Here's Peter's reaction to Bob Herbert's editorial in the New York Times on Mayor Bloomberg's possible run for the White House:
Bob Herbert, in bemoaning the possible impact of a Bloomberg candidacy for president, says this: "The mayor would draw votes from people who want change, who are interested in something different, a new direction." Isn't that exactly the voting option people in the United States are supposed to have? And doesn't that speak volumes about what has become of the Democratic Party? Democrats cannot simply claim the mantle of change; they have to earn it.
Hillary Clinton claims, just like Al Gore did in 2000, to be an agent of change, while playing tightly to a presumed vast "middle." Well, if that strategy was worthy, George W. Bush and Company should not have ridden twice to the victories that Democrats want to blame on progressive candidates like Ralph Nader. The claim that Mr. Bloomberg would effectively put a Republican in the White House, the same claim made about Mr. Nader in 2000, is as spurious now as it was seven years ago. People want a choice and Democrats have not yet provided them with a clearly distinguishable one.