NEW YORK, NY--At 9:15 this morning, Barack Obama delivered a "major" economic address at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in downtown Manhattan. That was Obama's entree du jour--the message he wanted the media to relay to the American people. Usually, it would've worked; the best way to force the press to cover policy--or anything, really--is to lay it obligingly on their Big Apple doorstep. But unfortunately for Obama, I don't expect to hear much about regulatory restructuring on Hardball tonight, because something tells me that today's appetizer will prove much tastier for the punditry than the main course.

Its name: Michael Bloomberg. 

Here we go again. Back in November, Obama and Bloomberg hastily arranged a breakfast sit-down at the New York Luncheonette on E. 50th Street--and the Bloomie-obsessed press immediately started wagging its cable/talk radio/tabloid/Internet tongue "about the possibilities, the angles, the common interests" (in the words of MSM queen bee Mark Halperin). Much of the speculation--and speculation is all one has when forced to "report" from the sidewalk outside a diner--centered on the possibility of an Obama-Bloomberg ticket, and whether Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, could finance the bid out of pocket. As I wrote at the time, such innuendo was asinine: "to pick a billionaire running mate and then take massive sums of his money would make Obama look 1) weak, as if he needs a "sugar daddy" and 2) corrupt, as if he were selling the vice presidency to the highest bidder. Neither charge would be true--but that wouldn't stop Republicans from repeating them ad infinitum."

But four months later, as Bloomberg's decision to introduce Obama today revives the "dream-ticket ruckus," I have to admit: maybe there's something to Obama-Bloomberg '08. The old arguments in favor of the pairing still hold up. Both Obama and Bloomberg are focused, as the Illinois senator noted in remarks, on ending "Washington['s]... old ideological battles" and "bring[ing] people together to seek pragmatic solutions." And Obama could easily refuse Bloomberg's billions and still overwhelm John McCain financially.

But more intriguing is what's happened in the months since Bloomberg and Obama first met--and how well Hizzoner suits the new moment. For starters, the nation's economic meltdown has rocketed to the top of voter concerns. Who better than Bloomberg--both an astronomically successful private-sector entrepreneur and an undeniably effective steward of the nation's financial capital--to lend executive and economic heft to Obama's ticket? And then there's the pesky issue of the Jewish vote. (Sure, a black-Jewish ticket may turn off some folks. But there's a reason it's called a "dream ticket.") In recent weeks, remarks by Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., and his military advisor, Gen. Tony McPeak, have reinforced doubts--however unfounded--among some Jewish voters (many of whom were already dismayed by Louis Farrakhan's relationship with Obama's church) about Obama's pro-Israel bona fides. (Obama lost to Clinton among Jews in the vital swing states of New Jersey and Florida by margins of 26 and 32 percent, respectively.) Although not ostentatiously religious, Bloomberg was raised in a kosher home, celebrated his bar mitzvah, created an endowment for his hometown synagogue, donated millions to Jewish causes in the U.S. and Israel and, according to ABC News, "emphatically supports the Jewish state and has traveled there numerous times." He's one of America's two most prominent Jewish politicians--and something tells me that the other one, Joe Lieberman, isn't raring to ride the Obama train.

Hints of a power coupling were few and far between at this morning's event. In his introductory remarks, Bloomberg evoked Abraham Lincoln (rumor has it the ol' railsplitter once gave a speech at Cooper Union, too) and said it was his "honor to welcome another man from Illinois." "I'm glad he has chosen to come to our city to speak out on the economy," Bloomberg said. "I'm sure there will be plenty of opinions on what he has to say. This is New York after all. I'm not sure all of us will agree with every idea, myself included." But despite the jokey "discord," the pols made sure, at one moment, to fan speculation of a united future. After Bloomberg mentioned his November meeting with the Illinois senator--"It is my pleasure to introduce [him], and not just because he picked up the check when we had breakfast together"--Obama quickly picked up the thread. "I have to tell you," he said, "the reason I bought breakfast is because I expect payback of something more expensive." He paused, savoring the unspoken suggestion as the audience applauded. "I'm no dummy," he added, grinning ironically. "I figured there are some good steakhouses in New York." Whether Obama was angling for an endorsement or a rib-eye, it seems clear from Bloomberg's continued presence at the senator's side that Democratic frontrunner is not the only one interested in payback. 

UPDATE, 1:46 p.m.: Ambinder has a smart take:

The best way to look at an Obama-Bloomberg ticket is by noticing their complimentary traits. Obama isn't much of an administrator or a details guy by his own admission, while Bloomberg is so concerned about Your Health and Welfare that he studies intently the ins and outs of congestion pricing and trans-fats. He's a prime minister-type -- although he brings an outsider's sense of efficiency to the bureaucracy. Let Obama be the vision guy; Bloomberg could be the brass-tacts [sic] administrator.

Also, if Obama and Bloomberg are looking for a good steak, Stumper recommends the tagliata di manzo--aged, grilled, sliced and topped with roasted garlic and rosemary--at Pepolino on West Broadway in Tribeca. Quiet Tuscan trattoria, not too trendy. Perfect for a rendezvous.