Michael Goodwin

Four blind mice

Did Mike Bloomberg win the mayoral election last time, or did Mark Green lose it?

If you think Bloomberg gets the credit, then you're alone. Even Bloomberg himself has said, "Let's face it, I didn't win. Mark Green lost."

History seems ready to repeat itself. Green's not running, but the four Democrats in the race all look like losers. And just as Bloomberg had no business winning in 2001, he could keep the job because the Dem field is embarrassingly weak.

They've been dubbed the "Drab Four." The only way they're going to catch fire is by playing with matches.

On paper, the mayor is a ripe target. His approval rating has hit 50% once in three years. His performance on three big ideas - a Jets stadium, control of the schools and tax hikes - has been booed from the Bronx to Staten Island.

And being the richest man ever to hold office - yes, richer than Rockefeller - doesn't exactly endear him to the masses. He rakes in more than $2.5 million a week in a city where the median family income is about $50,000 a year.

Throw in the five-to-one registration advantage Dems enjoy and, even with Bloomberg's willingness to spend $100 million on the campaign, a Democrat should win. But this could be another year of "woulda, coulda, shoulda."

Blame it on the candidates. At a time when Democrats around America are asking why their party lost to an unpopular President last fall, New York Dems act like they've got the world on a string. Never mind that they've lost City Hall three straight times, and haven't won since David Dinkins beat Rudy Giuliani in 1989.

It's still business as usual. The wanna-bes are running on platforms with just two planks: ethnic and racial appeal, or platitudes suggesting Abe Lincoln was wrong - you really can fool all the people all the time.

Oh, there is one thing - all four oppose the stadium. But opposition alone, even when it's the popular position, doesn't win elections. You have to be FOR something voters can sink their teeth into, and hang their hopes on.

Take Fernando Ferrer, who seems to have peaked at 40% support. Fueled by the belief he flip-flopped on whether the police shooting of Amadou Diallo was a crime, Ferrer's slip is showing. Only after a poll proved he was being hurt by the issue did he do a half apology. But his explanation was tortured, and he started blubbering about how he would rather lose than change who he really is. Whatever.

The other three have pigeonholed themselves. Manhattan Borough President Virginia Fields' team is excited because she hit 21% in a poll - without saying a single memorable thing about what she would do as mayor. But she is black and a woman, as her team helpfully points out.

City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a consistent 10% in the polls, is sounding increasingly shrill. The other day he demanded that Bloomberg issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because just one judge said it was okay. This is not mayoral timber.

Then there's Anthony Weiner. When the Brooklyn congressman comes up with his next real idea - say, on how he would fix the schools - it'll be his first. His anemic support is well-earned.

It's not as if New York is Happy Valley. A new poll says only a third believe subways and tunnels are safe from terrorism. Anybody who wants to be mayor is obliged to deal with those worries.

Then there's the nation's highest tax burden. Are there any Democratic ideas for cutting city taxes?

Or should we just wait for pigs to fly?