http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243 In a simple administrative move last week, Michael Bloomberg changed his political affiliation from <a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/article/227395">Republican to unaffiliated</a>, thus kicking off widespread speculation about a potential run for the White House in 2008. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:19:41 EST Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:53:07 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#9 <i> Hmm, what burning themes could ignite a strong third-party candidacy?  </i><p> A big ol' bank account with too much to spend. <p> Well, that appears to be his major qualification, and that of a lot of politicians these days. Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:53:07 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#8 <i>Does he think he can buy his way into the White House as an independent candidate?</i><p> <snip><p> <i>he's always been a savvy businessman</i><p>     Which makes me wonder if Bloomberg is actually angling to win it all, or play king mak Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:48:04 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#7 Yes, committed people are definitely a requirement to effectively launch a third party candidacy and I'm not sure if Bloomberg has the charisma to attract said committed people.  What he has is money, power, and the relative obscurity of exactly what Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:13:34 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#6 Don't you need committed people to make get on the ballot in every state? Nader and Perot (who was more charismatic than Bloomberg, and more of a visionary as to how to get a simple but strong message across) had the theme or mission you talk about that ar Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:32:28 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#5 Establishing a viable third political party not so much.  The 20th and now the 21st century have already seen any number of third party candidacies which managed to scrape together enough votes to qualify for federal money.  But putting together Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:32:58 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#4 Well, it is moderately attractive because if they could get a viable third party formed out of all of this mess that would be A Good Thing. But, I'm not sure Bloomberg is a real exciting candidate for me yet. Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:54:45 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#3 I think you're selling Bloomberg short. No one took Perot seriously cause he had charts, talked funny and his ears were huge. Bloomberg has some of Perot's money plus more charisma, better money raising skills and at least one elected office to hang his ha Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:15:29 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#2 <i>He's a pretty puzzling candidate and I don't know which side he'd pull more votes from.</i><p> I think it really depends on how the race shapes up.  If the Democratic candidate appears to be populist (i.e. anti-business) and the Republican candidat Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:05:01 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2007/6/23/9510/32243#1 At least some Democrat managed to make a witty at the expense of the Republicans over this one -- why I continue to appreciate the Clintons. I don't know that I'd term Bloomberg a breath of fresh air but I'd certainly welcome him into the debate. He's a pr Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:45:41 EST string http://www.treesandthings.com/search/