Even put within the context of his own error-strewn career, Conservative mayoral candidate Boris Johnson’s statement that he wants Hillary Clinton to be elected President, argued at length in the Telegraph, must go down as one of the most stupid things he could possibly say.  I assume it’s just one of his japes.  I hope it’s one of his curiously charming bounder’s comments that he made without regard to the actual words that he propagated.

But let’s say that he actually means it.  The crux of his argument is that Bill Clinton would make a better presidential spouse than the maritally-challenged Rudy Giuliani could possibly afford.  Wait for the incredulity to kick in.

He readily concedes - and rightly so:

She represents, on the face of it, everything I came into politics to oppose: not just a general desire to raise taxes and nationalise things, but an all-round purse-lipped political correctness.

He concedes - and rightly so - that the most important issues are:

Who should have their finger on the nuclear button? Who should be Commander-in-Chief of the American military, the hugest and most lethal killing machine in history?  The world may still face all kinds of economic upheavals, as the panic from the American subprime mortgage sector spreads around the world, like a kind of financial BSE. Whose brain can we rely on to protect us?

For all the importance of the President’s position as Commander-in-Chief of the America’s military might, for all the significance of his role as head of state of the world’s largest economy, and for all the powers enshrined in the constitution of the presidency, Boris makes his decision based on who sleeps in the presidential bed.  And, like Boris, I slap my forehead in astonishment.

Clinton is economically naive, spouting nonsense that is only believable because it’s placed in the wider context of a very left-of-centre Democratic nomination race.  She has lauded the New Deal, called the free market the “most radically disruptive force in Americna life”, and lobbied for heavy tariffs on (of all things) candlemakers.  Her support of more stringent campaign finance reform, a ban on flag-burning, and computer game censorship threatens freedom of speech.  She has offered each 18-year old $5,000 to pay for beer college.

This doesn’t sound like a programme that Boris should support.  When he spoke to UCL last October, he asked people to guess who his political hero is.  Margaret Thatcher?  Winston Churchill?  Robert Peel?  No, no, et mille fois non.  His answer was the mayor from Jaws, because, in Boris’ words “he did absolutely nothing: just as government should.”  Wonderful answer, illustrating a sound libertarian philosophy underpinning his characteristic umming and erring.  So what the hell is he doing endorsing her?

I hope that it’s just political posturing.  I really, really do.  Just as Ken Livingstone monopolises the left-wing vote, so Boris has his staunch supporters to the right.  The mayoral race therefore hinges on who can cannibalise the Liberal Democrats’ voter base: winning their second-choice votes.

Due to the timing of the mayoral race, Boris can easily change his tune after he (hopefully) wins, cite events in the primaries, and switch to Giuliani or whoever else.  If he does that, he can claim ‘no harm, no foul’, and move on to replacing bendy buses or whatever else he wants to do with the GLA’s £10.7bn budget.  If he doesn’t, and this is a sincere and honest statement in favour of Clinton’s candidacy, and therefore the principles that she espouses, it must go down as Boris’ most stupid gaffe to date.

By any measure, Michael Bloomberg is a political rarity. The Mayor of New York is a prominent Republican that holds (relatively) classical liberal views on both economic and social issues: supporting laissez-faire economics over dirigisme, abortion rights over body fascism, and gay marriage rights over homophobia. Sadly for libertarians, this is a position that doesn’t fit well into the intellectually-stunted dichotomy of American politics, in which economic individualists are usually social statists, and vice versa.

Bloomberg’s uncomfortable compartmentalising into the US system is reflected in his political affiliation; started life as a Democrat, before switching parties in 2001 for purely political reasons (to avoid a tricky primary race in city in which Democrat candidates are ten-a-penny). On Wednesday, he completed the set, left the Republican Party, and declared himself an independent.

The mayor’s decision was made with only one date in mind: 4 November 2008, the day of the next Presidential election. The Bloomberg camp has denied this, but that’s par for the course, similar to a football club’s board giving its manager a vote of confidence (Barack Obama, anyone?). In American politics, one has to go a long way before “no” means “no”, and Bloomberg is not about to make such a statement.

The reason the two main parties matter so much (despite the notoriously weak whip system) is because American politics is dominated by money, and parties bring in the dollars like no-one else. However, as a self-made multi-billionaire, Bloomberg is also one of few politicians to have successfully financed his own campaign in its entirety. In 2001, he spent $73m on the mayoral election - which works out at $50 per vote cast and at over five times what his Democratic opponent could muster. He repeated the feat in 2005. In short, Bloomberg can afford to run as an independent, so why shouldn’t he?

As the not-so-invisible primaries continue to roll, the Republicans and Democrats will start to swiftboat each other, giving Bloomberg the perfect chance to establish his national credentials and build up his base. It comes as Rudy Giuliani has suffered a series of setbacks, possibly allowing Bloomberg to finally step out of the political shadow of his mayoral predecessor.

Ideologically, independence from the straitjackets of the economically-illiberal Democrats and socially-illiberal Republicans makes sense. Financially, it’s not exactly an advantage, but it’s not a major disadvantage to a man worth $5.5bn. Politically, it’s perfect. Despite the denials of his intention to run, Bloomberg’s declaration of independence is too convenient. In fact, the only thing amiss is the date; Bloomberg could have done far worse than to wait two weeks. When better than to issue his Declaration of Independence, and his intention to become the first independent President since George Washington than on July 4th?