Photo by Elaine, via Flickr

After months of "will he or won't he" speculation--if only in Manhattan media circles--Big Apple mayor Mike Bloomberg finally declared this morning in a New York Times op-ed that he would not throw his hat in the presidential ring. "I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not--and will not be--a candidate for president," he wrote.

Why not, and why now? On its surface, the essay actually seemed to argue for, not against, a Bloomberg bid. Hizzoner opened with a sanctimonious put down ("watching the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates--smart, all of them--must know better") followed by a guided tour of policy areas where his "common sense solutions" presumably stand in stark contrast to the tired pabulum emanating from the mainstream candidates' unimaginative maws. The point, according to Bloomie: "the vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but--politics being what it is--the candidates seem afraid to level with them."

There's only one problem: the two frontrunning candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have not, in fact, been afraid to "level with" the American people--at least in Bloombergian terms--on the issues he raises. Which is precisely why he's not running. The emerging prospect of two major party candidates able to attract sizable support among independents doesn't leave much room in the race for an actual independent. And that becomes painfully clear when you take the time to measure the distance between Bloomberg's criticisms of the candidates and, well, reality. To wit:

"They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade."
No dice, Mike--especially on McCain. According to his voting record and past pronouncements, the Arizona senator is unabashedly pro-trade. "Every time the United States has become protectionist... we've paid a very heavy price," he has said. "Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation's economy." McCain not only supports NAFTA, which he says has had an "unambiguously... positive impact on the US economy"; he supports extending trade wherever possible. Obama is closer, but still no cigar. While he's critical of NAFTA, blaming it in part for job loss and economic decline in middle America, to say he supports "isolating America from global trade" is absurd. (Even if he and Bloomberg would disagree on the details.) Instead, Obama advocates for adding additional "labor agreements" to the treaty and enforcing existing environmental and labor provisions. The idea, as he puts it, is to make sure that trade deals will "work for working people and not just for corporate profits."

"They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone."
Neither McCain nor Obama has ever suggested that border security alone would "fix our immigration problems," and to imply as much is misleading. McCain, in fact, is a leading proponent of providing undocumented workers with an earned path to citizenship, having co-authored with Ted Kennedy an ambitious but controversial bill designed to do just that. After taking a beating from conservatives for his so-called apostasy--and nearly losing the nomination--McCain now repeats the "secure the borders first" mantra every chance he gets. But his centrist stance remains unchanged. Meanwhile, Obama voted for McCain's bill and supports a typically Democratic array of measures meant to ease our immigration woes. Enough said.

"They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results."
Seems like they do, actually. According to the AP, McCain has "promoted merit-based pay for teachers" and argued that "teachers should be tested for competence periodically and fired if they don’t meet certain standards." Does that qualify as accountability? For his part, Obama is one of the only Democrats around--and certainly the party's only remaining presidential candidate--who has proposed to reward teachers based on student performance."Teachers need to become more accountable for their performances," he has written, "and school districts need to have greater ability to get rid of ineffective teachers." Sorry, Mike.

"They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge."
Seriously? McCain was one of the first Republicans to buck party orthodoxy and champion global warming legislation, going so far as to bash President Bush for his inaction on the issue. And although Obama has gotten flack from environmentalists for his politically expedient support of coal-to-liquid fuel, he certainly takes the threat seriously, saying that inaction would "condemn future generations to global catastrophe." As for costs, “Obama said the transition would be costly in the short run for U.S. consumers, taxpayers and businesses, requiring the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars," adding "it will not come without cost or without sacrifice," according to the Washington Times. It's hard to imagine that the fiscally conservative McCain would disagree.

"And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them."
Okay, so Bloomberg might have a point on this one (it's a pet issue of his, coincidentally). While McCain has shown an admirable willingness to cross party lines on gun control--he cosponsored legislation to close gun-show loopholes with Joe Lieberman--he's never made cracking down on the black market one of his priorities. Nor has Obama. 

So there you have it. To paraphrase Meatloaf, one out of five ain't good, and Bloomberg is well aware that there's no space for him in the middle of a McCain-Obama match-up. Instead, he's reduced to spending his moment in the spotlight slamming straw men in an attempt to burnish his centrist cred--and raise the value of his endorsement. Of course, it wasn't always supposed to be this way, which is why he waited until now to "withdraw." As NEWSWEEK editor Jon Meacham wrote this morning, the mayor "would have been making a very different announcement... if Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were the putative major-party nominees."

It's just that he would've written the exact same same op-ed.

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod!!! Barack Obama and Mike Bloomberg had breakfast this morning! Together! Obama's eggs? Over easy! Bloomberg's? Scrambled! Obama toast? Wheat! Bloomberg's? White! There were also potatoes! The tab was $17.34! Obama paid--and left a $10 tip! They talked about the economy! Education! Homeland security! Global warming! They even "looked thoughtful"! What does it all mean???

Hear that annoying buzz? It's the Manhattan media, which descended on the New York Luncheonette at E. 50th Street this morning to film the hastily arranged Bloomberg-Obama summit taking place inside--and immediately started wagging its cable/talk radio/tabloid/Internet tongue "about the possibilities, the angles, the common interests" (in the words of MSM queen bee Mark Halperin).The actual footage, sadly, revealed nothing. It's hard to hear what people are saying indoors when you're shooting from the sidewalk. Outside. Through a window.

That, of course, hasn't stopped the speculation. Most of it revolves around whether Obama and Bloomberg will "form a ticket"--and whether Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, could finance the bid out of pocket. This is asinine. Barring the fact that reasonable experts disagree on whether it's even legal-- "There isn't language in the law or reg[ulation]s that says clearly yes or no," FEC spokesman Bob Biersack tells Ben Smith--it's absurdly braindead politics. Self-financing is one thing. If Obama were billionaire like Bloomberg, fine; he's not beholden to anyone. But to pick a billionaire running mate and then take massive sums of his money would make Obama look 1) weak, as if he needs a "sugar daddy" and 2) corrupt, as if he were selling the vice presidency to the highest bidder. Neither charge would be true--but that wouldn't stop Republicans from repeating them ad infinitum.

Today's Bloomberg-Obama breakfast was nothing more than a photo op. Bloomberg wants to play a part in the "national conversation." Obama wants to burnish his indie cred. So instead of meeting behind closed doors at, say, Gracie Mansion, they meet at a diner, sit in a window seat, keep the cameras out of earshot--but still keep the cameras--and let us blowhards do the rest.