The New York Times reviews how Bloomberg appears to be flirting with the idea of a run for the Presidency:
Last week, Michael R. Bloomberg, the New York City mayor, stood on a sunny public school terrace in Queens and told reporters that he was not running for president.
“I’m just going to be giving an energy speech in Houston on Friday and a commencement speech in Oklahoma Friday night,” he said, describing his national campaign-style travel plans. He added coyly, “I don’t know why you would think anything like that.”[...]
Mr. Bloomberg has said privately that he is not interested in a campaign simply to make a point or to be a Ross Perot-like spoiler. Like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, he would be in only to win.
For him to run — a determination he could wait on until early next year, after the major parties have selected their nominees — he would need to be convinced that the field was polarized enough to create an opening for his brand of moderate, pragmatic politics.
The article offers an alternate hypothesis as to Bloomberg’s travel itinerary. With him term-limited, he could be playing a game to make him seem more politically relevant as a tool to avoid lame-duck syndrome and to gain leverage to get greater concessions for the City from folks sowing influence with a potential President.
I’ll say that of the potential, electable candidates, I am most intrigued with Bloomberg. And I would like to see someone not overly in bed with either major party in the White House.
However, the point about his not wanting to act as just a spoiler in a presidential race is a valid one. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him waive off a White House run if either Romney or Giuliani ends up being the Republican nominee-apparent. Any other potential GOP candidate is far enough to the right to open the door for a moderate to claim a winning plurality from the center.