Any New Yorker could have seen this coming. He's run the city as well as Rudy but without the oppressive facists policies. He has the money. I don't think he wants to do it though. And again, as sad as it is to say, this country, with the influence of the south, conservative christians, and militia folk who fear a zionist government, is not electing a jewish person president anytime soon.

Here.

What's the takeaway? Better give Hill the nom, or else we'll make it interesting?

Or perhaps, We need a moderate Republican in the White House. So, Vote Hillary...

Um, any New Yorker also knows he's got a private life that, frankly, is worth 3000 words on p1.

No way, no how he runs, because he's too smart to let himself be dragged through the mud over his personal life.

Jonathan: I have no problem with Wittman, From and all of the DLCers working within the Democratic Party to enact change;...

I also have no problem with varying voices in the Dem. party, BUT, when those voices question the patriotism of other Dems, and use Republican slur-words to characterize 'fellow' Dems, then I'm ready for the warpath against those in the DLC who adopt these tactics.  Whitman really is a Republican - didn't he manage McCains campaign at one time?

Question my loyalty to the party (even though I would never vote for them) but I for one would find the Bloomberg/Giuliani/Rockefeller and (yes) Nixon elements of the GOP, gaining more national prominence a blessing. If we really want to achieve the goals we always talk about, party hegemony must be achieved. But beyond that, when hegemony can't be achieved & we're forced to cut a deal, I'd much rather do so with a grownup, sane republican party than the nihlistic, armageddonesque DeLay/Norquist wing of the party.

Three cheers for the return of Rockefeller republicans.    

The DLC once again reveals its true purpose -- to see that the Democratic Party represents corporations and the wealthy, or failing that, seeing that it loses to Republicans who will represent them.

Somehow, New York Mayors (I respect them) never do well west of the Hudson.  Sounds like idle speculation on a slow day at the DLC.

Has he even expressed an interest in running?

Has he even expressed an interest in running?

Joke:

How many New Yorkers does it take to run for President?

Clinton, Guiliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, Schumer, Spitzer, anyone else we can add in the mix?

(and for the curious amongst you... there is no punch line)

I have no problem with Wittman, From and all of the DLCers working within the Democratic Party to enact change;..

Over at My Left Wing, for example, I've been discussing this very issue since yesterday, arguing against clowns who are all excited over yet another centrist ploy to "let the people decide" and escape from the terrible extremist legacy of Dem candidates like Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry.  And what have I said?  I'm deeply sympathetic with folks who are fed up with the Dems.  And I would support a third party, only after a system of proportional representation and instant runoff voting, so that support for such a party would not benefit the right.

You see, I am for the actual, legitimate process of creating a more vibrant debate, with more opportunity for the articulation of diverse viewpoints for the purpose of developing better policy options, and subjecting proposals to a more wide-ranging critique before we run with them, pass them into law, and discover their problems too late to do anything about them.

This is quite different from the sort of unprincipled, Dem-bashing, say-anything, any-strategy-so-long-as-it-fits-the-mome nt approach of the DLC.  My criticisms of the Democratic Party--which can be pretty harsh at times--are (1) guided by principle, and do not jump around according to what's convenient at the time, (2) guided by the best of what the party has stood for in the past, and the values and interests of its base, (3) focused overwhelmingly on compromises with forces alien to the party, and (4) never presented as an argument for abandoning party--until such time that a framework exists so that this would only have the effect of strengthening progressive forces overall, which would mean--as it has, for example, with Jeffords in the Senate and Sanders in the House--that Democrats would have supportive outsiders caucusing and voting with them.

Now, I submit that whether you agree with my politics or not, I am very clear and careful not to advocate a strategy that's inherently damaging to the party, and that I go out of my way to try to keep ideologically similar folks working within the party.  And I submit that even if you agree with the DLC's politics, they are consistently involved in advocating policies that are deeply damaging to the party, and that frequently encourage like-minded people to work both outside and against the party.

Now, I'm about as far left as anyone who posts here regularly--even though I haven't been posting here all that regularly the last few months. But if even I can make this sort of clearcut argument showing much greater loyalty to the party than the DLC, then I think its pretty clear that they are not the sort of entity that should be allowed to continue meddling in the party.  

I am not suggesting anything in the way of formal action, at least not at this time. But I am suggesting that people need to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt like this, and start recognizing them as the enemy within--even those of you who agree with them on various policy positions.  If you want to strengthen your position within the party as loyal members of the party, then you need to disavow any support of or relationship with the DLC.  They are Quislings.  They are traitors.  End of story.

There has never been any evidence to suggest that Marshall Wittman is a Democrat.

Looking back, the DLC did well by its standards when it pushed Democrats to run for president at a time the national party was in disarray. Bill Clinton in 1992 tapped into the DLC as a forum and won a hard-fought battle with Bush I and Perot and was re-elected in 1996. Now with Bush II on the ropes and a close 2008 election awaiting, members of the Democratic(sic) Leadership(sic) Council are suggesting that a Bloomberg run is good news. Great-From the wonderful tradition of Republican turned indy John Anderson who gave us eight years of Ronald Reagan and Green party Ralph (unsafe at any politcal speed) Nader who gave us eight years of Bush II, now comes Bloomberg who will give us eight years of John McCain. Let's hope saner minds will prevail and all Democrats-netroots to NRA members, DLC to DFA to DFL(let's win back Minnesota!), will realize that we have to work together to win. Even talking about Bloomberg is a WOS-waste of space.

I know that the Clintons were central to the DLC at one time, but Hillary seems more independent of them to me (maybe I'm wrong about that, I'd like to hear from others)

Bill and Hillary OWN the DLC.