Bloomberg hints at endorsing Sen. Clinton

[truthpusher]

Bloomberg hints at endorsing Sen. Clinton
-----------------------
BY DAN JANISON
STAFF WRITER
March 28, 2005, 9:35 PM EST
-----------------------
Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg hinted strongly Monday night he would endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton next year for re-election -- aiming yet another Democrat-friendly signal at city voters.

"I think that I've said as many times as I could both Senator Schumer, the senior senator, and Hillary Clinton, the junior senator, have worked very hard and very effectively for New York City," he said.

-snip-

Running in a mostly Democratic city, Bloomberg also declined to commit to Republican primary debates. Last week he distanced himself from the Republican party on the Terri Schiavo case, saying lawmakers shouldn't intervene.

Last year he endorsed Schumer for re-election.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-mike0329,0,1071609.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines

[brooklynite]

1. Quite frankly, if he'd been smart...

he would have declared himself an Independent, and run in both the Democratic and Republican primaries as a "fusion candidate", ala Ed Koch.

[AuntiBush]

2. Yeah. Well, I hope NO ONE buys this!

I hope everyone out here will be askiing themselves, "WHY are the REPUK MEDIA WHORES" so "concerned" over a Democract in 2008?

Why would they push for Clinton? Think people. Only 2 reasons.

1. Like her man, she's one of them.
2. They know we'll loose again - no one likes her.

I'm not buying into that one. No way.

[shrub chipper]

4. He's suporting her for the Senate, not a Presidential run.

[Dharma_Bum]

6. Yes!

Sound's about right!!

[Gyre]

3. Ya know what I hate about the Inevitable Hillary group

is that they're building "plausible deniability" into the second theft of the general election by ensuring her nomineeship. If that doesn't guarantee the dems will losing the next presidential election by a wide-margin because she loses the popular vote, then the theft of a second election is going to be that much more easily-accomplished because it SEEMS like such a likely outcome if the dems actually nominate her.

Now, that's with a hypothetical generic repubelican stuffed-suit. Think about how likely such a loss appears if they put somebody relatively popular against her. Just my two cents.

Gyre

[Stand and Fight]

7. Correction

Third, not second election theft.

[autorank]

5. OK, here's the plan. Bloomberg likes to get high. Since Hillary's uptight

and fundamentally a conservative, Bloomberg gets some major league shit, gets her in that boat he takes five miles off shore, and tokes up with her. She gets all fucked up, I mean seriously, and starts babbling some meaningless crap. Bloomberg looks over at her and says "Shut the fuck up, you are such a dork! You're unbelievable;" and then Bloomberg starts laughing uncontrollably. She starts to cry but takes another hit, a massive one! Something strikes her and she starts laughing too, making fun of herself. That's the conversion moment. Hillary gets hip, she realizes she's just a schmuck like the rest of us, and she begins her not-so-long march to populism thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and his little friends Chronic and Bluntman.

[Boo Boo]

8. Of course he supports her!

Babs Bush has already declared her the Dem nominee in '08. If the Manchurian Mother wants Hillary then, Goddamit, that's how it shall be!

[adwon]

9. Not a shock

Bloomberg is literally a RINO. He's a lifelong Democrat who registered Republican so Guiliani didn't look like a jackass when he endorsed him. Unlike Guiliani or Pataki, he doesn't have strong ties to the national party. They only tolerate him because a) they can't beat him and b) having the (R) as mayor of New York is desirable.