in Fort Marcy Park. Too much verisimilitude would have interfered with the message <s>
>>
>>( of course that's a cheap shot ... but that ain't nothin' compared to what next year is gonna be like. You think Bloomberg will get in it, now that he's an independent? )
>>
>>>(replying to last post in thread)
>>>
>>>I think this is pretty clever ---
>>>
>>>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=8262