« Previous | Main | Next »

NY's Bloomberg (Heart) Obama?

Share

March 27, 2008 12:22 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Picking up tab at breakfast goes a long way, but will it be enough to impress the billionaire Mayor of New York City? Senator Barack Obama hopes so.

"As you know, I have not endorsed a candidate for president," Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I-New York City, teased when introducing Obama, D-Ill., to deliver an economic address at Cooper Union, site of then-presidential candidate Abraham Lincoln's famous 1860 anti-slavery address

"But I have been clear in my hope that all the candidates explain in great deal how they would handle the challenges of the country."

Bloomberg, after deciding not to run in his own presidential bid, said recently that he is looking at all the candidates as he decides where to throw his support.

The mayor jokingly reminded the New York crowd that Obama "picked up the check when we had breakfast together."

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

The political pair had breakfast at the New York Luncheonette, a diner in midtown Manhattan on December 1, 2007. Wisely, Obama picked up the $17.34 check and left a $10 tip.

At Cooper Union four months later, Obama called Bloomberg a "cheap date" and hinted that the he had a little more on his mind than just breakfast when eating with the Mayor.

"I have to tell you that the reason I bought breakfast is because I expect payback in something more expensive. . . I'm no dummy," joked Obama. "The mayor was a cheap date that morning and I figured there are some good steakhouses here in New York."

March 27, 2008 in Kucinich, Dennis, Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (110)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike Bloomberg is highly popular in New York, has extraordinary economic expertise, and by backing Obama, will demonstrate a keen sense of what the country needs now in a leader.

The sun, moon, stars and Bloomberg all seem to be coming into positive allignment.

Posted by: Gorgon '08 | Mar 27, 2008 12:40:00 PM

If Obama has this endorsement in the bag, he'll hold it until September, when independents will start paying attention to the general election race.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 27, 2008 12:40:10 PM

It's amazing how Presidential Bloomberg looks compared to Obama. Perhaps, he could be the alternative when the Democratic Convention becomes a stalemate!

Posted by: georgia | Mar 27, 2008 12:47:08 PM

Listen, I don't think Bloomberg will be stupid enough to endorse Obama. Obama has a lot of negatives that haven's been tested in votes since the Wright scandal -- which WILL NOT go away.

The world still does not know all there is to know about Obama like we do in Chicago. But they are learning and they will learn more . . .

Posted by: MsUSA2 | Mar 27, 2008 12:47:44 PM

I need to agree though Obama does give great speeches.

Posted by: GS | Mar 27, 2008 12:54:32 PM

If Obama somehow pulls off getting the nomination I hope that we see Gore/Bloomberg running

Posted by: kelly | Mar 27, 2008 12:56:28 PM

MsUSA, I live in Chicago as well and Senator Obama is well respected and endorsed by the people as evidenced by the primary results and the recent polls.

I HOPE and PRAY the world learns as much about Senator Obama as we know here in Chicago.

Posted by: Elijah112668 | Mar 27, 2008 12:57:39 PM

In a January speech at the University of South Carolina, Michelle Obama made remarks that are just now getting attention across the internet. Talking about her experience at Princeton where she hung with a largely African-American crowd, she said, "We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones... because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?" Those comments are coming under fire for implying that feeling justified in one's own ignorance in somehow quintessentially American. The Obama campaign says that's a misinterpretation of her comments.

Are we ignorant? Do you understand Michelle Obama’s point and do you agree with it? Is she being misinterpreted? And if so, how many times can the voters misinterpret someone associated with Barack Obama’s campaign? Does this generate important discussion on race? Or is it needlessly provocative?

Posted by: Jason | Mar 27, 2008 12:59:27 PM

"Wright" is not a scandal - guilt by association doesn't work

Otherwise posting on the same thread as many of the foolish silly comments here would make the rest of us look stupid

Posted by: alison | Mar 27, 2008 1:00:56 PM

That may just happen Beth. I wouldn't bet on it, and I think Obama will be the nominee, but if 1) Clinton can inflict some lasting damage on Obama, and 2) holds out for a brokered convention, we may just see a true smoke-filled backroom decision.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 27, 2008 1:11:49 PM

One thing is clear - it won't be Clinton. And while she may well be playing for 2012 anyway, I think that too would be a miscalculation on her part. She's doing serious damage to her standing in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 27, 2008 1:13:37 PM

Obama and his minions complain about the unfairness of "guilt by association." However, last month in Milwaukee, long before the chickens came home to roost, Obama attacked McCain:

"I am looking forward to a debate with John McCain. John McCain is a good man. He's an American hero. We honor his service to this nation. But he has made some bad choices about the company he keeps."

What was that about guilt by association, Barry?

Posted by: carl | Mar 27, 2008 1:14:42 PM

The good news for McCain is that if Hillary loses the nomination, she will be behind the scenes ensuring a Barack loss in the general (he won't need help with that - it's already over thanks to Rev. Wright) because Hillary will be looking to 2012 for a comeback. Plus, her supporters will not vote for Barack for the same reason - the comeback in 2012.

It will be fun having Hillary's help in electing President McCain, however "silent" it may be. :)

Posted by: Jo | Mar 27, 2008 1:15:10 PM

Just to folks who want to know what Obama believes in -

Black theology or Black liberation theology is the theology of Elijah Mohammed, founder of the Nation of Islam theology of liberation

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

To me this is nothing less than teachings of Osama.

Posted by: GS | Mar 27, 2008 1:16:11 PM

That speech was a HISTORY LESSON!!! That's all it was...Stupid!

Posted by: calif | Mar 27, 2008 1:16:23 PM

Why don't they have a poll for people to vote who lost the election for Obama? Michelle or Wright.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 27, 2008 1:16:29 PM

Obama may have higher poll ratings right now but so did Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. That is why Cheyney says "So" when talking about approval ratings. We all know that polls mean nothing. What is going to matter is who offers the most in overall value. I think clinton and Mccain have the most to offer. Could you Imanagine how screwed Obama would be if he went against Mccain/Clinton. I don't think it would ever happen but I think it's a better dream ticket then Clinton/Obama

Posted by: kelly | Mar 27, 2008 1:19:13 PM

What Michell Obama said is(I'm paraphrasing, if you undersatnd that): Many times we have the opportunity to understand each other better, simply by coming out of our comfort zones and talking to befriending people who are not like us. Many of us don't. That is what we do how we live in America. Is Mrs Obama wrong? Why do so many companies have to spend so much money on sensitivity training if she is wrong? Be honest for a change and then you will admit that what she said is perfectly true of our society.

Posted by: Carl | Mar 27, 2008 1:20:13 PM

If you want an average to above-average president, by all means support McCain or Clinton. They are both head and shoulders above Bush. If you want a potentially great leader, you should look to Obama. He's a once in a lifetime candidate.

Also, if you're going to judge these candidates by the company they keep, all three have friends with skeletons in their closets. Don't we all?

Posted by: Cal | Mar 27, 2008 1:28:13 PM

To Jason, Michelle Obama is right. Yes we are an ignorant society. We get into our own little worlds and we do feel justified in our ignorance.(If I dont't know, I don't have to care, if we all feel the same we must be right) If we did not feel justified in our ignorance then we would have to admit we are wrong about our lives. It is not just a part of being American it is a part of being HUMAN. We are "Human Animals" to quote Phil Donohue. We tend to run with our own kind and going away from that is hard to do. Trying to think outside the box is not easy. it isn't a race issue; look at the youth of America, we have the preps, goths, emos (this is in the area where I live). They don't hang out together they have their sub groups and they are comfortable in those sub groups. In the end Jason it is true that ignorance is bliss. It means WE CHOOSE not to know, but we can change if we choose to know. FREE WILL. Obama '08 For change!

Posted by: Jane | Mar 27, 2008 1:29:16 PM

Post a comment