Obama's winning ticket!

[Sensitivity]

Obama, damaged and being more by the campaign, has little chance of winning against the "maverick" war hero John McCain. To think otherwise is living in denial about the nature of American society and politics. But there is a WINNING TICKET.

A little over a year ago William M. Arkin, author and military affairs columnist, speculated on the “Dream” contest Chuck Hagel VS Barack Obama for the presidency. With both men having shown willingness to act outside of partisan politics, both opposed to the war and a jingoistic foreign policy, that would allow “a presidential campaign that is actually about ideas.”

What a DREAM!
That dream won’t happen, of course, since Hagel never entered the Republican race.
But what about another “Dream” of Obama and Hagel on the same ticket VS McCain/Lieberman(?) ?


Now that Hagel has gone public with his support of Obama over McCain, what is to prevent a bipartisan ticket to rescue the country from the brink in these perilous times.
As Arkin noted, “Obama has the right position on Iraq, but he will be pilloried by the-powers-that-be for lacking the credentials to be a wartime president. His candidacy may in the end be the triumph of ideas . . “ Hagel, on the other hand, complements Obama as “ the ex-military guy “ who “has been consistently anti-war and has talked about America's challenges and his dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy in intriguing ways.”

Do we want GOBAMA?
Obama/Hagel would just do it!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/03/hagel_vs_obama_what_a_dream.html

[DJ13]

1. As much as I respect Hagel, he would be a bad choice

Okay, besides the "he's a Republican" thing, his own election history is kinda shady.

He won his first election to the Senate in a way too close race that was counted by electronic voting machines in his state for the first time.

The machines were made by ES&S.

Before running for the Senate Hagel was an executive for.......ES&S.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Voting machines. I guess the reasoning is "If you can't beat 'em...."

[Ned_Devine]

2. I mentioned this the other day..

...after I heard Sen. Hagel on "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook. I would be more pleased with an Obama/Bloomberg ticket

[futureliveshere]

100. Obama has economic credentials. He needs a strong military guy as veep.

[Nitrogenica]

3. ..has little chance of winning against the "maverick" Are you kidding?

I disagree 100% with that.

We're going to defeat this guy with our magic "guilt by association" smear.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Nebraska's 4 EVs probably wouldn't lend the ticket great help,

assuming that Hagel would carry the vote in his home state, which is not a sure thing. He decided not to run for re-election for a reason.

[Sensitivity]

5. Hagel could deliver a group of western states not just one.

"In 2002 Hagel overwhelmingly won re-election with over 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race in Nebraska history."

I suspect he would be able to deliver most of the rocky mountain states to the ticket.

But the main point is the the ticket would increase the chances of a Democratic landslide.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. He did well here in 2002.

I can't speak for other western states, but the Republican Machine is very very strong here and the Republican Machine is very angry at Hagel for his anti-war activities (post-2002). I believe very strongly that he would have been defeated in the primary here had he run for re-election. I suspect he was encouraged to step down in a less-than-friendly tone.

[Bullet1987]

6. I don't see a Unity ticket for the Dems...

[readmoreoften]

7. Obama plus a Republican would push me out of the Democratic party for good.

You do realize that means that in 8 years, we'd've groomed a Republican to take over. That's a pretty dumb idea.

[Sensitivity]

14. Hagel is already qualified for the presidency. 8 years would make him a democrat

but more importantly, a landslide Dem victory would give use the senate margin needed to really bring about change.

Otherwise we are stuck in the same paralysis that has existed for a decade.

[readmoreoften]

89. Obviously we have vastly different ideas of 'real change.'

[NoBushSpokenHere]

8. Puhhleeeeeeeeeeeease I do not vote for Republicans.......

Glad he endorsed, but I cannot and will not vote for a Republican.

[stahbrett]

9. Hagel for VP? No (too many policy differences). Hagel for SECDEF? Could be a good choice

On defense issues, Hagel is likely pretty close to Obama (I confess that this is just a guess, but I know Hagel is often an outspoken critic of some Bush administration in foreign policy matters), and as Secretary of Defense, who the hell cares if Hagel is pro-life?

[Donna Zen]

103. Please No

The republicans have controlled the Pentagon for 12 years. Surely there are Democrats who can do that job.

It's time we got rid of that old weak on defense label. Voting for bloated defense budgets is not the answer. Acting like a party that can get the job done is.

[Tatiana]

10. No republicans on the DEMOCRATIC ticket, thanks! n/t

[Colobo]

I like Obama/Hagel.

[JI7]

13. i like Obama/Richardson

[Colobo]

12. I like Obama/Hagel.

[merh]

15. No republicans on the ballot

There are plenty of talented and dedicated democratic leaders that would more than qualified for the VP spot and that would compliment the nominee.

This is the democratic ticket and by god, the democrats don't need to pander and don't need to DLC or DINO their way to victory.

People want a change, not a bad knock off.

[ossman]

16. Ugh. Hagel is 99% Conservative Republican. He is against the war. Big whoop.

[Sensitivity]

18. That is why he BALANCES THE TICKET. The goal is to win independents. That is the whole game!

[ossman]

22. We will win without them. But Hagel? He's too balancing.

[Sensitivity]

23. Do the MATH. No Party can win without the independent vote, much less to win big.

[ossman]

25. He will be the head of the senate! I dont want him casting GOP votes on everything xcept Iraq!

[goclark]

33. Obama/Bloomberg?

[ossman]

36. More palatable. Billionaires make me nervous though. Like Montomery Burns.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. That would at least make sense, because it acknowledges that the "independents" in play lean

socially libertarian and maybe fiscally conservative.

They're sure as shit not these so-called "values voters".

[JerseygirlCT]

84. Obama is already attracting Independents, and will continue to

do so.

We need to quit this sort of stuff, and start attacking McCain, showing him for the nut he is. Then those independents will flock to Obama.

McCain is no moderate. But that's a very commonly held opinion. Our need to attack that opinion, and conclusively disprove it, not abandon our integrity and name an ultra-conservative Republican as OUR VP.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. You think the folks agitating against abortion and gay marriage are the "independents"? No, they're

the Republicans, and they're spoken for.

The independents are the millions of socially libertarian types who can't figure out which party wants to run their lives more. Want to win over independents? Tell the religious right to fuck off and advocate getting government out of citizens' bedrooms and bloodstreams. Argue for fiscal sanity by paring back the Military Industrial Complex and ending the drug war. That's how you get "independents".

[JerseygirlCT]

82. So we should sacrifice EVERYTHING else this party stands for

in order to name a GOP leftover who - oh shock - actually sees what most Democrats see about this war?

Why in the world does he get points for what so many DEMOCRATS, whose positions across the board agree with ours, have known for years?

This is nonsense. Utter nonsense.

[dansolo]

93. Obama already appeals to independants

We don't need Hagel for that. A non-DLC, moderate Democrat will be just fine.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Bzzzzt. Nope. Try Obama/Feingold. Try Obama/Boxer. Obama/Richardson works.

Bottom line is, the guy's going to WIN. The idea that Obama is "damaged goods" or somehow needs to be "fixed" is bullshit.

The way to win isn't to try to placate some "Heartland values voter" center that isn't there. The way to win is to NOT APOLOGIZE for who and what we are.

[Swamp Rat]

19. Obama/Kucinich; Obama/Edwards; Obama/Graham; Obama/Clarke; Obama/Biden; Obama/RFKjr;

Obama/Any Democrat

[Sensitivity]

20. Thinking out of the box, heh???

[Swamp Rat]

21. I ate the box.

I was hungry and the glue tasted good. :9

[greguganus]

83. My first car was a Maverick. Damn I hated that piece of shit! n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

24. I see no reason to have an incumbent republican VP to run against 8 years for now

[ossman]

26. But, but.. he's against the war! C'mon. Much respect for the guy, but think about the future.

[Sensitivity]

28. Folks: Just think of how a landslide for change would create a whole new set

of opportunities to move forward in this country.

[ossman]

30. It will happen with 2 Dems. A landslide.

[Alexander]

31. We don't need a ticket with members of 2 different parties to get a landslide.

If we can't get a landslide without picking a Republican, we've got bigger problems.

[Johnny__Motown]

32. I am sorry, I see no reason to have an Incumbent repug to run against 8 years from now

[Sensitivity]

70. Have you not heard of the "FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW?" Let's go change the world

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Change the world- by sticking a Reactionary Republican with tired-ass social views on the ticket?

Obama is about moving us forward into the 21st Century. Anti-choice goobers like Hagel are about dragging us back to the 19th.

[Alexander]

29. I agree. Hagel is an awful choice for VP. And he's got shady ties to ES&S.

Defense Secretary, maybe. But not VP. No way.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

41. "shady ties"...christ he owns controlling shares in the damn company

[ossman]

43. What is ES&S?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

45. The E-company that counts 80% of all the votes cast in an election

[ossman]

47. Ahhh. Is that what Deibold renamed itself? Election Systems something

[ElsewheresDaughter]

50. no ES&S counts the votes cast on Diebold, AIS and other e machines

[Sensitivity]

54. do you have a link to ES&S shady dealings

a

[Alexander]

27. I respectfully disagree. This is Obama's winning ticket:

Edit: I mean the guy in the middle, not the guy on the left. ;-)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. I'll tell you what....if Obama puts a Rethug on his ticket THAT will cause me to NOT vote for him

[Sensitivity]

37. I can think of lots of Dem Pols who have less integrity and democratic principle than Hagel

[ossman]

39. and neither deserve to be on the ticket.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. who are you?

[PBS Poll-435]

123. Hagel's Publisher

:rofl:

[Life Long Dem]

35. It wouldn't hurt to have a VP with military experience. But Hagel is Republican.

[Shakespeare]

38. Yeah, uh.....NO.

Obama's not damaged. Where the fuck do you get that idea? His positives are just fine after the Wright nonsense.

And McCain is a WEAK candidate.

A republican on the ticket is absolutely NOT what we need. Will not happen.

[Sensitivity]

48. Don't look at OBAMA V CLINTON. The are both damaged goods. Look at OBAMA V MCCAIN, pre and post

the Kitchen Sink.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. did you get lost on your way to somewhere else?

[TahitiNut]

40. Why would ANY President invite impeachment or (God forbid) assassination ...

... by extemists of the other party??? This half-assed speculation about "bipartisan" tickets is stunning in its naivete.

:shakinghead:

[Sensitivity]

99. Hagel likes Obama. I would be more scared with Hillary at my back

[quakerboy]

44. No thanks

WTF. Just WTF?

That, or the equivalent, might be the only thing that would earn the Nader or some other minor party my vote. No. Nader is a self centered useless SOB, but at least we could start building a Green party or something to run against the Demoican party so that we would have at least 2 parties once more.

[Sensitivity]

46. Can we think first about the WORLD, THEN THE NATION, AND only then our party??

Just look at the monstrous behavior occurring WITHIN THE PARTY

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. well your the one who friggin brought it up...a bit mellow dramatic now aren't we?

[Alexander]

53. Yes, which is why we can't allow another Republican to get anywhere near the presidency.

Especially not one tied to vote-stealing.

[Hamlette]

51. when did Hagel endorse Obama?

he was on Charlie Rose last night (I think it was recorded) and said he's not ready to endorse anyone yet. he hinted he liked Obama the best but he said he wanted to talk to McCain before he did anything.

It was a great interview btw but I don't support him for VP

[BlooInBloo]

55. DUers looking for "bipartisan" or republican tickets are jackasses.

[Sensitivity]

56. If people, some represented here at DU, had not trashed and knifed our Nominee, he would not need a

drastic measure like this. Not would there be rumors of a Gore salvation ticket.

Deny it all we want, but their is a poison in the electorate that could kill our hope of revolutionary change, and that
poison is being applied by another democrat.

[BlooInBloo]

57. We don't need republicans on our ticket. Sheesh. Isn't there a rule about advocating for republicans

?

[mopinko]

58. i want some of whatever this clown is smoking.

there are plenty of good democrats available. and if anyone thinks grampa mcsame is really going to even put up a fight is not paying attention.

let it sink

[BenDavid]

59. The only ticket obama will see is a ticket back the Chicago

and if he somehow wins the nomination and either places hagel or bloomberg on the ticket there will be one big mass exoudus from the democratic party..

[anonymous171]

69. Good riddance. Corporate dems came with the Clintons, they can leave with them too.

I hear the repugs need money, maybe they should join up with them.

[goldcanyonaz]

87. Damn skippy, although the exoudus has already begun.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Chuck Hagel is anti-choice. Sticking someone anti-choice on the ticket would be a dealbreaker for

many, many Democrats. Like me.

Add to that, inevitably BOTH people on the GOP Ticket are going to be fully committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, along with outlawing all contraception and the rest of the far loony right's Theocratic Agenda.

So why would WE want to stick someone like that on OUR ticket? Doesn't make sense.

Except- wait- if, you know, throwing women in prison for having abortions or taking the pill was something like a popular position in this country. But it's not. Guess what?

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO-CHOICE. AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

This bullshit about the all-powerful "values voter" is just that- Bullshit.

We win by offering a clear alternative to the GOP; not by imitating them.

[ossman]

62. Some people are blown away that a Rep is against the war. i.e. Ron Paul

[Sensitivity]

65. Lots are Dems are pro-life. Many Obama Supporters are pro-choice. Future of Nation should not hang

on that issue.

[ossman]

66. But you vote for Hagel based on one issue, don't you?

[Sensitivity]

68. Hagel has show great independence, intelligence and integrity on many issues in his senate career

[Warren DeMontague]

72. You consider it intelligent and independent to vote against stem cell research?

Really?

Why?

Seriously. I would like to know why we should interfere with potentially lifesaving scientific research because it involves donated cells from IVF clinics, for instance, that will be destroyed anyway.

Maybe you can explain it to my close relative with CP. Explain to her why it's more important to protect the principle that people shouldn't fuck for non-procreative purposes (which is what the so-called "pro-life" movement is really about, when all is said and done) than it is for her to possibly walk one day.

What is intelligent and independent about wanting to Amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent full marriage equality for our gay and lesbian citizens? Please, explain.

What is intelligent and independent about wanting to Amend the United States Constitution to ban flag burning?

...:shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

96. Sure, like his positions:

against abortion rights
against stem cell research
against including sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes
for a constitutional ban on flag burning
for ending special funding for minority and women-owned businesses
for loosening restrictions on cell-phone wiretapping
against repealing a subsidy for US companies taking their businesses overseas
for school vouchers
for ANWR drilling
for terminating CAFE standards in 15 months
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record
Against McCain-Feingold

Had enough?

Yes, there's intelligence and integrity for you.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. What part of THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO CHOICE didn't you get?

So, the majority of Americans are pro-choice... clearly the way to win is to stick someone anti-choice on our ticket.

Um, the "future of the nation" may very well indeed hang on whether or not we are a place where citizens' bodies belong to themselves, or the government. Don't tell me Roe v. Wade "isn't that big of a deal". Bullshit. MILLIONS OF DEMS WILL WALK if we abandon our commitments to core values- and the right of women to make their OWN FUCKING DECISIONS about their OWN GOD-DAMN BODIES is a CORE FUCKING VALUE.

CHOICE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.

Am I making it clear that this is not some ancillary little meaningless point that you can gloss over? Do I need the text to blink, too?

As for what you claim "lots of dems are" (the correct term is anti-choice. There is nothing "pro-life" about declaring by fiat that single cells have "rights", or about wanting to force women into back alleys and outlaw the pill) if Democrats want to be against abortion to the extent that they wouldn't personally have one, splendiferous. However, if they need to PASS LAWS about what OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO with THEIR OWN BODIES, sorry, they should look elsewhere for Theocratic goobers to help them stack the courts with retrograde, Flat Fucking Earth knuckle-draggers.

THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO CHOICE.

It is not "smart politics" to go after "independents" by abandoning commitments that are in line with where most voters are. Want to go after independents? Offer them fresh ideas. Argue that it's not fiscally responsible to spend as much as the rest of the entire planet combined on "defense". Argue for an end to the drug war. State that we will stand up unequivocally for the Separation of Church and State. For the rights of citizens to run their own lives, control their own bodies, and make their own medical decisions--- that's what the "independents" want to hear. This is why the GOP, buying this bullshit about the millions of control freak ninny "values voters" who supposedly have so much power, got their asses so badly burned over Terri Schiavo.

Do you get what I'm saying? "independents" aren't the people who want to outlaw abortion. If anything, they're the people who are disappointed that we haven't fought back harder against that sort of idiocy.

[Sensitivity]

77. Pro-Life Bob Casey WON PA. The majority of people outside the party, who we need to bring in

are in the undecided or pro-life column. You don't get a landslide win if you only appeal to those who will vote your party anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Your analysis of where the independents are is incorrect. Here's a trivia question for you:

Do you know what the largest peaceable gathering on the mall in DC in the United States History was? Do you know how many people were there? Do you know when it was?

I do. It was the march for Womens' lives to protect reproductive choice, 1.2 Million people showed up (including me) and it was in April of 2004.

Of course, the Corporate Media- perennially irked that "little people" would try to tell them what is important- all but ignored this massive event. They were more worried about the elusive "NASCAR voter" and Estee Lauder's death.

Our commitment to reproductive choice is a CORE VALUE. We don't win by abandoning core values. The people "who would vote for us anyway" will walk if we start stacking our ticket with theocrats and anti-choice idiots.

Anyway, whatever. Your idea has no chance in hell of happening, but I think you should maybe try a little harder to understand that WE are RIGHT on the issues; we don't need to adopt the wrong ideas of the party that the American people can't stand to "win". We don't need to apologize for our beliefs; rather, we need to stand up for them without hesitation- because the majority of Americans AGREE with us.

Fortunately for our party and Obama's candidacy, the morons inclined to listen to wrong-headed "conventional wisdom" about where the votes lie in the electorate seem, for the most part, to be stuck in the Hillary camp.

Me? I'd like to see Obama stick Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer or another fine DEMOCRAT on the ticket, because I'm a DEMOCRAT who doesn't need to apologize or put an asterisk after my party affiliation.

[JerseygirlCT]

98. He won because Democrats knew we needed the numbers

and held their noses and did it anyway. He won because on just about every other issue he's in line with solid Democratic values.

It's not his anti-choice positions that got him elected; he was elected in spite of them, not because of them.

Having a very famous name didn't hurt a bit, either.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. EXACTLY!

Thank you.

Is it that Democratic positions are somehow not satisfactory? Not the ones we believe in enough to think are the best?

Why would we woo independents by becoming Republicans? Where's the sense in that?

As you say, belief in our own ideals and the ability to effectively communicate that is what is needed, not some ultra-conservative Republican who happens to have taken a stand against an obscene war.

As a Democrat, I think our positions have the most to offer every American, no matter the political party. I think winning over independents is more about having the courage to stick with our convictions and not running to bless every johnny come lately conservative who takes a stand we like on a single issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. Yes. You said exactly what I was trying to, but you did it better & more concisely.

:patriot:

[JerseygirlCT]

92. Speak for yourself. It's a critical issue to many of us

Anyone who thinks he has the right to make extremely personal medical decisions about MY body - well, that speaks worlds about the entire person and his or her outlook on life. Worlds. They obviously have no respect for the most basic of human rights - the right of a person to control her own body.

[saltpoint]

64. I just can't handle Hagel.

[TwilightGardener]

67. I could go for it. That would be an unbeatable ticket.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. I don't know what kind of crack you guys are smoking.

But the LAST thing we need on the ticket is an anti-choice republican. Good grief. The GOP is in shambles. Yeah, so lets stick one on the ticket.

:crazy:

[TwilightGardener]

74. Eh, I just like him. Sometimes you just like people you aren't supposed to.

Like falling for a boy from the wrong side of the tracks in high school--the one your mama warned you about. :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Eh. He's anti-choice, he voted against stem cell research, he supports Constitutional Amendments

banning gay marriage and flag burning, for fuck's sake.

So he's against the war in Iraq? Big whoop. So is Pat Buchanan.

Not my type, that's for sure.

Sometimes your mama is right.

[McCamy Taylor]

75. Obama/Webb or Obama/Clarke get a miltary man in there. Or else Hillary

to shore up the women/old hippie crowd that worries that Obama will not clean up the right wing conspiracy that Bush will leave behind.

He can either shore up the left with Hillary--she has strong support in lots of important parts of the Democratic base and that would bring the fractured Democratic Party back together.


Or, he can move to the center with a war hero, White male southerner that will get the Pentagon split---a lot of them don't really like McCain that much anyway---and make seem more patriotic and less scary to middle America,

With the Hillary option they run against Bush, the War, the economy, draw out the base,

With the war hero option, they run on restoring the Constitution, America's military strength that Bush has squandered, fixing the economy, restoring freedom---and hope that Dems just tag along because that is what Dems do. Kerry did pretty well with this strategy in 2004. Despite the MSM bias, he actually won except for election dirty tricks in Florida and Ohio. So this might be the safest course.

On the other hand, Americans are so fed up that the Dems might have a chance to score a "clean, ideological victory" with a Obama/Hillary ticket in which they run against Bush corruption.

War hero is probably safer. Esp. since Clarke and Webb are available.

[mmonk]

78. No. Obama/Webb or Obama/Zinni or Obama/Bloomberg

maybe.

[Sensitivity]

85. Webb and Bloomberg USED TO BE REPUBLICANS TOO

[mmonk]

86. True, but I don't think they will try

to fundamentalize the Supreme Court should something bad happen whereby it's in their hands.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Yes, but Bloomberg was only marginally Republican- in NYC no less. Bloomberg is pro-choice.

Bloomberg thinks marijuana should be legalized. Bloomberg could maybe be considered fiscally conservative, but that's about it.

In short, Bloomberg is a helluva lot more representative of the millions of independent voters who are not currently being spoken to by either party than an anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay rights Republican who happens to be against the Iraq War.

[cali]

79. what a revolting idea

and I believe you're flat wrong about Obama having little chance against McCain. McCain is,when you come down to it, a very weak candidate in a year when the economy is in dire straits.

[cornermouse]

80. No.

Absolutely not.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Oh good heavens, no way.

Hagel is against the war. That's the ONLY good thing to be said about the man. He's ferociously anti-choice, for example. Write him right off in my book.

This is a conservative. I'm a Democrat. I'm not interested in a conservative, who like a broken clock, is right twice a day. In fact, he's managed to be right only on one thing.

No Hagel. And I wish people would quit this crap. We have excellent, hugely excellent, Democrats out there who can serve as VP. We don't need to go picking over the GOP leavings!

[Sensitivity]

90. What is the diff between a Hagel and a Webb?? Basically, Hagel has more experience, and its a more

dramatic choice by going outside a traditional party choice.

[JerseygirlCT]

91. We can start with supporting Roe v Wade

Hagel's anti-choice positions are a no go for me. I don't even have to know much more than that.

His positions are definitely more conservative than I'd like. BUT, he's a Democrat, has aligned himself with our party - not the opposition.

Once again, ALL Hagel's got is opposition to the war. Everything else the man believes is opposed to what Democrats believe. He's in no way qualified to sit "a heartbeat from the presidency" as they say.

I'm not a big Webb fan, and I wouldn't be pushing him for the VP slot, either. But at least he's a Dem. That's a better starting point.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

94. Obama/Gingrich!!

Sorry, it just popped in my head and my fingers typed it.

:rofl:

No, I like Obama/Richardson, but will vote for Obama/AnyDem.

:hi:

[Life Long Dem]

95. Biden, Gore, Edwards, Richardson

And what Obama's choice is could be looked at.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. As a non-partisan Democrat who (unlike many "real" Dems) is anti war, I agree with OP

But Hagel is not best for VP. He would make a good Cabinet Member though.

Just as Reagan poached Dem cabinet members liberally

back when many of todays fiery partisan Dems were either voting for him,

or misremembering Reagan as a model of Obama-style liberal realism.

(because of his liberal poaching of conservative Dems on key issues)

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Better keep him the fuck away from FDA, HHS or anywhere where he can fuck with stem cell research

reproductive choice, personal medical decisions and the right of citizens to use contraception or control their own bodies.

For fuck's sake, we've had 8 years of crazy fundy anti-science loonies running our government departments into the ground; if he needs to be in the Administration, please put Hagel somewhere where his reactionary anti-choice views won't do any more harm.

[writes3000]

108. We MUST have a pro-choice VP candidate. MUST, in my opinion. n/t

[Sensitivity]

109. Almost half the country is pro-life! Why shouldn't we have a balance? Casey is pro-life!

[goldcanyonaz]

115. Because, we would then have an incumbent VP running for President if they were to win.

And that VP is anti-choice.

You don't see a problem?

[RiverStone]

110. Read this.....please!

Hagel is a RW wacko!

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

He only pulls his head out on the war - I'll give him that, but nothing more.

[Sensitivity]

111. Hagel's new book -- America: Our Next Chapter. Almost a manifesto for an Obama/Hagel ticket

Could the title of Hagels new book "America, The Next Chaptet" be more appropriately named
for the Obama/Hagel ticket?

Haper Collins
In America: Our Next Chapter, Hagel speaks the truth as he sees it—in a direct and refreshingly unvarnished manner. Basing his suggestions on thorough research and careful thought, as well as on personal insight from his years as a political insider, successful businessman, and decorated war hero, he discusses domestic issues—including the health care crisis, immigration, and Social Security and Medicare reform—and global climate change. He confronts foreign policy problems that the current administration has bungled or ignored, including China's growing economy; control of U.S. debt; India's and Pakistan's nuclear capabilities; and Iran's aggressive political, ideological, and nuclear stances. He decries the pervasive disease of third world poverty, arguing convincingly that this is where the real fight against terrorism must begin. Always true to the beliefs instilled in his childhood on the prairie, he speaks passionately about service—to one's country and to one's fellow citizens—as the path toward a renewed America. And, of course, he gives a candid examination of the debacle that is the Iraq War.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23889324#23889324

[mmonk]

117. Let me be the first in saying I don't hate Hagel.

I would take that combination over anything the opposition can throw our way. The problem that remains concerns Supreme Court nominations.

[Sensitivity]

118. Hagel is principled re supreme court. He never called for litmus test.

[mmonk]

120. That's good to know.

A McCain/Lieberman ticket could put pressure on such a scenario.

[olkaz]

112. I swear, people are coming up with the most bizarre VP suggestions.

How about A FREAKING DEMOCRAT?!?!?

Personally, I think Biden is the best choice, followed by Webb.

[JayFredMuggs]

113. Perhaps it's because it's April Fool's day

[olkaz]

114. I'd believe that, but

I've seen this suggestion floated around a lot the past week or so.

I don't have anything against Hagel, but we need some serious firepower on the ticket, and he doesn't offer it.

[TwilightGardener]

121. Actually, while I can certainly understand not wanting this ticket because

he's a Repub--SCOTUS, conservative voting record, etc.--the one thing he WOULD bring to the ticket is "serious firepower", compared to almost any other VP choice, and even compared to McCain. He has quite a resume--military, executive, business, banking, national security, and foreign policy experience. The GOPers were dumb not to want him, frankly.

[npincus]

116. Hagel is a troglodyte, except for his war position.

He gets props for the latter; that's it.

[Bake]

119. Why are the Obots pushing this bullshit???

Could it be because they really don't give a flying f*ck about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

All this crap about "Hillary should quit for the good of the party." And now they're pushing a NON-DEMOCRAT to be second in line for the Oval Office????

Put a Puke on the ticket and I guarantee some right-wing gun nut will take a shot at Obama.

Bake

[Sensitivity]

124. Won't really matter to you since Hillary will be President

[Texas Hill Country]

122. omfg... people are losing their minds.

[Pernambuco]

125. Hagel would help

Being from the Southwest, Hagel would probably help Obama win some swing states in tha region, such as New Mexico and Nevada. It would be a stretch to expect Obama to win states in the bible belt, therefore swing states should be the focus at this point.
Hagel is a good choice, IMO, for the VP slot.

[Sensitivity]

126. Very knowlegeable comment. On point, Hagel could deliver several close states

by capturing independents and moderate Repubs who respect him for being both principled and right on many issues on which he had to oppose his party.

[Skittles]

127. he is a disgusting piece of shit REPUKE

:puke: