Raging Broderism!

In today's edition, the Dean finds, somehow, false equivalency b/w the predicaments of the Republican and Democratic contenders for the White House.

Here's the bulk of the horror:

But the dynamic on both sides is trending toward extreme positions that would open the door to an independent or third-party challenge in 2008 aimed at the millions of voters in the center.

The danger may be greatest for the Democrats, even though President Bush's failings have put them in a favored position to win the next election. Prodded by four long shots for the nomination and threatened by the rhetoric of former senator John Edwards, a serious contender, the two front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq.

[snip]

The broader question of Persian Gulf policy in the likely event of a drawdown of American forces in the coming year is also a blind spot for the Democrats. Beyond exhortations to the weak Maliki government in Baghdad and a vague hope of convening an international conference on Iraq, the leading Democrats have little to suggest that could mitigate a possible foreign policy disaster.

OK, where to start? First, it's possible that "the millions of voters in the [political] center" are waiting for "an independent or third-party challenge in 2008," but I'm VERY skeptical. My guess is that this is much more the dream of the pundit class, which has already decided that no one is going to play their game this time around--at least, no one they want to play with.

The talk of a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket seems to set the heart of the political talkers atwitter, but who, exactly, would vote for this ticket? If you'd actually be willing to vote for Bloomberg, doesn't that make you basically, um, a Democrat? And what does hard-right-on-everything-other-than-the-Iraq-war Chuck Hagel as Veep add to the ticket? (He's reportedly a global warming skeptic.)

Second--it's just not plausible that "[t]he dangers may be greatest for the Democrats." In a two-party system, the party out of the White House benefits from the f**k-ups of the party in the White House. That's the way it works, even when the problems the party-in-power faces are not actually its fault. (Not the case here.)

Third. Sigh. The reason the Democrats "have little to suggest that could mitigate a possible foreign policy disaster" is that . . . the "possible" disaster has already happened. No one--not even the Great Center Hope, with his or her team of Establishment advisers--could undo this Pottery Barn problem.

Of course, that is the sort of thing that is un-sayable in the political process--unless you're not a viable candidate. Ron Paul or Dennis could say it, but none of the leading candidates in either party can. So we'll continue to "lack a real-world clue." Oh, wait, that's what Broder was complaining about.

Don't feel like you have to read the whole thing. I'll add that Broder points to Biden and McCain as the exceptions to the rule. Now, there's an Establishment pundit class ticket for you.