Hizzoner the Prez New York is a big place, but when it came to finding a candidate to run against Republican Rudy Giuliani for the US Senate a while back, Democrats had to draft out-of-stater Hillary Clinton. She caught a break when Giuliani dropped out of the race for health reasons, and she won easily.
Now Giulianiís successor as New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is in political hot water over budget shortfalls, taxes, and a smoking ban. But the usual cast of New York City pols doesnít seem up to the task of taking him on. Enter Bill Clinton.
The Harlem denizen has near-rock-star status in New York, and he chafes every day that heís not in the spotlight. With his wife plotting a run for president in 2008, friends of Bill say the prospect of his wifeís upstaging him is almost too much to bear.
Bill Clinton, they say, has decided to run against Bloomberg. Being mayor of New York is considered by some easterners the second-best job after being president.
Running in 2005 (New York elects its mayor in an off year) will allow the former president to be in the position to deliver his state to Hillary in the 2008 election and claim, if the race is close, that he put her in the White House.
His election would also solve a problem for Hillary. She doesnít want him back in the White House, so Billís having his own residence at New Yorkís Gracie Mansion will suit the two just fine.
These Democrats up in Texas ó they may not be patriots, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.-Rep. Tom DeLay on the "fugitive" Texas Democrats
Originally posted by GrimisRunning in 2005 (New York elects its mayor in an off year) will allow the former president to be in the position to deliver his state to Hillary in the 2008 election and claim, if the race is close, that he put her in the White House.
Um, it's 2003. We don't know who will be the Democratic nominee in _2004_ yet.
We don't know if there will be a Democratic President elected in 2004, which would make it very unlikely that Hillary would mount a 2008 primary challenge.
We don't know that Hillary is actively planning a Presidential run in the first place, although neo-con tabloids like NewsMax hawk the possibility daily for fund-raising purposes. ("Send us your money or HITLERY WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!1!!11")
One election at a time? Pretty please? My head hurts.
"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Iím going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
Plus, there's no way Bill could 'deliver' the state to Hilary as mayor of NYC. Hilary will carry the city, easily, no matter what, due to the huge amount of democratic voters. Bill being mayor could only hurt her w/ upstate voters, since they tend to hate the city.
Plus, Bill's current schedule is way more lucrative than being mayor. It could happen, but seems like idle chatter more than anything.
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
I'd love to see Clinton as the mayor, for no other reason than to make a few Republican heads explode. Now if the Republicans were smart, they'd talk to Giuliani about potentially running as VP in 2004 if Cheney's health can't take it.
Over 1250 posts and still never a Wiener of the Day!
In the issues of December 16th, 2000 to November 10th, 2001, we may have given the impression that George W. Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologizes for any inconvenience. --- The Economist, 11/17/01
I don't think Bill will run. These rumors were all over the 2001 election also.
That being said, the job is his for the taking. Of course, he doesn't actually live in New York City, but I'm sure that could be taken care of. Now that he's had a little time to make some money and pay off debts it seems like a good enough time (and it's the BEST, not the second-best job).
Would he do a good job? For such a big job, it's very hands-on, and the mayor has probably the most clout out of any big city mayor. It fits in well with Clinton's micromanaging, street-campaiging style, late-night-policypaper-memorizing style. So I'd say yeah. It also involves pleasing everyone while still balancing the budget, another thing Clinton has a proven record with. And considering the last Mayor lived with a Gay couple while trampsing around town with his "very good friend" while his second wife lived in Gracie Mansion (and this was a REPUBLICAN), I'd say Clinton's potential political weakness - namely that he likes blowjobs from fat chicks - would be pretty much neutralized in this town.
Now, Guiliani's future is a whole other thread.
"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."
Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Originally posted by redsoxnationSomeone should try running this interesting side election: Bloomberg vs. Gray Davis in a 'Who Is Despised More By Their Constituency Election.' Has the potential to be a classic.
Somebody needs to develop whatifelections.com to go along with whatifsports.com.
(edited by Grimis on 4.6.03 1633) "You will never get that TV show. You'll never, ever get the Republican TV show. The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don't know how to write it. We don't." - Lawrence O'Donnell, former Capitol Hill aide; co-producer/executive story editor/writer for "The West Wing"; and, creator/Executive Producer of "Mister Sterling" on why Republicans and conservatives are "practically invisible" on TV during CNN's "Relibable Sources", 3/25.
...South Korea? (clink on the link for more links inside the story. Is *South* Korea a bigger threat to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia? Which United States ally is presently a greater threat to American security: Saudi Arabia, or South Korea?