Did Bloomberg's "Muscle" scare Obama away from the NYC race?

[Smarmie Doofus]

And if so... does this not raise new doubts about the president's... I don't know... *fortitude*, in addition to his wisdom? And if so, does anyone else begin to see a disturbing *pattern* on the president's part? To wit: backing away, pretty consistently, from confrontation with powerful ( ok, I'll say it: *moneyed*) interests. And not just moneyed interests; open confrontation with cultural conservatives on GLBT and related issues.

Yup. I know, he's temperamentally a moderate. Occasionally a self-proclaimed "fierce advocate" when it suits his purpose, but stylistically, non-confrontational. But doesn't this begin to look less and less like political savvy or an effective stratagem and more and more like just plain cowardice?

The following disturbing analysis of the NYC race appeared in the hard copy edition as "Bloomberg Used Hidden Muscle to try to Stop his Campaign rivals at the Door." Whoever edits the online edition decided to give it a cheerier title, it does appear.

We would likely have taken back NYC City Hall had Obama enthused ever so slightly in public about our candidate, Mr. Thompson. But Bloomberg got to him. ( Sorry: is there any other way to put it?)

The president's timidity is wearing thin. Calculated, calibrated political posturing is one thing... and to some degree to be expected. ( maybe even hoped for) But I was hoping for some variety of the promised "transformational" statesman. But that is not what's described below. I worry that we've elected something more akin to a feckless, frightened jackrabbit.

Truly, I hope I'm wrong. But there's cause for concern. It's a *pattern*.


:Chief Factor in Mayor’s Race: Bloomberg Influence


By MICHAEL BARBARO
Published: November 3, 2009
The White House switchboard lit up with calls from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s emissaries several weeks ago with a message that was polite but firm: The mayor is going to win re-election, they said. We think the president should stay out of the race.




Todd Heisler/The New York Times
William C. Thompson Jr.'s campaign surprised the Bloomberg camp by missing what were seen as opportunities to attack.
Members of Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle were especially worried because they knew President Obama planned to visit the region to campaign with Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, and he would face pressure to support the Democratic candidate, William C. Thompson Jr., the city’s first black comptroller.

At the request of the mayor’s aides, Geoffrey Canada, chief executive of the Harlem Children’s Zone, telephoned Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the president.

“I know she is close to the president and has his ear,” said Mr. Canada, whose nonprofit group has received $600,000 in personal donations from Mr. Bloomberg.

A close adviser to the mayor, who stayed neutral in the presidential race, described the campaign’s pitch to the White House this way: “He didn’t pick sides in your race. Don’t pick sides in his.”

The president’s office agreed, and in early October alerted Bloomberg aides that it would offer only a halfhearted Friday afternoon endorsement for Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Obama did not campaign with him.

In the race for mayor of New York City, there was one campaign on the surface. But there was a more dramatic effort, unfolding behind the scenes, that really mattered: ensuring, through money and muscle, that Mr. Bloomberg faced no serious obstacle to winning a third term.

The critical moments were not widely watched debates or speeches, but triumphs celebrated privately inside the cavernous Midtown Manhattan headquarters of Bloomberg 2009: the elbowing out of Representative Anthony D. Weiner and the neutralizing of any powerful Democrat who could hurt the Bloomberg campaign.

Underlying it all was a sophisticated strategy, and at times intimidating tactics, seemingly at odds with Mr. Bloomberg’s image as a nonpolitician, that his aides sketched out during a marathon meeting in the fall of 2008. It was a surgical, at times even brutal approach, but it seemed oddly detached from the mood of electorate.

This account is drawn from dozens of interviews with top aides, consultants and friends of both candidates, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly without inflaming two powerful public officials.

In the days after the mayor had emerged, victorious, more at link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/nyregion/04ticktock.html

[LovinLife]

1. who cares about a Mayor's race? nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. The people who live here? nt

[harkadog]

9. A city that is bigger than most states?

Most sane people.

[Raineyb]

11. I certainly care about another 4 years of being screwed over by

an asshole who only cares about Park Ave.

[babylonsister]

2. If $ = muscle, possibly. Who was running besides Bloomberg?

I don't even know as Bloomberg seemed to be a shoo-in.

[LovinLife]

4. And he has seemed to show Obama respect. Especially by not endorsing McCain. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson.

Won the DEM primary in a landslide.

>>>I don't even know as Bloomberg seemed to be a shoo-in.>>>>

Read the article. He was *never* a shoo-in. Both sides knew it.

But M$M parroted the Bloomberg public line that Thompson was hopelessly behind. In other words... doing what Bloomberg's handlers wished them to do. Creating a false sense of inevitabliity was central to their successful strategy.

Point: Obama could have tipped the balance with some $$ help and a campaign appearance or two. Instead he studiously avoided Thompson, a capable DEM public servant in good standing.

[babylonsister]

8. I don't live in NY so am not so familiar with the politics there.

Money does talk though. Didn't I read Bloomberg spent hundreds on each NYer to get their vote?

Maybe Obama likes Bloomberg and agrees with his politics. Or maybe he's just real busy.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. 200$ per vote.

Between 90 and 100 million in *direct* spending.

Many more millions in "gifts" , "endowments", "charitable contributions" with the tacit understanding that recipients will respond with political support.

And we have no idea how many other promises of good thing$ to come to how many other people were made in private.

Yet he won by less than 5 points. Obama, demonstrating even *modest* party loyalty, would have very likely tipped the race.


>>>>>>Maybe Obama likes Bloomberg and agrees with his politics. Or maybe he's just real busy.>>>>

He's not too busy. He came to NYC at the height of the campaign to raise $$ for..... Corzine!

Bloomberg's pro-Bush, pro-republican, pro-war, anti constitution and essentially anti-middle class. So I hope Obama doesn't agree with his politics.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

13. Given how much he had to spend to win by 5 points to a complete unknown.

It doesn't seem like he was such a shoo in.

[lisa58]

3. Bloomberg is actually a good mayor...no matter what letter follows his name...

...Obama picks his battles - and we should appreciate that.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Yeah. "good". Uh-huh. nt

[Raineyb]

12. Bloomberg is NOT a good mayor. He's crap and always has been.

Especially if you don't live in monied enclaves of Manhattan.

[Golden Raisin]

14. If you like billionaire politicians

who basically buy their offices by spending $90-$100 million of their vast personal fortune on one election campaign, titanically out-spending and crushing the competition and also engineer term limit law changes in the City Council so they can run for additional terms that were formerly proscribed until they conveniently had the laws changed. Yeah, Bloomberg's great. A living symbol of much of what's wrong with American and New York City politics.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. This is it, *exactly*:

>>>>>A living symbol of much of what's wrong with American and New York City politics.>>>>>

[geek tragedy]

16. The city's Democratic establishment was siding with Bloomberg.

If they had Thompson's back, it may have been a different story.

Bloomberg is also pretty shrewd--he's supported Obama on all of his domestic agenda items--stimulus, environment, etc. He didn't give Obama strong reason to oppose him.

[Kdillard]

17. exactly

[Smarmie Doofus]

23. Bloomberg's support of Obama's domestic agenda is inconsequential.

Obama does not need Bloomberg; at least not politically.

Bloomberg, OTOH, needed the active or tacit support of Obama... who is INFINITELY more popular in the city than Bloomberg... to survive.

How he came by that support is what interests me.

Also, by comparison, Thompson supported the ENTIRETY of Obama's agenda.

[Smarmie Doofus]

24. Many curious and improbable relaltionships....

... between Bloomberg and many upper-level party stalwarts. Starting with the employment by Bloomberg's of Mr. Schumer's wife ( Iris Weinshall) as transportation Commisssioner for 6+ years. ( scandalously underreported by NYC MSM... yet another bedmate of the Mayor).
Running the gamut to City Council Speaker Quinn... fire-breathing, Greenwich Village radical of yesteryear.... who became suddenly and mysteriously domesticated when she ascended to the speakership.

There's a chance that a much more independent council may now seek to depose Ms. Quinn. If that does happen it will be interesting to see what sort of future employment she will seek.

Mr. Bloomberg has intimated that she could find a bright future in "the private sector" some day. I'm not sure what that means... if anything. One of the worst things about Bloomberg is that everyone he touches is now suspect.

[BklnDem75]

18. Damn... people blame Obama for EVERYTHING

Idleness got Bloomberg re-elected. If people got up off their asses and turned up to vote, Bloomberg would not have a third term. People assumed Bloomberg had it in the bag, then realized things were a lot closer than they realized. Now they're looking for someone to blame. To steal a quote from V for Vendetta, truth be told, if they're looking for the guilty, they need only look into a mirror.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. That's ridiculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=169x9220



>>> Now they're looking for someone to blame. To steal a quote from V for Vendetta, truth be told, if they're looking for the guilty, they need only look into a mirror.>>>>>

[BklnDem75]

27. How does that link dispute anything I said?

Turnout was extremely low for a city of over 8 million. A huge city where DEMS hold the majority by a large margin. Bloomberg overruled the voters by going to the city council. How did we make him pay? By staying home and preparing for Game 6 of the World Series. We got exactly what we deserved. It's not Obama's fault, it's OUR fault.

[Smarmie Doofus]

28. We can agree that the vast majority of the citizenry does not follow

... political developments with sufficient scrutiny, and thus is often guilty of poor judgment. If that's your point, it's valid but it makes about as much sense as pointing out that Alaska is very cold or that "life is too short". Why bother?

What bugs me is your eagerness to exculpate Mr. Obama when it is clear from the NY Times story in OP that it was well known that the race was close and winnable.( Many DEMS here (NYC) knew it, I knew it... hence the link....and, believe me, so did the WH.)

Nonetheless, Obama chose cooperation with Bloomberg.

Obama COULD have altered the outcome by campaigning for our candidate.

>>>>We got exactly what we deserved. It's not Obama's fault, it's OUR fault>>>>


It's NOT my fault. I do NOT deserve Boomberg. Obama could have altered the outcome had he behaved responsibly and intervened on behalf of the candidate our party nominated.

He didn't.

[BklnDem75]

30. Are you serious?

Look, I don't read the Times. No one I know reads the Times. I'm sure there's many that do, but the majority reads the Daily News and New York Post. When it comes to the mayoral election, both papers had Bloomberg ahead by 18%. Nobody had it close and an article in the Times after the fact doesn't prove anything. It's not customary for a president to endorse a mayoral candidate. It happened only once when Dinkins was already mayor of New York. Dinkins endorsed Clinton during his run, Clinton returned the favor in 93. We got Guiliani as a result. I'd love to see when Carter endorsed Ed Koch during his bid.

Why so eager to blame Obama? Did you need motivation to vote for Thompson? When someone tells you your vote don't matter, if that's not motivation enough to vote against him, then WE, the people of New York, deserve what we get. No... no this is more 'blame Obama' BS.

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. You're all over the place.

>>>>Look, I don't read the Times. No one I know reads the Times. I'm sure there's many that do, but the majority reads the Daily News and New York Post. When it comes to the mayoral election, both papers had Bloomberg ahead by 18%. Nobody had it close >>>>>

Not true. Both Bloomberg and Thompson private polling had it close as well as some independent pollsters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6787813

The fact that the Post and the News failed to report same might suggest that they might have had a horse in this race, (they DID) chose not to report this kind of info objectively, and that you might want to choose more reliable news sources in the future.


>>>>It's not customary for a president to endorse a mayoral candidate. It happened only once when Dinkins was already mayor of New York.>>>

So, you're saying that Kennedy did not endorse Wagner ( '61) and that LBJ did not endorse Beame ('65)?

>>>Dinkins endorsed Clinton during his run, Clinton returned the favor in 93. We got Guiliani as a result.>>>

Clinton's endorsement resulted in a backlash against Dinkins? That's the first time I've heard that. Unlikely in the extreme, as Clinton was mega-popular in NYC in '93.


>>>Why so eager to blame Obama? Did you need motivation to vote for Thompson? When someone tells you your vote don't matter, if that's not motivation enough to vote against him, then WE, the people of New York, deserve what we get. No... no this is more 'blame Obama' BS.>>>

Sorry... you're all skewed here. I'm interested in identifying how and why Obama chose to help the other side by not supporting the candidate we nominated. I couldn't care less about "blaming"... in the sense you are using that particular word. That his action/inaction did have the effect of helping the other side is too obvious to continue arguing about. What is not completely clear is his motivation in behaving the way he did. That's important because it suggests how he will behave in the future when faced with similar choices.

[Jennicut]

32. Turnout was low for all elections, it was an off year.

And I am tired of people here saying that endorsements make people go vote. I could care less who endorses or campaigns for who. Are we that stupid in the US that we must be told who to be for in elections? People have to stop using excuses for others not voting. We are lazy in the US. I went out and voted...for my little town elections. People can't get off their butts to vote in a huge mayoral election in the biggest city in the US? It was close too. It might have been closer if people cared enough to vote. I think you are totally correct.

[onenote]

19. I'm curious -- has a sitting president ever actively campaigned for a mayoral candidate

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I don't recall it happening.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. Most definitely.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=47117

It is expected and customary... at least in NYC . Most recently, Clinton campaigned for Dinkins and RAISED MONEY in 1993.

Obama failed to do either.

[joeycola]

22. In the end, Rep. Weiner turns out be a woobly weiner anyway.

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. Kind of a shame. He might have won. nt

[joeycola]

29. The WH never tried and persuaded Dems not to try also.

[HamdenRice]

26. Bloomberg is an uber wealthly life long Democrat who used the Repug party line as his bitch

the first time around. I don't think he even described himself as a repug in ads this time around, but as an Independent.

I was listening to some local repug running for city council, on local news talk radio whining that Bloomie wouldn't return his phone calls and didn't even know who he was or that he was running.

Despite the fact that I think much of what he's done has been awful, the Democrats at every level want to keep him on their side, which on most things, he is.

My impression was that even his "opponent," Bill Thompson, wanted Bloomberg to win.

It was a farse of an election.

[Politicub]

31. Your post made me think "bloomberg's love muscle"

And I hate you for that, for that is something I never wanted to think of in my lifetime.

:rofl: