Well, I've got the scoop: He is. Looking just now at a New York Times article on the New Hampshire results, the Google ad that came up wasn't for Clinton or Obama or McCain: It was
Mike BloombergNow it's possible that someone else, for their own purposes, is paying for Presidential-election related google ad words to point at Bloomberg's site. It's even possible that mikebloomberg.com doesn't actually belong to him. But I think unlikely.
Visit the Official Mike Bloomberg Site
So it looks like Bloomberg is running. Or at any rate is willing to spend money to stick his toe in the water. I'm not sure what I think of that. He's certainly smart, and a highly capable manager, which would be a refreshing change after the last eight bungled years. I'd definitely take him over any of the Republicans, but aside from McCain none of them merits serious consideration in the first place. (And McCain has shown himself willing to put party before country, reducing him from that increasingly rare creature, a Republican I could respect, to little better than just another pol.) Whether I would prefer him to the eventual Democratic nominee remains to be seen. He's clearly a more competent manager than any of the Democrats. Hillary Clinton managed to bungle national health care policy at a time when there was a national political consensus to do something about it. Obama's lack of experience works to his advantege here: I understand that failure with a major project only comes to someone who was willing to take on a major project, but nonetheless find myself tempted to prefer Obama to Clinton on account of that fiasco.
But you don't hire a President entirely for managerial competence. At least this time I may actually find that our absurd year-long election process gives me a decision to make that's actually worth giving some thought to.