Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hagel for (Democratic) Veep?

Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R-Neb.) acknowledgment that he would consider serving as Barack Obama's vice president speaks to his continued alienation from the GOP as well as from his longtime friend John McCain.

"If it would occur, I would have to think about it," Hagel told the Associated Press late Friday. "I think anybody, anybody would have to consider it. Doesn't mean you'd do it, doesn't mean you'd accept it, could be too many gaps there, but you'd have to consider it, I mean, it's the only thing you could do."

Hagel's statement is the latest development in a fascinating evolution that has seen the Nebraskan transformed from a loyal Republican and close personal friend and supporter of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid to the loudest voice in opposition to his party's approach to the war in Iraq and an increasingly independent operator who has yet to throw his support behind McCain in this presidential race.

Hagel himself weighed a presidential bid in the run up to the 2008 election but his position on Iraq was directly at odds with the most fervent elements of the Republican base who tend to exert outsized influence in picking their party's nominee.

After deciding not to run for the Republican nod, Hagel left open the possibility of running as part of a bipartisan ticket but the group leading that effort -- "Unity 08" -- collapsed after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made clear he would not run for president in 2008.

It's clear then that Hagel is quite interested in national office -- putting him in good company in the Senate where he shares that ambition with about 85 percent of his colleagues. (Hagel is retiring from the Senate this year after two terms.)

But, Hagel, a savvy politician who ousted a heavily favored Democratic governor to win an open Senate seat in 1996, knows his options are limited. If he wants to remain in the Republican party, he must hope that the attitude within the rank-and-file GOP activists regarding the war changes dramatically between now and 2011 or so. Only such a sea change that would, in effect, justify and validate Hagel's position on Iraq would make it possible for him to run for president with any reasonable hope of winning the nomination.

With that option dependent on any number of factors that might or might not come to pass, Hagel's willingness to put his name into consideration for the Democratic nomination makes more sense. Iraq has largely turned him into a candidate without a party even though he carries a strong record of supporting most party policies other than the war.

Could Hagel be the pick? Anything is possible in politics but it seems unlikely at the moment. Conventional wisdom pegs Obama as the frontrunner in the race with McCain and, as the favorite, it's not likely the Illinois senator will take a major risk in picking a vice president.

The more likely scenario is for Hagel to wind up in an Obama cabinet in some role -- if, of course, that is something that interests the retiring Nebraska Republican.

That Hagel could be seriously considered for a Cabinet post in an Obama administration in the same election that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) is seen as a potential vice presidential option for McCain speaks to the ways in which the war in Iraq has fundamentally altered the partisan calculations in Washington.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 21, 2008; 2:54 PM ET
Categories:  Veepstakes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "Who Won The Week?" -- The Competition Continues
Next: Broder: How Well Do Voters Know Obama?

Comments

Obama/Clark!

Wesley Clark would cover a number of bases for Obama, military, southerner, foreign relations experience and some gravitas. I think Clark would do for the ticket what Hagel would do but Clark being a Democrat park Hagel on the side-lines for the GE. Hagel would then be nominated for Secretary/DOD.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | June 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

If Obama offered the VP slot to Hagel - McCain had better pack it up and go home. That would be a national coalition ticket which would win an absolute landslide!

McCain's best choice - Carly Fiorina. Google Flora TV and Carly and watch her speak - incredible - able to rearticulate a new modern with-it conservatism that is post-Bush (yippie).

Only in Disneyland - Hagel-Fiorina 08.
When you wish upon a star!

Posted by: Pitt the Younger | June 23, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Actually I wonder when Obama is going to look for a young progressive like himself? I live in Ohio and our congressman is the perfect choice, young, dynamic and from Ohio. His name is Tim Ryan. This guy has a lot going for him, including his appeal to working class voters. I sort of doubt he will even be looked at, but he is the type at least that I think would add to the Obama ticket.

Posted by: RZ | June 22, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Interesting analysis. Is anyone aware that Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer picked a Republican legislator, John Bolinger, as his running mate in 2004. The pair are running for reelection this year and Bolinger still insists he is a Republican, though the state party leadership has all but disowned him.

So there is some precident for a successful ticket with members of opposite parties on it.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | June 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

i like hagel, but this post talks about why there's better choices:

www.eternalprey.com

Posted by: bobFL | June 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Any benefit Obama would get from Hagel, he'd get from Webb -- even more so, because Hagel initially supported the war while Webb strongly denounced it.

However, neither one's right for Obama, as he needs a yes-man like Richardson. For example, when Obama attempts to confiscate all guns (and he will, given the chance), there's no way Webb would support him. But Richardson, who's supposedly pro-2nd ammendment too, would have no problem obeying.

Posted by: info | June 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

THESE REMARKS BY OBAMA ARE SO ANTI-AMERICAN AND SO OFFENSIVE TO EUROPEAN AMERCANS THAT Obama should RESIGN FROM THE SENATE IMMEDIATELY AND WITHDRAW FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.


****************************************


JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) - Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans will "try to make you afraid of me" in remarks he made Friday at a Florida fundraiser.

"The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run," said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'"

In similar comments at a Chicago fundraiser last Thursday, Obama told supporters that Republicans would try to portray both him and his wife Michelle as "scary."

"They're going to try to make me into a scary guy," he said last week. "They're even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat - 'we're not sure if he's patriotic or not; we're not sure if he is too black.'


"I don't know, before I wasn't black enough," said Obama. "'Now he might be too black. We don't know whether he's going to socialize - well, who knows what.'"


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 22, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

2004: Kerry courts McCain...

2008: Obama courts Hagel....

"That's the kind of Change America deserves" (?!)

Hey Linda, I hope you paid your taxes this year...John McCain appreciates your support of his campaign...that's the American way. We all pay our taxes and then support both candidates from the proceeds. Then MOVEON.ORG, etc. gives millions to advertise for the Democrat and Republican 527's place ads for the Republican. Now we have a precedent...America is writing a blank check for Obama. You see he believes in CREATIVE FINANCING...that's how he bought a 2.5 million dollar house and property for half of its value...through an Arab millionaire who loaned it to Rezkos's wife who overpaid for the adjoining property and sold it back to Obama...a "Bonehead Move", according to Obama...sounds like we have to watch every dollar coming in to make sure no more arab money influences our election in another "Bonehead Move."

Posted by: Scott | June 22, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

"But keep on hating on her- it does the party a lot of good to throw our only successful president from the party in the last 40 years under the bus."

You must be confused. Hillary Clinton was never out president.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 22, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Wow and I thought Hagel and Mccain were good friends. Mccain had plenty of time to get his campaign and himself together. The Democratic Primaries lasted longer than expected and still Mccain and his campaign are a mess. I don't blame Hagel for considering running with Obama. Mccain is confused. He doesn't know what he stands for either.

Posted by: Linda | June 22, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

Wow and I thought Hagel and Mccain were good friends. Mccain had plenty of time to get his campaign and himself together. The Democratic Primaries lasted longer than expected and still Mccain and his campaign are a mess. I don't blame Hagel for considering running with Obama. Mccain is confused. He doesn't know what he stands for either.

Posted by: Linda | June 22, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

Wow and I thought Hagel and Mccain were good friends. Mccain had plenty of time to get his campaign and himself together. The Democratic Primaries lasted longer than expected and still Mccain and his campaign are a mess. I don't blame Hagel for considering running with Obama. Mccain is confused. He doesn't know what he stands for either.

Posted by: Linda | June 22, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

Also Inuoye from HA, Corzine from NJ--and more.

But keep on hating on her- it does the party a lot of good to throw our only successful president from the party in the last 40 years under the bus.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

I am glad that Chuck Hagel has the guts to stand up to the administration on the war (he isn't running again, and knew he wouldn't be), and honor his military service, but that doesn't mean he isn't a follower of the Republican plank on every other issue.

Better to choose a moderate Democrat with administrative experience like Evan Bayh.

Posted by: Ann | June 22, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

KevvRobb- even on that list there were HRC supporters- McCulski, Stebanow, etc.
and that is not including people who backed her but hopped on board for him once it was evident he was going to win

You see- despite what you all think- HRC is not responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened on earth- she does not kick puppies or steal from orphans, she has never lit your grandmother's wig on fire or warm up the environkment single handedly. She voted, as many of the senators with the best information at the time, including central Barak backers- Daschle, Kennedy and Kerry among others- to authorize the president to use force; which with any normal president allows for a bargaining tool. I opposed it- but I wasn't in the senate. Neither was Barak- he was in the state senate in a district where opposing the war was politically popular. When he decided to run for US senate, a year later, his story change "I don't know how I would have voted" was the answer in 2003 and in 2004 he said he essentially agreed with Bush. The fictions created to allow the "liberal" wing of the party to elevate him to a demi-god are unbelievable- this is a guy who has done nothing of substance in his 2 active years in the senate and provides little more than rhetoric as oppossed to ambitious policy agendas for how he will "change" DC. That is why as an ultra-liberal (prefer the term leftist-since apparently the liberal wing of the Dems are morons- those are the ones who voted for Nader in 2000 to make sure we got W) Barak was one of my last choices- well after HRC- she atleast has policy positions that are well thought out, ambitious and progressive

leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet, spare us your phony indignation. "Who, us Republicans, fearmongering and casting racial aspersions? Dear me no."

Your vile party once even launched an auto-dialling campaign that accused JOHN MCCAIN of having secretly fathered a black baby.

That says it all really.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 21, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama is basing his entire campaign on CALLING PEOPLE RACIST WHO ARE NOT RACIST. OBAMA IS RUNNING A TERRORIST INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A DISGRACE.


Obama has got to be kidding.


This guy Obama is a joke. He is turning the Presidential campaign into an affirmative action program which he thinks he should win whether he is more qualified or not.


Obama is not even close to being more qualified.


Please save this country. Please act now to rid this country of this Inexperienced Flip Flopping Empty Suit Slime Fish Obama - Please act to save this country today.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is basing his entire campaign on CALLING PEOPLE RACIST WHO ARE NOT RACIST. OBAMA IS RUNNING A TERRORIST INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A DISGRACE.


Obama has got to be kidding.


This guy Obama is a joke. He is turning the Presidential campaign into an affirmative action program which he thinks he should win whether he is more qualified or not.


Obama is not even close to being more qualified.


Please save this country. Please act now to rid this country of this Inexperienced Flip Flopping Empty Suit Slime Fish Obama - Please act to save this country today.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is basing his entire campaign on CALLING PEOPLE RACIST WHO ARE NOT RACIST. OBAMA IS RUNNING A TERRORIST INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A DISGRACE.


Obama has got to be kidding.


This guy Obama is a joke. He is turning the Presidential campaign into an affirmative action program which he thinks he should win whether he is more qualified or not.


Obama is not even close to being more qualified.


Please save this country. Please act now to rid this country of this Inexperienced Flip Flopping Empty Suit Slime Fish Obama - Please act to save this country today.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is basing his entire campaign on CALLING PEOPLE RACIST WHO ARE NOT RACIST. OBAMA IS RUNNING A TERRORIST INTIMIDATION CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A DISGRACE.


Obama has got to be kidding.


This guy Obama is a joke. He is turning the Presidential campaign into an affirmative action program which he thinks he should win whether he is more qualified or not.


Obama is not even close to being more qualified.


Please save this country. Please act now to rid this country of this Inexperienced Flip Flopping Empty Suit Slime Fish Obama - Please act to save this country today.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Your list, biggirl, is the Democratic senators who opposed the war. In fact, one Republican senator had the balls and brains to vote against invasion, but it wasn't Chuck Hagel, it was a man of genuine principle, Lincoln Chafee ... who is no longer a Republican.

In the House, Democrats voted largely against invasion, 126 to 82 (61%).

One guy on your list, Jack Reed, would make a great VP candidate. One House Democrat who voted against the war, Ted Strickland, would be an even better choice, as he's now a popular governor of Ohio, and was also a big Hillary supporter who could appease her fans somewhat.

He must be just about the ONLY Hillary supporter who opposed the Iraq war when it mattered, since "Hillary supporter" is basically synonymous with "2003 Iraq invasion supporter".

Posted by: kevrobb | June 21, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH . NEWS FLASH


Obama really did it now - he is FALSELY ACCUSING the Republican party of racism BEFORE THEY SAY ANYTHING - Obama does not have an actual quote or instance of racism - so he is going with the "Republicans are GOING TO BE RACIST" line instead. The Constitution states one is innocent until proven guilty - Obama's new version of the Bill of Rights is "one is a racist before one says or does anything." Is this Obama's version of a post-racial campaign ? Give the country a break.


Obama is a disgrace to the Bill of Rights.


This is actually a new version of twisting someone's words around and "FALSELY PRETENDING TO BE OFFENDED." Or the FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS."


This time, Obama has nothing to go on. He has nothing.


So Obama says the Republicans are "GOING TO SAY SOMETHING WHICH MIGHT BE TWISTED INTO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED RACIST IF ONE REALLY REALLY REALLY TRIED." THESE REMARKS BY OBAMA ARE SO ANTI-AMERICAN AND SO OFFENSIVE TO EUROPEAN AMERCANS THAT Obama should RESIGN FROM THE SENATE IMMEDIATELY AND WITHDRAW FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.


****************************************


JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) - Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans will "try to make you afraid of me" in remarks he made Friday at a Florida fundraiser.

"The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run," said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'"

In similar comments at a Chicago fundraiser last Thursday, Obama told supporters that Republicans would try to portray both him and his wife Michelle as "scary."

"They're going to try to make me into a scary guy," he said last week. "They're even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat - 'we're not sure if he's patriotic or not; we're not sure if he is too black.'


"I don't know, before I wasn't black enough," said Obama. "'Now he might be too black. We don't know whether he's going to socialize - well, who knows what.'"


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 21, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH . NEWS FLASH


Obama really did it now - he is FALSELY ACCUSING the Republican party of racism BEFORE THEY SAY ANYTHING - Obama does not have an actual quote or instance of racism - so he is going with the "Republicans are GOING TO BE RACIST" line instead. The Constitution states one is innocent until proven guilty - Obama's new version of the Bill of Rights is "one is a racist before one says or does anything." Is this Obama's version of a post-racial campaign ? Give the country a break.


Obama is a disgrace to the Bill of Rights.


This is actually a new version of twisting someone's words around and "FALSELY PRETENDING TO BE OFFENDED." Or the FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF "OFFENSIVE COMMENTS."


This time, Obama has nothing to go on. He has nothing.


So Obama says the Republicans are "GOING TO SAY SOMETHING WHICH MIGHT BE TWISTED INTO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED RACIST IF ONE REALLY REALLY REALLY TRIED." THESE REMARKS BY OBAMA ARE SO ANTI-AMERICAN AND SO OFFENSIVE TO EUROPEAN AMERCANS THAT Obama should RESIGN FROM THE SENATE IMMEDIATELY AND WITHDRAW FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.


****************************************


JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) - Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans will "try to make you afraid of me" in remarks he made Friday at a Florida fundraiser.

"The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run," said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'"

In similar comments at a Chicago fundraiser last Thursday, Obama told supporters that Republicans would try to portray both him and his wife Michelle as "scary."

"They're going to try to make me into a scary guy," he said last week. "They're even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat - 'we're not sure if he's patriotic or not; we're not sure if he is too black.'


"I don't know, before I wasn't black enough," said Obama. "'Now he might be too black. We don't know whether he's going to socialize - well, who knows what.'"


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 21, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

biggirl- it is opposed giving authorization- they did not vote for the war- even the Republicans- this was Bush's horribly misthought military action- not a congressionally sactioned war-

The continued occupation, however is funded by the majority of Democrats- including Barak. It's nice that as a state senator he made a speech. I marched before, during and after the invasion as well...unfortunately, no record of doing anything to stop the occupation once in office.

It would not be politically advantageous to do so, but my ideal VP would be Russ Fiengold now- someone who, unlike Barak, always backs up his words with actions. If we are looking for a politician with a good brain who is politically advantageous- HRC is the best choice- after all- given your list, she voted the same way that potential VP candidates Bayh, Edwards, Daschle, and Fienstien did as well as past candidate Kerry.

Also- I was a big Kerry supporter once he got the nomination in 2004- even flew to FL for election day- but is anyone else disgusted with him for personally attacking the guy he offered his VP slot to first last cycle?- it's a little disingenuous...I think I understand why it was so easy for the right to stereotype him.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's the list of who was opposed to the Iraq invasion...
Daniel Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Jon Corzine, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Bob Graham, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Paul Sarbanes, Debbie Stabenow, Paul Wellstone, Ron Wyden

Posted by: biggirl | June 21, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow, all of these people sagely noting that "Hagel opposed the war but..."

...should go check the actual voting record. Hagel voted to invade Iraq. Hagel has never said the war was wrong, only that it was managed inefficiently.

I don't normally write in caps but I said this below and it doesn't seem to have sunk in so I'll repeat:

CHUCK HAGEL VOTED TO INVADE IRAQ.

Let me say that again so we all understand:

CHUCK HAGEL VOTED FOR THE BLOODY WAR.

Got it? Just because Cillizza says otherwise don't make it so. I'm quite sure Cillizza also supported the war and has also now forgotten having supported it.

Just like practically everybody else on this page.
Just like practically everybody else in America.

One more time, repeat slowly after me:

CHUCK HAGEL F**KING VOTED TO F**KING INVADE F**KING IRAQ.

Got it? Dunces.

Posted by: kevrobb | June 21, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey Anonymous Coward who posted the McCain songbird blog, I hope you paid your taxes this year...John McCain appreciates your support of his campaign...that's the American way. We all pay our taxes and then support both candidates from the proceeds. Then MOVEON.ORG, etc. gives millions to advertise for the Democrat and Republican 527's place ads for the Republican. Now we have a precedent...America is writing a blank check for Obama. You see he believes in CREATIVE FINANCING...that's how he bought a 2.5 million dollar house and property for half of its value...through an Arab millionaire who loaned it to Rezkos's wife who overpaid for the adjoining property and sold it back to Obama...a "Bonehead Move", according to Obama...sounds like we have to watch every dollar coming in to make sure no more arab money influences our election in another "Bonehead Move."

Let's just say that calling an American Hero whose arms were broken and then rebroken, left to die in a pool of his own blood and feces, inorder to obtain a statement, a songbird is deplorable tactics of a scared little coward who would have folded like a deck of cards at word one...your anonymity speaks volumes loudly!

Posted by: Scott | June 21, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Anonymous Coward who posted the McCain songbird blog, I hope you paid your taxes this year...John McCain appreciates your support of his campaign...that's the American way. We all pay our taxes and then support both candidates from the proceeds. Then MOVEON.ORG, etc. gives millions to advertise for the Democrat and Republican 527's place ads for the Republican. Now we have a precedent...America is writing a blank check for Obama. You see he believes in CREATIVE FINANCING...that's how he bought a 2.5 million dollar house and property for half of its value...through an Arab millionaire who loaned it to Rezkos's wife who overpaid for the adjoining property and sold it back to Obama...a "Bonehead Move", according to Obama...sounds like we have to watch every dollar coming in to make sure no more arab money influences our election in another "Bonehead Move."

Let's just say that calling an American Hero whose arms were broken and then rebroken, left to die in a pool of his own blood and feces, inorder to obtain a statement, is deplorable tactics of a scared little coward who would have folded like a deck of cards at word one...your anonymity speaks voumes loudly!

Posted by: Scott | June 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Marcaurelius | June 21, 2008 6:05 PM
"Hagel is the only Republican left who still has a brain. Except for maybe
Voinovich and Warner."

The problem with all the Republicans is they followed cheney/bush and Tom Delay in lock step. Where was their backbone?

Posted by: Comment reader | June 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely not. Chuck Hagel may have the courage to buck his Party on the Iraq War, but he's still Republican on every other issue. I would be okay with some other high level political appt, but not vp. I see no reason for it, certainly not when we have an administration and Party with such low favorability ratings.

Posted by: spicegal | June 21, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

2004: Kerry courts McCain...

2008: Obama courts Hagel....

"That's the kind of Change America deserves" (?!)

Posted by: Scott | June 21, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

If you are going to make your VP pick about policy or morality- someone who you agree with in the event they had to take over the government- than Hagel is the worst pick ever. He has a fairly right wing voting record and was McCain's best friend in the Senate until he was replaced by Lindsey Graham.

If you are going to make your choice political- he is still a bad choice. He solidifies the truth about Obama- that he is more about politics than substance- the reason why while I'm voting for him, I am disgusted. How come Obamites are not dismayed at the consideration of the reactionary views of another middle aged WASP from the midwest rather than a female senator with a series of ambitious progressive policy proposals and a history of fighting for such proposals? (not that she should take the VP slot- I think however, anyone who doesn't think that she merits asking is doing so out of dislike for someone for whatever reason rather than any knowledge of who she is, what she stands for and general politics and history)

Leon

Posted by: NYC Leon | June 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

response to: (John | June 21, 2008 9:04 PM)

You make a valid point. That said, Hillary probably would have alienated too many Repubs and Indys, to win the election. Obama and Dean--have the right long-term strategy: put every state in play, even if it won't be in play in November. Personally, I'm tired of Dems waiting on election night to see if they can hold 12 coastal/Northern states, and then pick up a few others. This year, the electoral college map will look more like 92's: Obama will put some extra midwestern and northwestern states in play. McCain will probably hold the southwest and the radical "Bubba" wing of the Repub party will probably offset any gains that Obama makes in the South. The election will probably be a squeaker, but it's essentially Obama's to lose. But don't get me wrong - Karl Rover and his reactionary wingnuts at FOX News and Texas Swiftboaters for Lies will do anything and everything possible to keep a person of color out of the White House.

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | June 21, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

response to: (Gary E. Masters | June 21, 2008 9:24 PM)

George W. Bush and his radical cronies were not straight with the sheeple who "elected" him. Experts say that at least 15 years are typically needed to put down insurgencies. To say the least there, if he hadn't been so mealy-mouthed about everything, his approval ratings wouldn't be tanking.

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | June 21, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

How will we know the USA has won the war in Iraq?

The Democrats will say "It's the economy."

And most will believe it.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | June 21, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

"Is OLD McBush a Traitor? Did OLD McBush collaborate with the Enemy?

Why is OLD McBush's codename Songbird?"


Looks like you are good at tossing the chips where they will go.

Now we can wait to see how well you can take it. Sooner or later it will be difficult. Then is when I want an attitude check. Will you sing too?

I would be surprised to see an ignorant person prove to be brave.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | June 21, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Few know why Chuck has changed so, but he could be the loosest cannon ever in politics. Take him at your own risk!

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | June 21, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Oddly, I seem to remember similar rumors floating around in 2004 about Kerry's running mate - another Republican Senator who was alienated from Bush and his policies - John McCain. Everyone knows how that story ends.

Hagel isn't going to get named - while he aligns with Obama on the war, he is out of touch with Democrats on virtually every other issue, and Obama can't afford to alienate the party base that much.

But I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see Hagel endorse Obama this fall, and a cabinet slot would be a distinct possibility.

Posted by: terje | June 21, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse


How Absurd! Just because Chuck is an ex-soldier as i am he's as far from Liberal Politics as they come.
Can't you address something of more substance than this nitwit Pundit pandering?

Posted by: Darwin26 | June 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I chuckle when someone says Obama should pick someone for VP who brings credentials he lacks or brings "gravitas" to the ticket. I thought the top of the ticket was supposed to already have that. If Hillary was the nominee nobody would be saying that stuff.

Posted by: John | June 21, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

No thanks. And no to Sam Nunn also.

Posted by: Greg in LA | June 21, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Rather have Hagel than Bayh - a serpentine purveyor of lies during the primary season. Anyone with integrity will sell well on the Obama ticket. Bayh is a square-jawed ninny - Prince Uncharming, if you will. One out of Hagel, Sebelius, Webb. The rest can go surfing.

Posted by: Prince Cabbaloppy | June 21, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"The more likely scenario is for Hagel to wind up in an Obama cabinet in some role..."

Agreed. Chuck Hagel is one of the good guys and using him in some important capacity makes sense, especially if BHO is serious about reaching out to Rs.

Scrivener, I have noted your fear of voting machine based fraud in several threads, and now ask if you know which states have no audit [paper] trail.

Anonymous, your personal attacks on McC are no better than ad hominem attacks on BHO or anyone else. Try to stay with the subject. Do not repeat your "talking points". Distinguish yourself as someone who can address a logical question: "Whither Hagel?" - with a relevant answer.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 21, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Hagel would be an outstanding choice for several reasons. I thought Edwards would be enough to put more Southern/Midwestern states in play, in Y2K4. Apparently not. But Hagel's being a Republican would reinforce Obama's populist message, attract "national security" Repubs, and also demonstrate just how radical the GOP has become. At the GOP Y2K4 convention, Zell Miller looked a little bit like a frustrated, tired, old man. McCain's pseudo "maverick" status will essentially have the same impact this year. While Zell Miller's assertion that the Dem. party is somewhere in left field, was a little ridiculous there, Hagel could certainly make the same claim. Republicans are a little bit funny in that they love libertarianism, until it comes to social issues. No true libertarian would have started or supported George W. Bush's war for oil. In a nutshell, Iraq neither attacked nor threatened to attack, the U.S. The neo-cons and PNAC are a bunch of ivory tower chickenhawks who fight wars from their designer armchairs.

Posted by: Dr. Don Key | June 21, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

In the climactic year of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln dunped his VP, Hannibal Hamlin, and got to gether with Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat, and the only Southern Senator to retain his place in the Senate. Together they ran on the "Constitutional Union: ticket, with, of course the Republican Party endorsement (although somewhat reluctant, since many Republicans didn't believe Lincoln could win in 1864.) and tepid support.

Andrew Johnson, upon succeeding to the Presidency, tried to continue Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, but partly because he was a Democrat, and partly because Ben Wade, Edwin Stanton, and Thaddeus Stevens and the rest of the Radicals decided that they had the votes (and they did) they could Reconstruct the south their way. When Johnson opposed them, they impeached him. Came within a hair of removing him from office.

I would love to see a Constitutional Union ticket, Obama/Hagel would be quite a breath of fresh air. The vague thought of Obama being assassinated would take some of the luster off the poster, but it would still shine the way such posters have failed to shine over the last few years.

As for Hagel using the VP to set himself up for 2012, if he works well WITH Obama, there will be no good grounds for the Dems to run him for President, and while the Moderate and Progressive republicans ought to seize their party and banish the Radicals to the back of the hall, They won't do it in t6he next four years.

I still think Obama/Bayh has a mellifluous sound to it, but I will cheer quite loudly if Hagel joins Obama on the platform at the end of the Denver convention.

By the way, somebody go down to the IT people and kick as much support tissue as it takes to get these blogs to recognize the names of the primary players in this contest. I HATE having to check spelling and keep getting ambushed by a computer who doesn't begin to know who's on first.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | June 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is going to select Hagel for VP, he might as well select Hillary for president too and be done with it.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT | June 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Hagel?!?! Mmmm...I don't think so. The only issue in which I have heard Chuck Hagel be the most vocal on is the war in Iraq. Where does Hagel stand relative to Obama on the economy, health care, energy policy, and social security to name a few?

The 2008 presidential election is shaping to be like the 1992 presidential election in which "It's about the economy stupid!"

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

With so many excellent Democrats to chose from, why on earth would Obama chose a Neocon Fascist as his VP running mate?

This article proves the WaPooPravda staff does massive quantities of psychedelic drugs every day.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT | June 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

MEMO TO OBAMA: THE DEM CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP IS SELLING OUT THE CONSTITUTION:
WILL YOU?

The pathetic capitulation of the spineless Dem leadership on constitutional issues -- from warantless surveillance to the refusal to conduct hearings on other possible constitutional rights abuses -- begs the question: Et tu, Barack Obama?

The headlines rightly focus on telco immunity from lawsuits challenging government surveillance programs. But there are other constitutional rights issues that endanger our democracy, such as:

* The impact of electronic voting machines and the lack of a paper trail on the integrity of elections; and

* Possible Administration aid and support for KKK-style vigilante groups known as "GANG STALKERS" or "COMMUNITY STALKERS."

Read the following link and sublinks:

http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/alt.abuse.recovery.html

While the media focus on the horse race, democracy is being threatened by suspect election apparatus and grassroots quasi-military vigilante squads.

Where is the national media on stories about our threatened democracy?

Yes, Chris, this has much to do with politics. Because the politics of fear and vigilantism is destroying our democratic freedoms at the grassroots, while the pundits play the "Who Won the Week" game.

Where are today's Woodwards and Bernsteins?

Posted by: scrivener | June 21, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Hagel would be an excellent choice. He has the credentials in foreign affairs that Senator Obama lacks and his selection would eat into some of the McCain support among independents and moderate Republicans.

However, I doubt a Democratic Party convention would select a "former" Republican whose position on abortion would not sit well with various elements within the Party.

But I still think Senator Hagel would be a great asset on a Obama-Hagel ticket.

Posted by: New Era | June 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Hagel would be just fine and so would Jack Reed. They both have military background and are decent people.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a problem -- whoever he nominates for veep has been given a leg up on the next Presidential race. It sounds as though Obama had been counting on the women accepting that Obama was good on their issues and that would give him room to choose a veep who would appeal to conservatives -- Webb for example who is not pro-choice. In Michigan we are just coming to the point where the bill is due -- our pro-choice female Governor selected a leutenant governor who is anti-choice and is now intending to run as she is term limited. I wonder if Hagel's name is being floated by the Obama campaign so that liberals will be relieved that Webb was selected.

Obama is not straightforward and distorts his own record: there is an April 2004 video of Obama stating that he wants to complete the mission in Iraq.

Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, its Saturday night and the adults must have gone out to dinner and left the children to play on the computer.

From the negative quality of some of these posts, the adults should have taken the computer with them and put the children to bed in a locked room.

Posted by: Childish Posts | June 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Hagel? Oh, get real. Obama needs a self-important, inside-the-beltway types like he needs a hole in the head. He should choose either Hillary or a female Democratic governor.

Posted by: BZ | June 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

June21. If you have something factual to advance, then cut out the ad hominem attacks, specifically calling McCain "Songbird." It is offensive and completely undermines whatever argument you are making to the point that I suspect you of being a troll.

Here's a cite on the Hagel corruption issue:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

As Gore Vidal said, we have one political party with two right wings. Or, as what's-his-name said, the only party in the US is the Green party. As in back.

Posted by: scientist1 | June 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

This isn't Russia, crybaby, you cannot suppress the Truth here.

Posted by a Conservative Republican Vietnam Viet.

Where are your Military Records, Old Songbird McCain?

Why is your codename Songbird?

Why did the Vietnamese erect a bust in your honor?


Why is OLD Songbird McBush sealing his Military Records? Kerry signed the 180 Waiver and release all of his. Yes, you can keep it sealed, but the Cons forced Kerry to release his, but there was nothing bad in his records. Old Songbird McBush refuses to sign the 180 Waiver. Why is Old Songbird McBush hiding his Military Records? Maybe, the Navy will wash his Military records. Both his father and grandfather were 4 Star Admirals.

Is OLD McBush a Traitor? Did OLD McBush collaborate with the Enemy?

Why is OLD McBush's codename Songbird?

Google these to learn more.

McCain Songbird
McCain War Criminal
McCain Temper
McCain Hero
McCain Adultery

This website also has some clues for us.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

Old Songbird McBush has a lot to hide from the American People unlike Kerry. Old Songbird McBush is no hero, he is a Traitor and a Coward.

Where are your Military Records, OLD Songbird "Make it a Hundred" Traitor McBush? What are you hiding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse


Hagel is the only Republican left who still has a brain. Except for maybe
Voinovich and Warner.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | June 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

At first analysis, choosing a VP candidate with strong military experience seems to make sense for Obama. But does this really play to his strengths? And the Republican convention is after the Democratic convention this year. If Obama chooses a male with military experience (like Jim Webb) and McCain then chooses a female (like Carly Fiorina), who gets the advantage?

Posted by: ThisIsReality | June 21, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Why don't they just throw darts at potential VP candidates pictures. This candidate has such deficiency in so many areas that just about anyone they choose will make him look like a novice.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

These attacks on McCain are disgusting. There is much to distinguish between the candidates without resorting to character assassination. The country will be better served by keeping to the high road. Posted by a liberal.

Posted by: Optimyst | June 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I like Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | June 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Google McCain Bush War Crimes
McCain: Bush Is Guilty Of War Crimes

I think we knew that waterboarding violated Geneva Conventions. It is nice to finally have a Senator, one who had been tortured as a POW, state rather clearly that waterboarding is a crime, emphasis mine below.

MCCAIN: "IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS"

Transcript

McCain: Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.

Romney: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.

McCain: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...

(Applause)

And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.

We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

FYI (emph mine):
"The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that

"there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

There is no proof that Old Songbird McBush was tortured.

Not one Vietnam Vet can confirm he was tortured.

Google these and learn before you make a stupid comment.

McCain Affairs
McCain Songbird
McCain Flip Flops
McCain Hero
McCain Womanizing
McCain Infidelity
McCain Lobbyists
McCain Keating Five
McCain Fortune
McCain Temper
McCain Arizona Mob
McCain Traitor
McCain War Criminal
McCain Adultery
McCain Military Record
McCain Manchurian
McCain Economics

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Why is OLD Songbird McBush sealing his Military Records? Kerry signed the 180 Waiver and release all of his. Yes, you can keep it sealed, but the Cons forced Kerry to release his, but there was nothing bad in his records. Old Songbird McBush refuses to sign the 180 Waiver. Why is Old Songbird McBush hiding his Military Records? Maybe, the Navy will wash his Military records. Both his father and grandfather were 4 Star Admirals.

Is OLD McBush a Traitor? Did OLD McBush collaborate with the Enemy?

Why is OLD McBush's codename Songbird?

Google these to learn more.

McCain Songbird
McCain War Criminal
McCain Temper
McCain Hero
McCain Adultery

This website also has some clues for us.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

Old Songbird McBush has a lot to hide from the American People unlike Kerry. Old Songbird McBush is no hero, he is a Traitor and a Coward.

Where are your Military Records, OLD Songbird "Make it a Hundred" Traitor McBush? What are you hiding?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Google "McCain War Criminal"

In a 1997 interview on the CBS news program "60 Minutes," McCain frankly acknowledged, "I am a war criminal; I bombed innocent women and children." It was an honest statement, though hardly a convincing argument for making him president.

The fact that he was a war criminal reflected not merely his own personal actions, which in terms of slaughter were no doubt every bit as devastating as a My Lai massacre, albeit inflicted from a longer distance. Rather it was a matter of the objective character of the war itself. Clearly there were many in the top echelons of the government, its military and intelligence agencies and in both major parties who bore far greater responsibility for the waging of a criminal and counterrevolutionary war of aggression in Vietnam.

The American ruling establishment has spent more than three decades attempting to revise the history of the Vietnam War in order to conceal its own responsibility for the greatest war crimes since the fall of the Nazis and to erase the political memory of US imperialism's defeat under conditions of mass opposition and social struggles at home.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Hagel as Obama's VP selection? Never gonna happen. If you were to be president, the last vice-president you would choose is someone who deserted their political party so they could sit down the hall from you waiting for you to screw up.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | June 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

June 21 called McCain "Songbird." This is offensive to the point where it turns my stomach. It seems to me that anyone can be tortured to say anything. To make light of this veteran's suffering is really unacceptable and I hope the WaPo moderators remove that post.

Having said that, it is incomprehensible to me that McCain could now be for torture, having been against it. His own experience should show him why confessions under torture should be inadmissable in court.

As far as Hagel, wasn't he involved in the early days of electronic vote fraud? Allegedly he was part owner of the company which controlled the voting machines in Nebraska. So that's a big NO to Hagel.

Posted by: scientist1 | June 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Why not! I am sorry to say, I see no differences between the two parties...Seem like one big Republican party to me... same ole same old crap!

Posted by: Ceci | June 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I am beginning to imagine a Bloomberg VP spot on Obama's ticket. Bloomberg is not the kind of conservative Hagel is, has eight years of high-level administrative experience, has a lot of international credibility and is Jewish.

He has shown great tact, healing New York after Rudy spent eight years roiling it. He got black and white together, returns phone calls from local African American leaders, meets with families of people shot by the police even if the shooting is justified. He is also, need I add, filthy rich and probably has a Rolodex that gives other campaigns agitta.

He is charisma-challenged, of course, which is a negative, and he is not married to his girlfriend, Diana Taylor. This might give some of the more values-oriented voters pause. However, I would be glad to vote for an Obama/Bloomberg ticket. I think it would be a good fit. A charismatic Presidential candidate and an awesomely competent and intelligent VP might work quite well.

Posted by: Karen | June 21, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

How interesting liberal columnist belives RINO, Republican in name only, Hagel agreement to be considered for Obama's cabinet is an indication of division among McCain's base of voters most likely to vote R in November.

Chuck Hagel's real goal is to be appointed as the token Republican in Obama's cabinet should he win in November.

Hagel has already announced he is retiring from the Senate.

Posted by: Mike in Reno | June 21, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Hagel and Lieberman are both loyal members of their party on every issue except for the Iraq War; all the talk about each of them ending up on the other party's ticket is highly unlikely because, apart from the war, they don't agree with their prospective running mates on the issues.

A high-profile Cabinet spot is a lot more likely in each case.

Posted by: SC | June 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

DolphT says: "Being against the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq is a plus, but after that, the man is just a Republican."

As OD points out below, Hagel was NOT against the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In fact, he voted for it.

And here's my two cents: If anyone who voted for the invasion of Iraq ends up on the ticket, Obama can forget about my vote.

More than half of the Democrats on Capitol Hill voted against the invasion. I suggest Obama pick one of them.

I will never vote for any candidate who voted to invade Iraq, as Hagel did. Never.

Posted by: Bkaufmann | June 21, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Except for the fact that he's a raving conservative on every issue BUT the war in Iraq ...

NO to any anti-choice politician.

Unless Obama WANTS to lose the votes for 80% of the women in this country.

Posted by: RealCalGal | June 21, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The Vice Presidency is an elected post, whereas all the other cabinet members serve "at the pleasure of the President". For this reason, the Vice Presidential candidate must be given more careful consideration than just being opposed to the war. Hagel is very much Republican in many areas, and I think it would be difficult for him to change his political and philosophical stripes to conform with a Democratic administration.

That being said, I'd feel comfortable with him as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Posted by: Erichayes | June 21, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Being against the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq is a plus, but after that, the man is just a Republican. No way is it possible for him to be picked as VP. Only possible cabinet post would be Sec of Defense. But, Nunn or Webb would be better choices.

Posted by: Dolph T | June 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

To the no-name poster who calls McCain a "SongBird" for breaking under physical torture while a prisoner of war:

Every post of yours makes Obama's supporters look ignorant. So keep it up.

Posted by: ThisIsReality | June 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"Iraq has largely turned him into a candidate without a party even though he carries a strong record of supporting most party policies other than the war."

No, he carries a strong record of supporting ALL party policies INCLUDING the war.

Hagel voted for the invasion of Iraq. He has never criticised its illegality, or called it unjustified, even though the WMD was completely phoney.

In what way is he a war opponent? Because he criticised Bremer and Sanchez for being too incompetent to suppress the insurgency? That defines him as a war tinkerer, not an opponent.

I cannot believe the people who are trying to pass themselves off as Iraq war opponents these days.

Twice in the Post this month I've heard RICHARD ARMITAGE described as an Iraq war critic. Would that be the Richard Armitage who signed the famous PNAC letter calling for Iraq to be invaded ... who is director of a mercenary company, CACI, whose private interrogators were heavily involved in torture at Abu Ghraib? An Iraq war critic? I guess Jozef Goebbels was a WW2 critic then.

This misrepresentation is only possible because there is basically nobody in Washington who REALLY opposed the war. Indeed, only 25% of all Americans did.

So we end up with the US Iraq Enthusiasm Classification Scale, which works like this:

If you cheered for invasion at more than 140 decibels, you are an "Iraq war supporter".

If you cheered for invasion at 130-140 decibels, you are an "Iraq war skeptic".

If you cheered for invasion at 120-130 decibels, you are an "Iraq war critic".

If you cheered for invasion at 110-120 decibels, you are an "Iraq war opponent".

If you dared to actually question the wisdom of invading Iraq, you are a "gay communist secret Muslim military-bashing America-hater".

Posted by: OD | June 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Google "McCain Hero" "McCain Songbird" "McCain Temper" "McCain Adultery" "McCain Lobbyists"

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week asked the question, "Who do you think will win?" The answer: Barack Obama 54; John McCain 30. Obama is unlikely to win in such a landslide, which means that millions planning to vote for McCain expect him to lose -- as was the case with Dole.

A man who once summed up why torture should never be an option by saying, "It's not about who they are, it's about who we are," is now embracing Bush's "shrunken vision" of America wholesale. A man who saved his political career by making campaign finance reform his signature issue, has done a 180 turn and loaded his campaign up with lobbyists.

According to a just-released Pew poll, when voters were asked to describe McCain, "maverick" didn't make the list. Nor did "reformer" or "independent." The most frequent word was: "old."

But McCain's problem isn't that he's too old -- it's that his ideas are too old. In fact, they can be traced back to the very first days of the Bush administration. He's got a 2003 Iraq strategy, a 2001 view of the economy, and a take on gay marriage that is straight out of the Dark Ages.

The question facing voters this year is: do you want a president who will take us into the future or do you want a president who's mired in the past? As Tommy Schlamme who, among many other great shows, executive produced The West Wing, told me: "Watching McCain's and Obama's speeches back-to-back the other night was like going from black-and-white TV to high-def."

So we are left with the sorry spectacle of a low-def candidate, one who has abandoned that which made him a real leader in the first place, now reduced to dutifully repeating the talking points of an administration the public is turning away from more and more every day. When he called last week's Supreme Court decision affirming the right of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention in U.S. courts "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," he was tossing red meat to the right and parroting something he can't possibly believe. Upholding the Constitutional right to habeas corpus ranks up there with Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson, Senator? Really?

OLD Songbird McBush, why are you hiding your Military Records, War Hero?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse


Old McBush is a Traitor, Why are his Military Records Sealed? Why does he refuse to release his Complete Military Records. Kerry released all of his.

Sign the 180 Waiver and Release your Complete Military Records, Old Songbird McBush.

What are you hiding, Old Songbird McBush?

This might provide some clues.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

Google "McCain Military Records" "McCain Temper" "McCain Adultery" "McCain Songbird" "McCain Lobbyists"

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I like Hagel but that would be irresponsible. Obama seems like a healthy young man, but the job of the VP is to replace the president if necessary. So it would be pretty foolish to pick a guy whose positions on every issue but the war are very opposed to his own.

Posted by: aleks | June 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Hagel?

Nobody has ever heard of him, except for residents of Nebraska and readers of the Washington Post.

Barack "Latte" Obama needs to choose someone that has national recognition in addition to experience.

Peace

Posted by: Digital_Voter | June 21, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company