Interesting points, however I suspect Bloomberg is more interested in who will win the GOP race than the Democratic one.  While Hillary may not be popular among the netroots or those who walk the halls of The New Republic (two groups with more in common than either cares to admit), her nomination won't persuade vast amounts of Democrats to consider other alternatives.  The Democrats will for the most part rally around whoever their nominee is.

The Republicans, on the other hand, could see large parts of their base turn away from their nominee, particularly if that nominee is Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney.  That's where Bloomberg probably sees his opening.  If McCain is the nominee, however, I doubt Bloomberg would jump in.

"There would be so much depression among the Democrats and independents that [Bloomberg] would be bound to reap a rich bounty"

Interesting choice of metaphors to describe a former Salomon bond trader's calculations, Mr P.

Speaking of calculations, has it occurred to Bloomberg that the effect of a second liberal candidate in the race would be, under ANY conceivable scenario, to hand the election to the Republican?

Mike's a liberal, at least as liberal as any Dem this side of Kucinich. If he wants to serve the nation instead of just appease his raging billionaire's ego, he needs to run as a liberal and compete like every other liberal Dem, in hte snow in Iowa, on the same footing as Biden and Dodd and the Little Big 3.  

A Bloomberg independent bid => President McCain in 2008. And quite possibly President Huckabee in 2012 or whenever McCain runs out of gas. Is Bloomberg's vanity so monstrously large that he's willing to give us continued Republican presidencies for 8 more years?

I  find this anti-Hillary talk highly distasteful, even though she is not my first choice. If she gets the nomination, which is still likely, she will be permanently damaged in the general election and may lose, not because of the Republican attack machine, but by the Democrats. Maybe it will be the vanity of the likes of Marty who will give us Huckabee.

With regard to Bloomberg entering the race, I suspect that would only occur if either or both parties fail to nominate moderates.

Is there somewhere something someone can read as to Bloomberg's disdain for Hillary?

I agree with tep as to the likely impact of a Bloomberg third party candidacy--he would become the latter-day Ralph Nader and enable ANY Republican candidate to become President.  I can only hope that the saner (i.e. non-ass-kissing) minds around Bloomberg will keep reminding him of this doleful history.  It is hard to imagine the quantity of hubris required to believe that you can succeed where Teddy Roosevelt failed, even with all those billions.

I suggest that Peretz is engaging in a little projection...he has disdain for HC and he dislikes Edwards' so-called "politics of resentment".  This is a common character tic of the man - projecting his beliefs onto people he likes, without a 'scintilla" of evidence that the other person holds these beliefs at all...

I agree with tep and ennis et. al. re impact of Bloomberg entering the race. Equally to the point, while he's "liberal," that's largely in comparison to his immediate predecessor. Bloomberg reeks of wealth and the rich guy's high opinion of himself and how he can make things better for us peasants. He's been (along with Joel Kline, the education boss) a disaster for the schools here in NY.

All NY pols are in bed with real estate -- he's been moreso (with his pal Dan Doctoroff) -- from trying to build a sports stadium on the already over-congested west side of Manhattan and bidding to bring the Olympics to NY (talk about urban nightmares) to the giveaway of the new stadium to the Steinbrenners -- latest there is the 600 (as of news last night, anyway) valet parking spots for the rich folks at the new Yankee Stadium -- the peasants will get theirs for double the cost they've been paying...

And why aren't people concerned with the continued use of his name for his media business while he's been playing with his newest toy -- New York City? Or with the fact that Doctoroff, who's been a major player in bedding down with the real estate interests and the Olympics bid and helping to mess up mass transit/traffic decisions, is leaving his deputy mayor post to go to (drumroll, please) Bloomberg's media empire????

This man is smart, competent, brilliant, all of that, etc...and poison to public life.

A q for Marty, one which I'm sure I'm not alone in asking:

Does your distaste for the Clintons run so high, or deep, as to overwhelm the various core political commitments we've heard and seen from you over the years, ie the hostility to rapaciousness and commitment to social provision that mark liberal politics?

Ever since I began reading this magazine in 1979, I've seen a constant commitment to three things: the survival and success of the jewish state; the triumph over radical elements by a socially progressive but intelligent, moderate, "decent" American left; and intelligent, sensible dialogue and criticism. Whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton or her ex and their retinue, I cannot see how support for her candidacy violates any of those three key elements of the New Republic's mission.

It is also obvious that unremitting hostility to Hillary's candidacy, along with support for a Bloomberg candidacy, will with near-certainty result in continued Republican dominance of the executive for another 4 years at a minimum.

What's going on?

Sincerely,

T

I  remenber a certain magazine endosing Joseph Lieberman in 2004.  Speaking as a yellow-dog Democrat, I can say that any primary victory by Joementum that year would have been depressing.  Hillary in '08?  Not so much.  

Who's Hillary's ex?

Teplukhin asks a fair question Marty.

A Bloomberg run would ensure, at best, a one term sane Mc Cain, followed with all the advantages of the incumbency, by god knows what.

"Friends of friends" does not make a nation.

You should come out against a Bloomberg run, as should TNR, as soon as possible.

Where is the party whip?

(What's a yellow-dog Democrat?)

I really want to know how Bloomberg thinks about Obama, he is the "bipartisan/above washington" candidate, it would seem impossible for Bloomberg to run if and (hopefully when) Obama becomes the Dems nominee for president, then wouldn't they cancel each other out. if either Hilary or Edwards comes out strong then it makes much more sense for Bloomberg to run. Obama and Bloomberg have the same message and therefore the result would be Republican in office in 2008.

A yellow-dog Democrat is one who would for a Democrat over a Republican, even if the Dem was a yellow (cowardly) dog.

Ain't Amurrican inglish great, iggy?

:) Certainly is Butchie.

(Is that really what it means? That's pretty obnoxious.)

Butchie,

Though I love the color theme, "yellow dog" seems to fit the GOP profile more than the Dems.

Hey, I don't invent 'em.  Dems all over the South call themselves "yellow dog" Democrats.  I agree, Iggy, it's pretty bad, but most Dems I know today feel this way, Southern or not.

Anybody but a Republican.