Gov David Paterson said something very interesting the other day.
Paterson declared he did not want the job of newly-censured Harlem Democrat Charles Rangel in Congress, but went on to add that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is eyeing President Obama’s job.
"I'm happy to step aside and let some other people run the state and that district where Congressman Rangel represents right now," Paterson said, mentioning Assemblyman Keith Wright and City Councilwoman Inez Dickens as more likely candidates to replace Rangel when he steps down. (which by the way, may not be anytime soon)
On Bloomberg challenging Obama, Paterson offers the following analysis.
"He needs a wide open middle," he said.
"I think the mayor’s doing the right thing. He's not forcing the issue or drawing attention to himself. He is watching and positioning just in case so he would have that option.
If the situation presented itself, he’s been a risk taker and a very successful entrepreneur and an elected official, I think he would take the shot."
"At this point, he doesn't have to do this. I think he would only do it if he thought he could win and he thought it would be beneficial that he run."
Paterson, in his last few days as Governor is stating on Bloomberg, what quite a few people in political circles have been saying.
Why would some of Bloomberg's smart key advisors continue to float that Bloomberg may not only run, but they feel he could win. Why? It is all about “Positioning,” the Bloomberg folks have been working on getting the mayor in the right place for some time, and guess what?
For Bloomberg who came "this-close" to running last time as an independent, the stars may be aligned this time around.
Some politicians in their final term simply talk a good game. They have no intention of running for president, but because they are particularly facing lame-duck status, they float a national campaign to remain relevant. Important, so that they continue to have a major say in their own backyard and are not ignored or have their positions constantly challenged by other local officials. Some float their own names simply to get their fees up on delivering paid speeches throughout the country.
So why do we have to keep an eye on Bloomberg. Despite Bloomberg’s repeated denials about running for President, he’s not the typical possible candidate, just talking for the sake of talking. He has a record to run on, President Obama is vulnerable, and lastly but very important, Bloomberg has the money to bankroll a presidential run.
Bloomberg has the resources to make a serious independent run, and he is no Ross Perot. As the mayor of the country’s largest city for three terms, Bloomberg has to be taken seriously from day one.
It also doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist to point out during the next presidential race, the Republicans and Bloomberg will hit President Obama over and over on the economy. It may not be fair considering what Obama inherited, but it’s on his watch now. Period. End of story.
So maybe it’s a coincidence Bloomberg has started delivering national speeches.
Maybe it’s by chance he said President Obama needs better advisors.
Maybe, it was a coincidence in the last Presidential Race, Bloomberg’s name was floated as a perfect running mate not only for Obama, but John McCain as well.
If you believe in all of these "coincidences" I have a bridge for sale.
There are very few things that happen in politics by chance or accident.
If things don’t get better for President Obama, and Obama starts looking like a one term Jimmy Carter, and the Republicans put forward a conservative like Sarah Palin, the needle might be threaded just right for Bloomberg to have a shot.
Some pundits will say there is no way Bloomberg could win, that NYC Mayors have failed terribly on the national stage. Bloomberg is fond himself of pointing out what some of his challenges would be. He's Jewish, unmarried, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-immigrant, and pro-gay-marriage.
But the same "experts" said Bloomberg could never, ever be elected mayor of NYC, no matter how much money he had.