Okay, I'm filing this under "things you get to do if you have more money than God."

On Thursday, Mike Bloomberg, mad genius, obscenely rich guy, and mayor of New York, announced that he would not be pursuing an independent Presidential run in 2008. The next day, he followed that up with a statement that he is considering backing another Presidential candidate ("Backing," in this context, translates into "roughly a billion dollars in campaign funding"). While everyone has assumed that he is planning on helping one of the three current front-runners, his vague wording opens up another possibility.

You see, when Bloomberg announced that he had decided not to run, he stated that an independent candidate "could win the race," but that it wouldn't be him. This makes perfect sense: the relatively poor showing of previous independents, coupled with the fact that being perceived as a "spoiler" tends to make one incredibly unpopular, convinced the big B that he didn't want to wreck his career on a failed candidacy. However, just because he doesn't want to be 2008's Ralph Nader doesn't mean that he is willing to completely turn his back on the White House. After all, why should he risk his neck when there are so many other people willing to put themselves out there?

When I think of Ralph Nader running for president again as an independent candidate and how that could affect the general election, I think he must be a closet Republican, or have a few advisers that fit the bill. He was the spoiler before and he might be again.

He says that Republican and Democratic candidates are too beholden to big business. Perhaps. He says we are not doing enough to protect the environment, also true. He thinks he knows better, maybe; but Cuba just had a guy named Fidel step down from his presidency (sort-of) who knew better also, or so he insisted since 1959.

In the 1960's and 1970's Nader was an important figure who successfully championed many causes including the environment, consumer protection, civil rights, disclosure laws and fought for those that could not fight for themselves. He was a man of the times. These are his times no more. His provocation of the electorate may stem more from being 'green with envy', as much as being a green party advocate.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson today called it quits from a presidential campaign which he undertook with all of the enthusiasm of a small child being forced to eat his peas, strengthening the surging campaign of John McCain. Meanwhile that pesky Ralph Nader is making noise about joining the campaign at this late juncture.

Thompson's departure wasn't a shock. The former actor and lawyer proved to be a surprisingly inept campaigner. In one memorable moment chronicled on YouTube, Thompson even had to ask a crowd in for a round of applause. He didn't endorse any of his former rivals.

This creates an opening that McCain can exploit. Mike Huckabee is a likable enough guy, but many people will think twice before voting for a social conservative. As for Mitt Romney, on paper he is an ideal candidate for fiscal conservatives. The trouble is that the former Massachusetts governor has made one gaffe after another, including speaking about a lifelong love of hunting that had come from the two times he actually did it.

Sources close to CNN broadcast journalist/commentator Lou Dobbs said he is seriously considering a run for the U.S. presidency in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Dobbs, who formerly hosted CNN's MoneyLine business news show and currently hosts CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has seen both his ratings and his name recognition rise after his work's focus turned away from news reporting and anchoring and toward political and economic commentary.

Dobbs, an independent, displays an ideology and a political world view that many have characterized as a modified hybrid of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan -- i.e. populism combined with strong views against free trade (or current trade frameworks) and against illegal immigration.

Dobbs is a frequent critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he argues don't represent the interests of the typical person or the middle class. His show's website describes him as "an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life."

Political Analysis: Unless there's a tidal wave of discontent in the American electorate not tallied by pollsters, Dobbs, as a third-party candidate or as an Independent, has virtually no chance of being elected president of the United States. Although his name recognition is rising and he has a positive public image, it's highly unlikely Dobbs could assemble the campaign staff and money required to compete effectively against Democratic and Republican parties' nominees.

However, this is not to say that Dobbs could not broaden the discourse, i.e. "force the discussion of less-publicized issues" during a debate. Dobbs could accomplish this, but it must be emphasized that making points in a debate is a much easier task than receiving enough votes to win the electoral college vote for U.S. president.