>>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 )
>

Don't forget Dubya ran offering the same concept of executive competence ;-( Remember the promise that it would be an "MBA administration"?

I don't know that Bloomberg can frame the election in whatever image he chooses. Money goes only so far, especially in a front-loaded campaign. There is less than 8 months to go until Super Duper Rootin' Tootin' Tuesday or whatever they're calling it now. And don't underestimate the ignorance of much of the voting public. Bloomberg is an unknown to many outside New York.

Rudy must be delighted by the prospect of another New York mayor in the race.
Even one was testing the boundaries of the Republican base.