Bipartisan group eyes independent bid: one more argument for an Obama nomination by the Democrats.

[calteacherguy]

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html?hpid=topnews

We can't afford to nominate a divisive nominee. Not with McCain surging and now this.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. isn't that what Pelosi did? And all she got was shit on by the admin.

[calteacherguy]

2. Point is this is a serious independent effort.

Potentially unprecendented, and it has big players backing it.

It won't able to be beaten by any candidate perceived as overly partisan on either side.

Under these circumstances, Republicans would be wise to nominate McCain and Democrats Obama.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Independent? White males who are attempting to stop the first Woman president

by suggesting that she is not bi-partisan enough?
Bull shit. I don't buy it for one minute. It certainly is unprecedented. So were the Clarence Thomas hearings.

[calteacherguy]

4. I don't think you are seeing the big picture, Evergreen.

It's not just about Clinton. I imagine they would find problems with an Edwards nomination as well and run against him.

Not everything is only about Clinton. Look at what this country has been through and the longing for a new kind of politics. It's not about Clinton, it's about America and where we are at now.

It's a big reason for why I'm supporting Obama.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I was reading the statement by Biden and the reference to Clinton

And Biden suggesting that if Clinton gets the nod, there will be a fight. After looking at this article, however, I see that it may not be Clinton at all. If anyone is suggesting Unity, it is Clinton who has worked in a bi-partisan fashion for years now, to get things done.

And, you are right--I think I need to turn off the computer tonight!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Depends Who The Third Party Nominates

Since we can bet the house a third party candidate can't win the only question is who his or her candidacy will hurt most...

Out of the most recent examples, George Wallace hurt the Republicans big time, John Anderson hurt the Democrats, and Perot marginally helped the Democrats...

Polling indicates a Bloomberg candidacy hurts Republicans more but I would need more information before rendering a final opinion...

[Inuca]

16. I would not bet the house

I would not even bet $100 against a 3rd party win, assuming of course that we are talking Bloomberg. He is an eminently pragmatic and shrewd man, and as everyone keeps repeating, he will only get into the race if he thinks he has a good chance to win. And I think it is a safe assumption that his ability to evaluate the odds, not to mention access to information, etc., is better than yours or mine. (Recent) history is not always a good guide to the future.

[ginchinchili]

15. Biden did not say Clinton.

His reference was to the front runners with all the money. I think it's important that we get these things right. Biden does not shy away from answering questions and he is a straight shooter, but he also resists the temptation to make personal attacks on the other candidates, unlike the 3 front runners. So, Biden answered the question, answered it honestly, and avoided any personal attacks. As to his answer, he took it from what Bloomberg has been saying for a while now, and what this bi-partisan group had suggested. Biden answered the question as accurately as he could while still avoiding personal attacks. Again, my hat is off to the man.

[Windy]

11. And don't forget, Obama met with Bloomberg...

One has to wonder why? Is bloomberg hoping for an Obama win, or if Obama loses the nom, he is looking for him to run as a independent under the banner of Unity '08? I'm just throwing that out for discussion.

[AtomicKitten]

7. The indie vote appears split between McCain and Obama at present.

Rumor has it (blog chatter) that Bloomberg will run if either Hillary or Giulliani gets the nod, but that may be a NY "thang" or it could be that they are sufficiently flawed candidates that he sees an opening. Either way a third party go will most definitely throw a monkeywrench in the works.

[calteacherguy]

8. I think such a third party would have a real chance of winning in America today.

If Democrats really want our best chance of a Democrat in the WH, we all better wake up and nominate Obama because he may well be the only Democratic nominee who can prevail this time around.

Well, I've got lots of other reasons for supporting Obama as well.

Point is right now though first we have to WIN.

[AtomicKitten]

9. It has been clear for some time he is the viable alternative to Hillary.

Edwards is doing well in Iowa but is sufficiently behind in NH and SC that he is dependent upon the domino theory to win. Obama is neck-and-neck with Hillary and positioned in the first primary states such that an Iowa win will give him the momentum to jettison him to victory.

I do believe Obama is not only our best candidate but also our best hope for winning the White House.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Teddy Roosevelt Was A Former President And Couldn't Win As A Third Party Candidate

For all of Perot's success he couldn't carry one state after beating Bush* and Clinton in polls taken immediately prior to the Democratic Convention...

Since it hasn't happened I won't believe it can happen until it does...

[AlGore-08.com]

12. Perot did drop out of the race and get back in it - - and he said some flat crazy stuff

And his running mate was a PR disaster. There is no way of knowing whether he would have done better if he and his running mate were more credible.

I'm not sure a third party could win this time either, but Bloomberg has enough money to at least be competitive.

[ShadesOfGrey]

14. I agree we have to win, but Edwards would be a wiser choice. n/t

[DURHAM D]

13. Wow - what a group.

Sam Nunn- went to war with Clinton the day he arrived in the W.H. over Clinton's attempt to allow gays to openly serve in the military. A total ass. And a first class bully.

Senator Robb - who care's. The only reason he was elected to begin with is that his wife is Lyndon Johnson's daughter.

David Boren - supposedly a Dem but I could never be sure. He was George Tenet's major sponsor into his position at the CIA for which he was not really qualified. David's son is in Congress and votes blue-dog.

All of the above are basically Repubs.

Gary Hart - probably needs something to do.

Chuck Hagel - scares me and I hope he stays out of the race.

Bill Brock - also a former senator from Tennessee but they leave that out for some reason. He beat Al Gore senior to take the seat but lost it after one term. He is the most boring man on the planet - I know because I had to spend a year with him one afternoon 30 years ago.

John Danforth - he brought us Clarence Thomas. Wonder if he will bring a can of Crisco to spread on Bloomy at the meeting in preparation for his Ascension.

Ms. Whitman - a lying bitch - said the air at ground zero was safe. May she burn in hell.