Thursday, June 21, 2007


Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done a very good job running NYC. His switch of party affiliation from Republican to Independent has fueled speculation that he may well run as a third party candidate for president in 2008.

Let's look back to the effect of the campaign of a major third party candidate, Ralph Nadar, in 2000. Mr. Nadar garnered some 90,000 votes in Florida; Al Gore lost the state, in "official" count, by a little more than 500 votes. Certainly, Mr. Gore could have won by doing lots of thinks differently in his campaign, but clearly Nadar cost him the election.

Think of some of the probable difference in the last six years, had Gore won:

No invasion of Iraq with its disastrous consequences.
No massive deficit
No illegal eavesdropping, renditions, and the like.
No extensive and questionable politicizing of the Federal government
Continued respect by foreign nations and peoples.
Environmental improvement instead of deterioration.
Action on global warming
Appointment of Justices who respect women's rights.

A Bloomberg candidacy would draw from Democratic voters, which could result
in continued Republican misrule. Mr. Bloomberg, if you are pro-choice and believe in honest and competent government, make the right choice and do not run!

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

I thought that the Clinton/Soprano video was a clever bit of fun. By going to black, it even spared viewers the news of the selection of that Celine Dion song.

Why not Ashcroft's "Let the Eagle Soar"?

Tuesday, June 19, 2007



Edwards raises "electability" issue

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards Sunday warned Iowa voters about what he perceives as the perils of nominating a candidate who down-ticket Democrats in some parts of the nation may decline to appear with in their own campaign events


This thrust by Edwards is clearly directed primarily against Senato Hillary Clinton.

Hillary will probably get the nomination and would, I think, be an excellent president. Unfortunately, of the three top candidates, she is the only one with a significant chance of losing the general election. There is just no way to predict the extent and effect of the negativity factor.

So Obama or Edwards should be the nominee. I favor Obama as an inspiring agent of change with potential for greatness. I doubt that the risk of racist voting is in any way comparable to the risk of negativity votes against Clinton.