But it isn't just Broder and political parties.  Today Obama announced a New Orleans plan (and I'm all for New Orleans plans) that has as one of its feature a political appointee FEMA head "insulated" from political pressure.  As if that's desirable or even possible.  I won't go into my rant here, since I already did that here, but since nobody is going to read it there, let me give a shorter version - political appointees are never going to be immune from politics, they can only be made immune from accountability and the last thing we need is more folks immune from accountability.

I often find myself wishing that the more hawkishly pro-war and pro-corporatist and conservative members of the Democratic party formally broke with the party, sided with the more "moderate" (i.e. non-wingnut and primarily pro-corporate and pro-M-I complex) wing of the GOP, and formed such a third party, which in many ways already exists in virtual form (e.g. voting for Alito, MCA, supplemental bill, FISA bill, etc.). The numbers probably already exist, or would soon exist, to allow it to compete favorably with either of the two existing parties.

Of course, this would be politically disasterous for the Democratic party in the short term. But it would probably be even more so for the wingnut wing of the GOP, who have even fewer active members and supporters than the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party". And instead of replacing the GOP with a more socially liberal version of itself, it might well create a situation in which we had an actual three party system, with a powerful corporatist centrist party dominating two weaker partisan parties on either flank. So we might have less "values" nonsense in our lives, but also fewer prospects for progressive legislation.

I'm neither advocating for or against the rise of such a party, just pointing out that the makings for one are there, in terms of policy, politics, and punditry support--and of course corporate, power and money support--and that it might well happen once we get past the Bush era. And if it does happen, how it will play out in terms of its effects on the existing main parties is anyone's guess. Maybe it would be a good thing--let the corporatists have their party, the Jesus freaks and gun lovers their party, and us tree huggers our own party.

That the demise of the Whigs was NOT due to their failure to find some "unifying" position on slavery - it was their cowardice in taking a strong stand on slavery that destroyed the Whigs.

When you travel to the world's trouble spots as a United States Senator, much of what you see is from a helicopter. So you look out, with the buzz of the rotor in your ear, maybe a door gunner nearby, and you see the refugee camp in Darfur, the flood near Djibouti, the bombed out block in Baghdad. You see thousands of desperate faces.

Al Qaeda's new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?  

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim - nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.

And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame - blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.

We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.

When I am President, that will change. We will author our own story.

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show - through deeds as well as words - that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say - as Secretary Rumsfeld did - "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.

I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas - often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia - that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well - more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict.

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with - and listen to - the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

Obama clothes it in Republican-lite hawkishness, as maybe he must to keep from being dismissed out of hand, but I think this is the heart of his vision on foreign policy, and it is a departure and contrast from the current twisted, Republican-dominated CW. The media emphasis on the "attack Pakistan" part side-tracked this essential message, and to his discredit he did seem content to let that happen.

  "Structural" impediments that exist now simply had no analog in the mid-19th century. These structural impedments are huge and include both the "governmental" (e.g., ballot access laws, laws requiring political appointments to reflect TWO party balance ,etc.) and rganizational/financial infrastructure. Ad to those the impediments that have always existed: "winner take all" as opposed to proportional representation system and the power of party caucuses in the legislatures and the likelihood of a successful (in the sense of becoming a majority capable party)  3rd party is very low.

  Personally, I think "politically" a centrist third party would appeal to an extremely large plurality and probably majority of voters-- and might actually be a good thing (but only if viable parties to the left and right maintained significance) but I don't see it happening.