Broderella, whose antipathy to the Democratic Party becomes more transparent by the week, publishes a column today that gives me deja vu, as he calls for "Bloomberg and Hagel for 2008?" I'd swear he published this idea a month ago. Just without the question mark. Or was that Novak?
Anyway, Broder cites Hagel on just why the country so desperately needs two more presidential aspirants:
...[W]hile Washington is gridlocked in partisan battle between two equally spent parties, the country is moving rapidly, [Hagel] thinks, to the conclusion that neither Republicans nor Democrats have the answers to the problems people see....Yeah, democracy sucks that way, with all the disagreement and bickering and, you know, different ideas. Better that our, well, that our betters should annoint a pair of
The common thread to all these problems [the Iraq war, the credit crunch and immigration], he says, is leadership....
The imperative the public will impose on the next president, Hagel says, "is to lead the country and restore the sense of national purpose." But the early start on campaigning for the GOP and Democratic nominations, and the prospect that the battles on one side or the other or both could continue right through next summer's conventions, could make it harder for the survivor to be that unifying figure.