Newsweek: "Bloomberg and Obama Meet in the Big Apple. Is the White House Next?"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Posted Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:31 AM
Bloomberg and Obama Meet in the Big Apple. Is the White House Next?
Andrew Romano

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/27/bloomberg-and-obama-payback-time.aspx

NEW YORK, NY--At 9:15 this morning, Barack Obama delivered a "major" economic address at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in downtown Manhattan. That was Obama's entree du jour--the message he wanted the media to relay to the American people. Usually, it would've worked; the best way to force the press to cover policy--or anything, really--is to lay it obligingly on their Big Apple doorstep. But unfortunately for Obama, I don't expect to hear much about regulatory restructuring on Hardball tonight, because something tells me that today's appetizer will prove much tastier for the punditry than the main course.

Its name: Michael Bloomberg.

Here we go again. Back in November, Obama and Bloomberg hastily arranged a breakfast sit-down at the New York Luncheonette on E. 50th Street--and the Bloomie-obsessed press immediately started wagging its cable/talk radio/tabloid/Internet tongue "about the possibilities, the angles, the common interests" (in the words of MSM queen bee Mark Halperin). Much of the speculation--and speculation is all one has when forced to "report" from the sidewalk outside a diner--centered on the possibility of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket, and whether Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, could finance the bid out of pocket. As I wrote at the time, such innuendo was asinine: "to pick a billionaire running mate and then take massive sums of his money would make Obama look 1) weak, as if he needs a "sugar daddy" and 2) corrupt, as if he were selling the vice presidency to the highest bidder. Neither charge would be true--but that wouldn't stop Republicans from repeating them ad infinitum."

But four months later, as Bloomberg's decision to introduce Obama today revives the "dream-ticket ruckus," I have to admit: maybe there's something to Obama-Bloomberg '08. The old arguments in favor of the pairing still hold up. Both Obama and Bloomberg are focused, as the Illinois senator noted in remarks, on ending "Washington<'s>... old ideological battles" and "bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions." And Obama could easily refuse Bloomberg's billions and still overwhelm John McCain financially.

But more intriguing is what's happened in the months since Bloomberg and Obama first met--and how well Hizzoner suits the new moment. For starters, the nation's economic meltdown has rocketed to the top of voter concerns. Who better than Bloomberg--both an astronomically successful private-sector entrepreneur and an undeniably effective steward of the nation's financial capital--to lend executive and economic heft to Obama's ticket? And then there's the pesky issue of the Jewish vote. (Sure, a black-Jewish ticket may turn off some folks. But there's a reason it's called a "dream ticket.") In recent weeks, remarks by Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., and his military advisor, Gen. Tony McPeak, have reinforced doubts--however unfounded--among some Jewish voters (many of whom were already dismayed by Louis Farrakhan's relationship with Obama's church) about Obama's pro-Israel bona fides. (Obama lost to Clinton among Jews in the vital swing states of New Jersey and Florida by margins of 26 and 32 percent, respectively.) Although not ostentatiously religious, Bloomberg was raised in a kosher home, celebrated his bar mitzvah, created an endowment for his hometown synagogue, donated millions to Jewish causes in the U.S. and Israel and, according to ABC News, "emphatically supports the Jewish state and has traveled there numerous times." He's one of America's two most prominent Jewish politicians--and something tells me that the other one, Joe Lieberman, isn't raring to ride the Obama train.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Interesting that no one else BUT the "Bloomie-obsessed" media...

>>>and the Bloomie-obsessed press immediately started wagging its cable/talk radio/tabloid/Internet tongue "about the possibilities>>>

ever talks about Bloomberg as a candidate for national office. There appears to be *zero* interest in Bloomberg among the general citizenry... including in NYC.( Reality check: he'll never run with Obama: pro-war, lackluster mayor; O. needs military experience? B's experience is as a VN era draft-dodger).

I believe this is known as "creating a buzz".

One gets the feeling that good things happen to media tongue-waggers that play this game w. "poor" Mike. He's term-limited as mayor, ya know. No place to go but home after 2009. Age becomes a factor. He's running out of time.