An amusing question and an historical answer at Sen. Barack Obama's town meeting in Boca Raton, Fla.The questioner asked, "You're about to achieve a truly wonderful, historic nomination, but we both know unless you, and we, win in November, it's going to be a footnote. So, my question is when the time comes, will you be willing to consider everybody who is a possible help to you as a running mate, even if his or her spouse is an occasional pain in the butt?"Obama first begged off the presumption that his nomination is a done deal -- "I don't want to jump the gun," he said -- but then he pivoted and jumped the gun a touch.
"I will tell you, though, that my goal is to have the best possible government, and that means me winning," Obama said, per ABC News' Sunlen Miller. "And so, I am very practical minded. I'm a practical-minded guy. And, you know, one of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln."Obama then referred to "a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called 'Team of Rivals,' in which [she] talked about [how] Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because whatever, you know, personal feelings there were, the issue was, 'How can we get this country through this time of crisis?'"
Lincoln, FYI, appointed three of his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination to his cabinet -- three men who at the time loathed him.
William H. Seward became secretary of state, Salmon P. Chase became secretary of the treasury, and Edward Bates became attorney general. Another former rival, Edwin Stanton -- who once called Lincoln a "long armed ape" -- became secretary of war.
"That has to be the approach that one takes," Obama said, "whether it's vice president or cabinet, whoever. And by the way that does not exclude Republicans either. You know my attitude is that whoever is the best person for the job is the person I want. ... You know, if I really thought that John McCain was the absolute best person for the Department of the Homeland Security, I would put him in there."An audience member yelled out: "No!""No, I would, if I thought that he was the best," Obama said. "Now, I'm not saying I do. I'm just saying that's got to be the approach that you take because part of the change that I'm looking for is to make sure that we're reminded of what we have in common as Americans."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obama-proposes.html
Sunday, June 8, 2008
A Test for Obama's Promises
One of the most appealing but untested promises of Barack Obama's presidential campaign is that he would break down the partisan divisions in America and govern across party lines. He has a chance to make this gauzy idea of consensus politics concrete in his choice of running mate.
By reaching outside the Democratic Party for his vice presidential nominee -- tapping Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, say, or independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg from New York -- Obama would in an instant demonstrate that he truly means to change the divisive, lose-lose politics of Washington. It would offer a unity government for a country that seems to want one.There are all sorts of practical arguments against such an unconventional choice -- not least that it would upset many of Obama's liberal Democratic supporters. But it would make a powerful statement that Obama really does want to govern in a different way. It would make "change we can believe in" more than a slogan.
By choosing a veteran politician outside his own party Obama would solve three problems at once: He would undercut the bipartisan appeal of his maverick GOP rival, Sen. John McCain; he would ease voters' fears about his own youth and inexperience; and he would find a compelling alternative to Hillary Clinton, who for all her virtues as a vice president would come with heavy baggage -- not least the role of her husband, who is even harder to imagine as Second Laddie than as First.
Moreover, Obama needs to counter the charge that he talks a better game about bipartisanship and change than he has actually delivered. His voting record in Illinois and Washington mostly has been that of a conventional liberal, and there are precious few examples of him taking political risks to work across party lines.
McCain, by contrast, has actually fought the kind of bipartisan battles that Obama talks about -- from campaign finance to climate change to rules against torture -- and he has the political scars to prove it. That's why the Republican base is still so uneasy about him, because they know that McCain's natural allies in recent years have been centrist Democrats. By picking a GOP running mate, Obama would outdo McCain -- and in the process make some enemies in his own party. That would make him a more appealing candidate, I suspect.
Hagel would be an especially interesting choice for Obama. As a decorated Vietnam veteran, he would add some national-security heft to the ticket. And he was also an early and courageous GOP critic of the Iraq War, which would reinforce one of the most powerful themes of Obama's campaign. At the same time, although Hagel agrees with Obama on the need for withdrawal from Iraq, his military credentials would reassure U.S. allies that it would not be a pell-mell retreat. A final advantage is that Hagel and Obama actually seem to like each other. Hagel is said to view Obama as a politician with a special gift who might actually be able to bring the country together. Whether Democrats could accept Hagel's pro-life views and other aspects of his Republican identity is a complicated question, but here again, bipartisanship is about bridging hard issues.
Bloomberg would provide a different sort of boost for Obama. He could run as the bipartisan manager and problem-solver, the nation's chief operating officer, if you will. That would free Obama, who has never managed much of anything, for the larger role of leadership -- the visionary politics at which he's so good.
The New York mayor would also make a good running mate for McCain -- who badly needs someone with economic credentials to offset his own lack of experience and interest in this area. But it would be difficult for the GOP to embrace a double dose of bipartisanship, when many in the party already view McCain as a quasi-Democrat.
If Obama were to run on a unity ticket, it would be a sign that he thinks the nation is in such serious trouble, at home and abroad, that the normal political rules don't apply. Obama could choose among many fine Democrats for his running mate, but none of them would send such a powerful message to America and the world that he means what he says about turning a page.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_should_pick_a_bipartisan.html
By reaching outside the Democratic Party for his vice presidential nominee -- tapping Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, say, or independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg from New York -- Obama would in an instant demonstrate that he truly means to change the divisive, lose-lose politics of Washington. It would offer a unity government for a country that seems to want one.There are all sorts of practical arguments against such an unconventional choice -- not least that it would upset many of Obama's liberal Democratic supporters. But it would make a powerful statement that Obama really does want to govern in a different way. It would make "change we can believe in" more than a slogan.
By choosing a veteran politician outside his own party Obama would solve three problems at once: He would undercut the bipartisan appeal of his maverick GOP rival, Sen. John McCain; he would ease voters' fears about his own youth and inexperience; and he would find a compelling alternative to Hillary Clinton, who for all her virtues as a vice president would come with heavy baggage -- not least the role of her husband, who is even harder to imagine as Second Laddie than as First.
Moreover, Obama needs to counter the charge that he talks a better game about bipartisanship and change than he has actually delivered. His voting record in Illinois and Washington mostly has been that of a conventional liberal, and there are precious few examples of him taking political risks to work across party lines.
McCain, by contrast, has actually fought the kind of bipartisan battles that Obama talks about -- from campaign finance to climate change to rules against torture -- and he has the political scars to prove it. That's why the Republican base is still so uneasy about him, because they know that McCain's natural allies in recent years have been centrist Democrats. By picking a GOP running mate, Obama would outdo McCain -- and in the process make some enemies in his own party. That would make him a more appealing candidate, I suspect.
Hagel would be an especially interesting choice for Obama. As a decorated Vietnam veteran, he would add some national-security heft to the ticket. And he was also an early and courageous GOP critic of the Iraq War, which would reinforce one of the most powerful themes of Obama's campaign. At the same time, although Hagel agrees with Obama on the need for withdrawal from Iraq, his military credentials would reassure U.S. allies that it would not be a pell-mell retreat. A final advantage is that Hagel and Obama actually seem to like each other. Hagel is said to view Obama as a politician with a special gift who might actually be able to bring the country together. Whether Democrats could accept Hagel's pro-life views and other aspects of his Republican identity is a complicated question, but here again, bipartisanship is about bridging hard issues.
Bloomberg would provide a different sort of boost for Obama. He could run as the bipartisan manager and problem-solver, the nation's chief operating officer, if you will. That would free Obama, who has never managed much of anything, for the larger role of leadership -- the visionary politics at which he's so good.
The New York mayor would also make a good running mate for McCain -- who badly needs someone with economic credentials to offset his own lack of experience and interest in this area. But it would be difficult for the GOP to embrace a double dose of bipartisanship, when many in the party already view McCain as a quasi-Democrat.
If Obama were to run on a unity ticket, it would be a sign that he thinks the nation is in such serious trouble, at home and abroad, that the normal political rules don't apply. Obama could choose among many fine Democrats for his running mate, but none of them would send such a powerful message to America and the world that he means what he says about turning a page.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_should_pick_a_bipartisan.html
Hagel laughs off but won't rule out joining an Obama tick
(CNN) – Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, laughed off the possibility Tuesday in a CNN interview - but didn't rule it out, either."I don't expect to be on anyone's ticket this year. I don't expect to be in anyone's government next year," Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate this year, told John Roberts on CNN's American Morning.
But would he consider joining a bipartisan unity ticket with Obama? "I'm going to try and find some honest work," he said, adding that "If [Obama] asks, I'll let you know."
Hagel, a long-time friend and Senate ally of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, has not yet endorsed any presidential candidate.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/hagel-laughs-off-but-wont-rule-out-joining-an-obama-ticket/
But would he consider joining a bipartisan unity ticket with Obama? "I'm going to try and find some honest work," he said, adding that "If [Obama] asks, I'll let you know."
Hagel, a long-time friend and Senate ally of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, has not yet endorsed any presidential candidate.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/hagel-laughs-off-but-wont-rule-out-joining-an-obama-ticket/
Obama Maps a Nationwide Push in G.O.P. Strongholds
WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s general election plan calls for broadening the electoral map by challenging Senator John McCain in typically Republican states — from North Carolina to Missouri to Montana — as Mr. Obama seeks to take advantage of voter turnout operations built in nearly 50 states in the long Democratic nomination battle, aides said.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will travel to North Carolina — a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 32 years — to start a two-week tour of speeches, town hall forums and other appearances intended to highlight differences with Mr. McCain on the economy.
From there, he heads to Missouri, which last voted for a Democrat in 1996. His first campaign swing after securing the Democratic presidential nomination last week was to Virginia, which last voted Democratic in 1964. With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton now having formally bowed out of the race and thrown her backing to him, Mr. Obama wants to define the faltering economy as the paramount issue facing the country, a task probably made easier by ever-rising gasoline prices and the sharp rise in unemployment the government reported on Friday. Mr. McCain, by contrast, has been emphasizing national security more than any other issue and has made clear that he would like to fight the election primarily on that ground.
Mr. Obama has moved in recent days to transform his primary organization into a general election machine, hiring staff members, sending organizers into important states and preparing a television advertisement campaign to present his views and his biography to millions of Americans who followed the primaries from a distance.In one telling example, he is moving to hire Aaron Pickrell, the chief political strategist of Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio — who helped steer Mrs. Clinton to victory in that state’s primary — to run his effort against Mr. McCain there. In another, aides said, he has tapped Dan Carroll, an opposition researcher who gained fame digging up information on opponents’ records for Bill Clinton in 1992, to help gather information about Mr. McCain. That is the latest evidence that, for all the talk on both sides about a new kind of politics, the general election campaign is likely to be bloody.
Mr. Obama’s campaign is considering hiring Patti Solis Doyle, a longtime associate of Mrs. Clinton who was her campaign manager until a shake-up in February, the first of what Mr. Obama’s aides said would be a number of hires from the Clinton campaign.Recognizing the extent to which Republicans view Michelle Obama’s strong views and personality as a potential liability for her husband, Mr. Obama’s aides said they were preparing to bring aboard senior operatives from previous Democratic presidential campaigns to work with her, a clear departure from the typical way the spouse of a candidate is staffed. Mrs. Obama’s operation would include senior aides devoted to responding to attacks and challenges to her, particularly if she continues to campaign as much as she has so far.
To counter persistent rumors and mischaracterizations about his background, Mr. Obama’s advisers said they would also begin using television advertising and speeches in a biographical campaign to present his story on his terms. But they suggested that their research had found that voters were not that well acquainted with Mr. McCain, either, signaling that the next few months will see a scramble by the two campaigns to define the rival candidate.“Even though Senator McCain has been on the scene for three decades, there are a lot of people who don’t know a lot about him — and there are a lot of people who don’t know about us,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior strategist. “Both campaigns are about to begin filling in the gaps.”
Mr. Obama has sought in recent weeks to deal pre-emptively with issues that shadowed him in the primary and on which Mr. McCain has already challenged him. At a speech to Jewish leaders in Washington, he markedly toughened his statements about how he would deal with Iran after coming under attack for his pledge to meet with its leader; he now almost always wears an American flag pin on his lapel after Republicans sought to raise questions about his patriotism by pointing to the absence of one.
While the lengthy, contentious Democratic primary fight against Mrs. Clinton exposed vulnerabilities in Mr. Obama that the Republicans will no doubt seek to exploit, it also allowed him to build a nearly nationwide network of volunteers and professional organizers. While early assertions by presidential campaigns that they intend to expand the playing field are often little more than feints intended to force opponents to spend time and money defending states that they should have locked up, Mr. Obama’s fund-raising success gives his campaign more flexibility than most to play in more places. Mr. Obama’s aides said some states where they intend to campaign — like Georgia, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina — might ultimately be too red to turn blue. But the result of making an effort there could force Mr. McCain to spend money or send him to campaign in what should be safe ground, rather than using those resources in states like Ohio.
Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, said that the primary contest had left the campaign with strong get-out-the-vote operations in Republican states that were small enough that better-than-usual turnout could make a difference in the general election. Among those he pointed to was Alaska, which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.“Do we have to win any of those to get to 270?” Mr. Plouffe said, referring to the number of electoral votes needed to win the election. “No. Do we have reason to think we can be competitive there? Yes. Do we have organizations in those states to be competitive? Yes. This is where the primary was really helpful to us now.”
Mr. Plouffe also pointed to Oregon and Washington, states that have traditionally been competitive and where Mr. Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton, as places the campaign could have significant advantages .Still, the Republican Party has a history of out-hustling and out-organizing the Democratic Party in national elections. The question is whether the more organically grown game plans that carried Mr. Obama to victory in Democratic primaries and caucuses can match the well-oiled organizations Republicans have put together.
Mr. McCain’s advisers dismissed the Obama campaign claims as bluster. “We’re confident about our ability to win those states,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain.And Mr. Obama is not alone in trying to fight on what is historically unfriendly territory. A central part of Mr. McCain’s strategy is an effort to pick up Democratic voters unhappy with the outcome of the primary, and to compete for states that have recently voted Democratic, like Pennsylvania, where Mr. Obama was soundly beaten by Mrs. Clinton, and Michigan, where Mr. Obama did not compete in the primary.Mr. Obama’s aides would not say when he would begin his television advertising campaign, saying that disclosure would help their opponent.
A Republican strategist said that, according to party monitoring services, Mr. Obama’s campaign had inquired about advertising rates in 25 states, including traditionally Republican states like Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina. That would constitute a very large purchase. President Bush, whose 2004 campaign had the most expensive advertising drive in presidential history, usually ran commercials in a maximum of 17 states.The strategist said that the Republican intelligence was that Mr. Obama’s campaign was indicating to television stations that it was considering beginning its commercials in mid-June, or possibly after July 4.
But Mr. McCain started an advertising campaign on Friday that surprised Democrats with its size and expense — more than $3 million — and it was unclear if that would prompt Mr. Obama’s strategists to change their timetable. Media strategists in both parties said that Mr. Obama’s campaign would have enough money to run a break-all-records advertising campaign. In theory, at least, he will have enough money to run one set of prime-time national advertisements on broadcast television, and a concurrent and harder-hitting campaign against Mr. McCain in closely contested states.
A national campaign on broadcast television — which has traditionally been prohibitively expensive for presidential campaigns — could make sense in this case, particularly if the Obama campaign looks to expand the playing field as significantly as Mr. Plouffe suggested it would.Mr. Obama and a team of senior advisers spent Friday morning in Chicago planning the next few weeks. In addition to presenting his economic policies, Mr. Obama is also exploring a foreign trip and a biographical tour before the party’s convention in August.
Mr. Obama’s a 17-day economic tour, starting Monday, comes as polls suggest acute public anxiety about the economy, fueled by a new wave of bad news, including a surge in the unemployment rate and a record rise in the cost of oil.
The economic push is intended to highlight the distinctions between Democratic and Republican proposals on health care, jobs, energy prices, education and taxes. Mr. Obama is expected to deliver a series of policy speeches and visit voters in small towns and rural areas.
While Mr. Obama’s economic tour will take him through several states where he registered strong performances in the primary season, including Iowa and Wisconsin, he will also visit other general election battleground states where he lost primaries by substantial margins, including Ohio.At Mr. Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, where for two months separate teams had focused on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, aides are adjusting their duties. One area in particular where Mr. Obama is adding muscle is a team that is tasked with tracking down rumors and erroneous statements circulated on the Internet.
“The growth of the Internet, which has been a fabulous asset for helping to build the Obama community, is also a place where erroneous e-mails live,” said Anita Dunn, a senior campaign adviser. “That’s a challenge I don’t think previous campaigns have had to deal with to the extent that the Obama campaign has.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
On Monday, Mr. Obama will travel to North Carolina — a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 32 years — to start a two-week tour of speeches, town hall forums and other appearances intended to highlight differences with Mr. McCain on the economy.
From there, he heads to Missouri, which last voted for a Democrat in 1996. His first campaign swing after securing the Democratic presidential nomination last week was to Virginia, which last voted Democratic in 1964. With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton now having formally bowed out of the race and thrown her backing to him, Mr. Obama wants to define the faltering economy as the paramount issue facing the country, a task probably made easier by ever-rising gasoline prices and the sharp rise in unemployment the government reported on Friday. Mr. McCain, by contrast, has been emphasizing national security more than any other issue and has made clear that he would like to fight the election primarily on that ground.
Mr. Obama has moved in recent days to transform his primary organization into a general election machine, hiring staff members, sending organizers into important states and preparing a television advertisement campaign to present his views and his biography to millions of Americans who followed the primaries from a distance.In one telling example, he is moving to hire Aaron Pickrell, the chief political strategist of Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio — who helped steer Mrs. Clinton to victory in that state’s primary — to run his effort against Mr. McCain there. In another, aides said, he has tapped Dan Carroll, an opposition researcher who gained fame digging up information on opponents’ records for Bill Clinton in 1992, to help gather information about Mr. McCain. That is the latest evidence that, for all the talk on both sides about a new kind of politics, the general election campaign is likely to be bloody.
Mr. Obama’s campaign is considering hiring Patti Solis Doyle, a longtime associate of Mrs. Clinton who was her campaign manager until a shake-up in February, the first of what Mr. Obama’s aides said would be a number of hires from the Clinton campaign.Recognizing the extent to which Republicans view Michelle Obama’s strong views and personality as a potential liability for her husband, Mr. Obama’s aides said they were preparing to bring aboard senior operatives from previous Democratic presidential campaigns to work with her, a clear departure from the typical way the spouse of a candidate is staffed. Mrs. Obama’s operation would include senior aides devoted to responding to attacks and challenges to her, particularly if she continues to campaign as much as she has so far.
To counter persistent rumors and mischaracterizations about his background, Mr. Obama’s advisers said they would also begin using television advertising and speeches in a biographical campaign to present his story on his terms. But they suggested that their research had found that voters were not that well acquainted with Mr. McCain, either, signaling that the next few months will see a scramble by the two campaigns to define the rival candidate.“Even though Senator McCain has been on the scene for three decades, there are a lot of people who don’t know a lot about him — and there are a lot of people who don’t know about us,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior strategist. “Both campaigns are about to begin filling in the gaps.”
Mr. Obama has sought in recent weeks to deal pre-emptively with issues that shadowed him in the primary and on which Mr. McCain has already challenged him. At a speech to Jewish leaders in Washington, he markedly toughened his statements about how he would deal with Iran after coming under attack for his pledge to meet with its leader; he now almost always wears an American flag pin on his lapel after Republicans sought to raise questions about his patriotism by pointing to the absence of one.
While the lengthy, contentious Democratic primary fight against Mrs. Clinton exposed vulnerabilities in Mr. Obama that the Republicans will no doubt seek to exploit, it also allowed him to build a nearly nationwide network of volunteers and professional organizers. While early assertions by presidential campaigns that they intend to expand the playing field are often little more than feints intended to force opponents to spend time and money defending states that they should have locked up, Mr. Obama’s fund-raising success gives his campaign more flexibility than most to play in more places. Mr. Obama’s aides said some states where they intend to campaign — like Georgia, Missouri, Montana and North Carolina — might ultimately be too red to turn blue. But the result of making an effort there could force Mr. McCain to spend money or send him to campaign in what should be safe ground, rather than using those resources in states like Ohio.
Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, said that the primary contest had left the campaign with strong get-out-the-vote operations in Republican states that were small enough that better-than-usual turnout could make a difference in the general election. Among those he pointed to was Alaska, which last voted for a Democrat in 1964.“Do we have to win any of those to get to 270?” Mr. Plouffe said, referring to the number of electoral votes needed to win the election. “No. Do we have reason to think we can be competitive there? Yes. Do we have organizations in those states to be competitive? Yes. This is where the primary was really helpful to us now.”
Mr. Plouffe also pointed to Oregon and Washington, states that have traditionally been competitive and where Mr. Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton, as places the campaign could have significant advantages .Still, the Republican Party has a history of out-hustling and out-organizing the Democratic Party in national elections. The question is whether the more organically grown game plans that carried Mr. Obama to victory in Democratic primaries and caucuses can match the well-oiled organizations Republicans have put together.
Mr. McCain’s advisers dismissed the Obama campaign claims as bluster. “We’re confident about our ability to win those states,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain.And Mr. Obama is not alone in trying to fight on what is historically unfriendly territory. A central part of Mr. McCain’s strategy is an effort to pick up Democratic voters unhappy with the outcome of the primary, and to compete for states that have recently voted Democratic, like Pennsylvania, where Mr. Obama was soundly beaten by Mrs. Clinton, and Michigan, where Mr. Obama did not compete in the primary.Mr. Obama’s aides would not say when he would begin his television advertising campaign, saying that disclosure would help their opponent.
A Republican strategist said that, according to party monitoring services, Mr. Obama’s campaign had inquired about advertising rates in 25 states, including traditionally Republican states like Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina. That would constitute a very large purchase. President Bush, whose 2004 campaign had the most expensive advertising drive in presidential history, usually ran commercials in a maximum of 17 states.The strategist said that the Republican intelligence was that Mr. Obama’s campaign was indicating to television stations that it was considering beginning its commercials in mid-June, or possibly after July 4.
But Mr. McCain started an advertising campaign on Friday that surprised Democrats with its size and expense — more than $3 million — and it was unclear if that would prompt Mr. Obama’s strategists to change their timetable. Media strategists in both parties said that Mr. Obama’s campaign would have enough money to run a break-all-records advertising campaign. In theory, at least, he will have enough money to run one set of prime-time national advertisements on broadcast television, and a concurrent and harder-hitting campaign against Mr. McCain in closely contested states.
A national campaign on broadcast television — which has traditionally been prohibitively expensive for presidential campaigns — could make sense in this case, particularly if the Obama campaign looks to expand the playing field as significantly as Mr. Plouffe suggested it would.Mr. Obama and a team of senior advisers spent Friday morning in Chicago planning the next few weeks. In addition to presenting his economic policies, Mr. Obama is also exploring a foreign trip and a biographical tour before the party’s convention in August.
Mr. Obama’s a 17-day economic tour, starting Monday, comes as polls suggest acute public anxiety about the economy, fueled by a new wave of bad news, including a surge in the unemployment rate and a record rise in the cost of oil.
The economic push is intended to highlight the distinctions between Democratic and Republican proposals on health care, jobs, energy prices, education and taxes. Mr. Obama is expected to deliver a series of policy speeches and visit voters in small towns and rural areas.
While Mr. Obama’s economic tour will take him through several states where he registered strong performances in the primary season, including Iowa and Wisconsin, he will also visit other general election battleground states where he lost primaries by substantial margins, including Ohio.At Mr. Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, where for two months separate teams had focused on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, aides are adjusting their duties. One area in particular where Mr. Obama is adding muscle is a team that is tasked with tracking down rumors and erroneous statements circulated on the Internet.
“The growth of the Internet, which has been a fabulous asset for helping to build the Obama community, is also a place where erroneous e-mails live,” said Anita Dunn, a senior campaign adviser. “That’s a challenge I don’t think previous campaigns have had to deal with to the extent that the Obama campaign has.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Time's Klein Dreams of Obama-Hagel Ticket
The same liberal Time writer that applauded Barack Obama's boycott of Fox News debates is now broadcasting his dream ticket in 2008: Obama for POTUS with Iraq war critic/potential Bush impeachment proponent proponent Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as vice. Today at Time magazine's "Swampland" blog, Joe Klein wrote:
I've always had this sneaking suspicion that John Kerry asked the wrong Republican to join his ticket in 2004, that Chuck Hagel would have said yes, that a Kerry-Hagel ticket would have won. Now we have Hagel hinting at a 3rd party run. So, with apologies to, uh, Hegel:Thesis--That Chuck Hagel is a terrific national resource, a decorated veteran of Vietnam who has taken a courageous path away from his party on Iraq...and who really understands national security and foreign policy.Antithesis--That Third Party talk is futile, especially if you don't have a fortune like Perot's or Bloomie's, which Hagel doesn't.Synthesis--An Obama-Hagel ticket. (Or a pick-your-democrat -Hagel ticket)
http://newsbusters.org/node/12754
I've always had this sneaking suspicion that John Kerry asked the wrong Republican to join his ticket in 2004, that Chuck Hagel would have said yes, that a Kerry-Hagel ticket would have won. Now we have Hagel hinting at a 3rd party run. So, with apologies to, uh, Hegel:Thesis--That Chuck Hagel is a terrific national resource, a decorated veteran of Vietnam who has taken a courageous path away from his party on Iraq...and who really understands national security and foreign policy.Antithesis--That Third Party talk is futile, especially if you don't have a fortune like Perot's or Bloomie's, which Hagel doesn't.Synthesis--An Obama-Hagel ticket. (Or a pick-your-democrat -Hagel ticket)
http://newsbusters.org/node/12754
Chuck Hagel Slams Bush Administration's Iraq Policy: "Arrogance And Incompetence Put This Country In A Hole"
This isn't the first time Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has slammed the Bush administration on the Iraq war, but it is still noteworthy how blunt Hagel is in his criticism. Hagel appeared on CNN's Late Edition, with Wolf Blitzer, to promote his new book, and Blitzer asked him about some particularly harsh quotes about Bush administration's "arrogance and incompetence." Hagel responded that he stood by those words, and that it was the Bush administration's "arrogance and incompetence that put this country in such a hole here around the world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/chuck-hagel-slams-bush-ad_n_94120.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/chuck-hagel-slams-bush-ad_n_94120.html
Obama Plans To Pick Republicans For Cabinet
AS Barack Obama enters the final stages of the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is preparing to detach the core voters of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, with the same ruthless determination with which he has peeled off Hillary Clinton's supporters.The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/obama-plans-to-pick-repub_n_89438.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/obama-plans-to-pick-repub_n_89438.html
A Barack Obama & Chuck Hagel Ticket?
Senator Chuck Hagel is the Republican the GOP should have made their nominee. But he got nothing but discouragement from the national GOP. In that regard, he is like Delaware State House Speaker Terry Spence who was told by the Delaware GOP they didn't want him to run for Governor because he was "too nice" to Democrats.That's apparently an unpardonable sin that operates on the level of the national GOP as well given the shoddy treatment the bi-partisan Hagel has received from his own party. Another sin a Republican elected official should never make is to call a spade a spade and say things like the Iraq war was a failure, the GOP President misled us, and has hurt us internationally.
All statements Hagel has made in the past.In the film Hagel talks sagaciously about the current situation in Iraq and how the Malki government is weak and if it had not been for the intervention of Iran, the Mahdi army would still be handing the Iraqi governments forces their backsides during the recent flareup. Then Keith Olberman pops the million dollar question. Would Hagel join the Democratic Presidential nominee as the VP? Hagel doesn't exactly say no (only that ne never meant himself when he proposed the idea in his latest book). But just imagine an Obama & Hagel ticket. The national GOP would brown their shorts and Obama would show before the election that his intention to govern in a consensus-building manner is genuine.
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-chuck-hagel-ticket.html
All statements Hagel has made in the past.In the film Hagel talks sagaciously about the current situation in Iraq and how the Malki government is weak and if it had not been for the intervention of Iran, the Mahdi army would still be handing the Iraqi governments forces their backsides during the recent flareup. Then Keith Olberman pops the million dollar question. Would Hagel join the Democratic Presidential nominee as the VP? Hagel doesn't exactly say no (only that ne never meant himself when he proposed the idea in his latest book). But just imagine an Obama & Hagel ticket. The national GOP would brown their shorts and Obama would show before the election that his intention to govern in a consensus-building manner is genuine.
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-chuck-hagel-ticket.html
Should Obama cross over for V.P. pick?
I was beginning to wonder if Hillary Clinton would ever concede. Her people now say she will, but I'm not sure -- it could be a trick.Think about it: After she gets Barack Obama to say all those nice things about her, she could take the stage and announce that he's convinced her to stay in the race.Clinton ran a tough, historic race, but it's over. She'll reportedly concede Saturday and even say some nice things about Obama. But she's still running. The word now is that Clinton wants the vice presidency,
Clinton is a terrific campaigner who would be an asset in the general election.But what would be a strong ticket for winning in November looks like a shaky and wrongheaded one for governing in January.Clinton isn't a natural for a supporting role. In her mind, she's the main event.The only reason for Obama to choose Clinton is if he absolutely needs her to win in November. That's not the case.Obama is right to take his time and not be rushed into anything.
A dozen or more Democrats are being touted as likely vice presidential picks for Obama. None jumps out as the clear choice.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is on many short lists, although I'd be surprised if she gets the nod.True, her popularity in a solidly red state fits with Obama's theme of expanding the Democratic map. And her background and interest in health care reform fit one of Obama's major policy goals.But Sebelius doesn't bring many other chips to the table as far as Electoral College strategy or national experience. And she's never been accused of being an electrifying speaker.There are other strong contenders: Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia.But if Obama really wants to send a bold signal that his words about "change" and "unity" are more than catchphrases, then he should consider a long-shot choice -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.It could be an inspired choice.
A crossover strategy worked for Sebelius, who tabbed as running mates John Moore in her first term and then former state GOP chairman Mark Parkinson in her second term, deft moves that appealed to moderate Republicans and helped pad her victory margins.It could work for Obama, too. Lots of disaffected Republicans and independents are looking for an alternative this year.
Hagel, who is retiring this year, could be just the ticket.He's a good friend of John McCain. Like McCain, he's a Vietnam veteran who has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's widely respected for his no-nonsense, pragmatic views and McCainish straight talk. But Hagel has also been one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war -- and lately of McCain.
In recent months, he has praised Obama effusively for his foreign policy vision and his willingness to talk with America's enemies. At the same time, he's been harshly critical of McCain's shallow, bellicose rhetoric on Iran and other foreign policy challenges."If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."
Hagel's experience and hard-nosed pragmatism could help Obama counter charges that his foreign policy is naive.
It also helps that Hagel was one of McCain's biggest boosters during the 2000 run of the Straight Talk Express.
Hagel, better than anyone, could offer a devastating critique of how McCain the maverick of 2000 became the Bush apologist and captive of lobbyists and neoconservatives.An Obama-Hagel ticket would send a powerful message that a bipartisan -- even postpartisan -- era is possible in Washington, D.C.Is there any precedent for a bipartisan ticket?
In 2004, John Kerry seriously considered McCain as a vice presidential pick.Some point out that the V.P. choice rarely delivers states or elections. That's true. The last time a running mate made a difference was when Lyndon Johnson helped deliver Southern votes for John F. Kennedy.Then again, a dramatic, surprise pick like Hagel might galvanize and help seal the deal with independents and moderate Republicans flirting with the idea of voting for Obama.And it would underscore that Obama is the change agent and unifier in this election.Is it likely? No.Many Democrats probably wouldn't abide a Republican on the ticket, especially one who, like Hagel, is a social conservative on abortion and other issues.But a unity ticket, precisely because it's improbable, might be the best way for Obama to show he's serious about bringing real change to Washington.
http://www.kansas.com/203/story/426205.html
Clinton is a terrific campaigner who would be an asset in the general election.But what would be a strong ticket for winning in November looks like a shaky and wrongheaded one for governing in January.Clinton isn't a natural for a supporting role. In her mind, she's the main event.The only reason for Obama to choose Clinton is if he absolutely needs her to win in November. That's not the case.Obama is right to take his time and not be rushed into anything.
A dozen or more Democrats are being touted as likely vice presidential picks for Obama. None jumps out as the clear choice.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is on many short lists, although I'd be surprised if she gets the nod.True, her popularity in a solidly red state fits with Obama's theme of expanding the Democratic map. And her background and interest in health care reform fit one of Obama's major policy goals.But Sebelius doesn't bring many other chips to the table as far as Electoral College strategy or national experience. And she's never been accused of being an electrifying speaker.There are other strong contenders: Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia.But if Obama really wants to send a bold signal that his words about "change" and "unity" are more than catchphrases, then he should consider a long-shot choice -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.It could be an inspired choice.
A crossover strategy worked for Sebelius, who tabbed as running mates John Moore in her first term and then former state GOP chairman Mark Parkinson in her second term, deft moves that appealed to moderate Republicans and helped pad her victory margins.It could work for Obama, too. Lots of disaffected Republicans and independents are looking for an alternative this year.
Hagel, who is retiring this year, could be just the ticket.He's a good friend of John McCain. Like McCain, he's a Vietnam veteran who has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's widely respected for his no-nonsense, pragmatic views and McCainish straight talk. But Hagel has also been one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war -- and lately of McCain.
In recent months, he has praised Obama effusively for his foreign policy vision and his willingness to talk with America's enemies. At the same time, he's been harshly critical of McCain's shallow, bellicose rhetoric on Iran and other foreign policy challenges."If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."
Hagel's experience and hard-nosed pragmatism could help Obama counter charges that his foreign policy is naive.
It also helps that Hagel was one of McCain's biggest boosters during the 2000 run of the Straight Talk Express.
Hagel, better than anyone, could offer a devastating critique of how McCain the maverick of 2000 became the Bush apologist and captive of lobbyists and neoconservatives.An Obama-Hagel ticket would send a powerful message that a bipartisan -- even postpartisan -- era is possible in Washington, D.C.Is there any precedent for a bipartisan ticket?
In 2004, John Kerry seriously considered McCain as a vice presidential pick.Some point out that the V.P. choice rarely delivers states or elections. That's true. The last time a running mate made a difference was when Lyndon Johnson helped deliver Southern votes for John F. Kennedy.Then again, a dramatic, surprise pick like Hagel might galvanize and help seal the deal with independents and moderate Republicans flirting with the idea of voting for Obama.And it would underscore that Obama is the change agent and unifier in this election.Is it likely? No.Many Democrats probably wouldn't abide a Republican on the ticket, especially one who, like Hagel, is a social conservative on abortion and other issues.But a unity ticket, precisely because it's improbable, might be the best way for Obama to show he's serious about bringing real change to Washington.
http://www.kansas.com/203/story/426205.html
Hagel: Bush Administration 'Certainly Misrepresented' Facts On Run-Up To War
Over the past year, Senator Chuck Hagel has not been shy about expressing his disillusionment with his own party. Having announced that he'll be foregoing a third term in the Senate, Hagel has been slow to support GOP nominee John McCain, and has recently penned a book titled America: Our Next Chapter, in which he espouses the idea of "an independent candidate for the presidency, or a bipartisan unity ticket."
On last night's edition of Hannity And Colmes Hagel allowed himself to express the full measure of his disaffection with the Republican Party without giving an inch on his conservative principles. His votes against the prescription drug bill and the No Child Left Behind act, he maintained were votes "against the real big government type programs." But it was his criticism of the Bush administration's war strategy that drew the harshest critique from Hagel. While Hagel remains unwilling to characterize Bush's pre-war positioning with the word "lie," it was clear that Hagel was familiar with many, many synonyms for that word:
COLMES: Senator, when the president said he would let the IAEA finish and didn't, did he lie to you?
HAGEL: Well, lie is a tough word. I have always tried to be responsible with my language. And I have never accused the president of lying. I would say this, that his administration certainly misrepresented, starting with the fact when we were told, many of us, including me, that this administration had not made a decision to go to war. At the time of the resolution vote in October of 2002, in fact, now we know that that is just not true.
COLMES: You don't want to use the word lie, that is a strong word. But that's what you are implying?
HAGEL: You can take any meaning out of that that you want, but I think -- almost six years now after this, we have a pretty clear record of what they said and what they didn't say.
Hagel saved his most unsparing language for Vice President Dick Cheney:
COLMES: You also say in the book that Dick Cheney cherry picked intelligence and used fear to promote war sloganeering. That's a pretty strong charge against him.
HAGEL: Well, he did. And if you recall the war speech that he gave the National VFW Convention in August of 2002, the day after that speech I called Colin Powell and I said to Colin Powell, what's going on? You are going to war? Powell said no, the president has made no decisions. I said that war speech that Cheney gave is very, very clear. Cheney was doing that all the lead up to the invasion.
Hagel concluded: "I don't think that they were direct and honest at all with what they were telling us versus the planning that was going on."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/hagel-bush-administratio_n_93695.html
On last night's edition of Hannity And Colmes Hagel allowed himself to express the full measure of his disaffection with the Republican Party without giving an inch on his conservative principles. His votes against the prescription drug bill and the No Child Left Behind act, he maintained were votes "against the real big government type programs." But it was his criticism of the Bush administration's war strategy that drew the harshest critique from Hagel. While Hagel remains unwilling to characterize Bush's pre-war positioning with the word "lie," it was clear that Hagel was familiar with many, many synonyms for that word:
COLMES: Senator, when the president said he would let the IAEA finish and didn't, did he lie to you?
HAGEL: Well, lie is a tough word. I have always tried to be responsible with my language. And I have never accused the president of lying. I would say this, that his administration certainly misrepresented, starting with the fact when we were told, many of us, including me, that this administration had not made a decision to go to war. At the time of the resolution vote in October of 2002, in fact, now we know that that is just not true.
COLMES: You don't want to use the word lie, that is a strong word. But that's what you are implying?
HAGEL: You can take any meaning out of that that you want, but I think -- almost six years now after this, we have a pretty clear record of what they said and what they didn't say.
Hagel saved his most unsparing language for Vice President Dick Cheney:
COLMES: You also say in the book that Dick Cheney cherry picked intelligence and used fear to promote war sloganeering. That's a pretty strong charge against him.
HAGEL: Well, he did. And if you recall the war speech that he gave the National VFW Convention in August of 2002, the day after that speech I called Colin Powell and I said to Colin Powell, what's going on? You are going to war? Powell said no, the president has made no decisions. I said that war speech that Cheney gave is very, very clear. Cheney was doing that all the lead up to the invasion.
Hagel concluded: "I don't think that they were direct and honest at all with what they were telling us versus the planning that was going on."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/hagel-bush-administratio_n_93695.html
Hagel: Barack Best to Unite Country
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said last night that, among the 3 remaining candidates, he thought Barack Obama had the best chance of bringing the country together. While he did not dismiss McCain (he's done that in the Senate) or Clinton (she's had some success in the Senate, not as much as McCain), he said that he believed that Barack Obama, for generational reasons, could best bring the country together.
Hagel also stated that he believes the inventory of problems the next President will face is unprecedented and that that is why it is so important that the country be brought together so that it could really solve problems. Although Hagel did not endorse Obama, he did not rule out the possibility. Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate and, for awhile, from public life, pointed to data showing 81% of the country believe we are on the "wrong-track", that registration numbers show Republicans to be in the teens and Independents higher than Democrats, and that trust in Congress and the President is at all time lows.
"In a democracy", said Hagel, "people push something else out there" to take the place or transform institutions. He believes that that is what this election will ultimately be about. [Comments made on Charlie Rose Show].
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/hagel-barack-best-to-uni_b_94003.html
Hagel also stated that he believes the inventory of problems the next President will face is unprecedented and that that is why it is so important that the country be brought together so that it could really solve problems. Although Hagel did not endorse Obama, he did not rule out the possibility. Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate and, for awhile, from public life, pointed to data showing 81% of the country believe we are on the "wrong-track", that registration numbers show Republicans to be in the teens and Independents higher than Democrats, and that trust in Congress and the President is at all time lows.
"In a democracy", said Hagel, "people push something else out there" to take the place or transform institutions. He believes that that is what this election will ultimately be about. [Comments made on Charlie Rose Show].
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/hagel-barack-best-to-uni_b_94003.html
Can you picture an Obama-Hagel ticket?
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination isn't over yet, but that hasn't stopped people from speculating about whom front-runner Barack Obama might choose for a running mate.The list of potential partners is long. It starts with Obama's lingering rival for the nomination, Hillary Clinton, and includes a few other heavyweights in the Democratic Party.One long shot said to be on the list is Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.Of course, there's one problem with that idea: Hagel is a Republican and might not even be eligible under Democratic Party guidelines for the national ticket.
The party's guidelines dictate that the requirements for vice president follow those used for the nominee.The presidential nominee must be "a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States and will participate in the convention in good faith."Caroline Ciccone, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, declined to comment on whether Hagel would meet those requirements.
Hagel, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, last year flirted with running for the Republican presidential nomination. He decided not to seek re-election and will leave the Senate in 2009.Hagel's generally conservative voting record doesn't show a faithful devotion to the "welfare and success of the Democratic Party."However, Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University in Ames, said that if Obama becomes the nominee and convinces others in the party that Hagel shares their goals, they could find a way to make it work."I have a feeling either the party would say, 'Well, OK, here's a little form, fill this out and say you're a Democrat,' or maybe he wouldn't even have to do that," Schmidt said.As to the likelihood that Obama, an Illinois senator, would choose Hagel, Schmidt said the Nebraskan wouldn't be at the top of the list.Hagel does have a maverick reputation that might help put conservative Democrats and independents at ease with Obama, Schmidt said. He also would bring national security and foreign policy credentials to the table.
But he would provide little regional balance to the ticket, Schmidt said, and even if Hagel delivered Nebraska, that would mean only five electoral votes.It's also an open question as to whether rank-and-file Democrats would accept a crossover candidate on the ticket.Whether Hagel has any interest was unclear. He has at times criticized the presumed Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and has said complimentary things about Obama.Mike Buttry, Hagel's chief of staff, issued a statement Friday that didn't rule out anything. The statement said Hagel would not comment on the vice presidential speculation."Sen. Hagel is going to do what he's always done: continue focusing on his job and working hard for the people of Nebraska," Buttry said.Among the others whom Obama is said to be considering for vice president are Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. James Webb, both Virginia Democrats; Gov. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who changed his party affiliation from Republican to independent last June.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10343418
The party's guidelines dictate that the requirements for vice president follow those used for the nominee.The presidential nominee must be "a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States and will participate in the convention in good faith."Caroline Ciccone, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, declined to comment on whether Hagel would meet those requirements.
Hagel, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, last year flirted with running for the Republican presidential nomination. He decided not to seek re-election and will leave the Senate in 2009.Hagel's generally conservative voting record doesn't show a faithful devotion to the "welfare and success of the Democratic Party."However, Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University in Ames, said that if Obama becomes the nominee and convinces others in the party that Hagel shares their goals, they could find a way to make it work."I have a feeling either the party would say, 'Well, OK, here's a little form, fill this out and say you're a Democrat,' or maybe he wouldn't even have to do that," Schmidt said.As to the likelihood that Obama, an Illinois senator, would choose Hagel, Schmidt said the Nebraskan wouldn't be at the top of the list.Hagel does have a maverick reputation that might help put conservative Democrats and independents at ease with Obama, Schmidt said. He also would bring national security and foreign policy credentials to the table.
But he would provide little regional balance to the ticket, Schmidt said, and even if Hagel delivered Nebraska, that would mean only five electoral votes.It's also an open question as to whether rank-and-file Democrats would accept a crossover candidate on the ticket.Whether Hagel has any interest was unclear. He has at times criticized the presumed Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and has said complimentary things about Obama.Mike Buttry, Hagel's chief of staff, issued a statement Friday that didn't rule out anything. The statement said Hagel would not comment on the vice presidential speculation."Sen. Hagel is going to do what he's always done: continue focusing on his job and working hard for the people of Nebraska," Buttry said.Among the others whom Obama is said to be considering for vice president are Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. James Webb, both Virginia Democrats; Gov. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who changed his party affiliation from Republican to independent last June.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10343418
Hagel: McCain Facing Electoral Buzzsaw Over Iraq
The Republican Party and its presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain are heading into a 2008 electoral buzzsaw with their continued support of the Iraq war, Sen. Chuck Hagel said in an interview with The Huffington Post on Thursday. The country is still very sour on the war, the Nebraska Republican pressed, and support for candidates who want to stay the course is simply not there.
"I am concerned about the [party still holding on to Iraq as an issue]," said Hagel. "If for no other reason than the political factors here are quite obvious. This country has made a decision on Iraq, and as you see now in any poll, even a minimum of 25 percent of the registered Republicans cannot support the president's policy in Iraq. You take that with the independents and Democrats and you have anywhere between 60 and 70 percent who want out.
So you can't politically sustain this and any party that uses this as an issue when they are going in the face of where America is, is not going to do very well politically. That is just the facts of life."Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate, has not yet endorsed a candidate for the White House. While he considers McCain a friend, there is a vast gulf between the two on Iraq. But Hagel also has sharp disagreements with the troop withdrawal plans of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which he views as overly rigid and hasty.
During a Wednesday event promoting his new book, "America: Our Next Chapter", Hagel was asked which candidate's "world vision" he most agreed with, Hagel evaded the question. "Nice try," he said, smiling. "How about this, I'll sign your book." On Thursday, however, the Senator did show some awe and appreciation for Obama. Responding to news that the Illinois Democrat had raised more than $40 million in March (following $55 million in February), Hagel called him a "strong messenger," and even offered up a historical analogy to John Kennedy.
"It is a phenomenon," he said of Obama's fundraising. "It is something that I have never seen and I don't know if anybody else has ever seen it. It is unprecedented if you just look at the numbers. And what I think is astounding, not just the bottom line number in the short amount of time, but the average per contribution, and that is significant as well because it is so small... When you look at the next generation that Obama has broken into like nothing since John Kennedy... So his people have been very, very smart in how they use the Internet, and they obviously have a very strong messenger with a strong message."
As he approaches his leave from the Senate, Hagel has found himself increasingly at odds with his political party. On the issue of Iraq, he has been one of the fiercest critics of the Bush administration. And such a streak of independence had made the Nebraskan the center of talk about a potential third party run. That, however, has died down. But discussion over him teaming up with McCain or Obama has remained rampant.
And yet, any political partnership with McCain will have to be done over vast disagreements on the war. The two not only differ on the purpose and benefits of the war, but McCain has also yet to sign on to a revamped a version of the G.I. Bill, which Hagel and Sen. Jim Webb have vigorously endorsed.
"We have talked to John," Hagel said of the measure, which would remove the buy-in cost for veterans to receive greater education benefits. "John as you know has been involved on other pursuits. He has taken a close look at it, his people are. Both Webb and I had hoped he would get on it. Obviously Obama is on it and Clinton, three out of four Vietnam veterans in the Senate are on it, people like John Warner and James Inhofe are on it. So, obviously each Senator has to make his own decision on this thing. But we are going to continue to help educate McCain's staff and we hope he becomes part of it."
"I am concerned about the [party still holding on to Iraq as an issue]," said Hagel. "If for no other reason than the political factors here are quite obvious. This country has made a decision on Iraq, and as you see now in any poll, even a minimum of 25 percent of the registered Republicans cannot support the president's policy in Iraq. You take that with the independents and Democrats and you have anywhere between 60 and 70 percent who want out.
So you can't politically sustain this and any party that uses this as an issue when they are going in the face of where America is, is not going to do very well politically. That is just the facts of life."Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate, has not yet endorsed a candidate for the White House. While he considers McCain a friend, there is a vast gulf between the two on Iraq. But Hagel also has sharp disagreements with the troop withdrawal plans of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which he views as overly rigid and hasty.
During a Wednesday event promoting his new book, "America: Our Next Chapter", Hagel was asked which candidate's "world vision" he most agreed with, Hagel evaded the question. "Nice try," he said, smiling. "How about this, I'll sign your book." On Thursday, however, the Senator did show some awe and appreciation for Obama. Responding to news that the Illinois Democrat had raised more than $40 million in March (following $55 million in February), Hagel called him a "strong messenger," and even offered up a historical analogy to John Kennedy.
"It is a phenomenon," he said of Obama's fundraising. "It is something that I have never seen and I don't know if anybody else has ever seen it. It is unprecedented if you just look at the numbers. And what I think is astounding, not just the bottom line number in the short amount of time, but the average per contribution, and that is significant as well because it is so small... When you look at the next generation that Obama has broken into like nothing since John Kennedy... So his people have been very, very smart in how they use the Internet, and they obviously have a very strong messenger with a strong message."
As he approaches his leave from the Senate, Hagel has found himself increasingly at odds with his political party. On the issue of Iraq, he has been one of the fiercest critics of the Bush administration. And such a streak of independence had made the Nebraskan the center of talk about a potential third party run. That, however, has died down. But discussion over him teaming up with McCain or Obama has remained rampant.
And yet, any political partnership with McCain will have to be done over vast disagreements on the war. The two not only differ on the purpose and benefits of the war, but McCain has also yet to sign on to a revamped a version of the G.I. Bill, which Hagel and Sen. Jim Webb have vigorously endorsed.
"We have talked to John," Hagel said of the measure, which would remove the buy-in cost for veterans to receive greater education benefits. "John as you know has been involved on other pursuits. He has taken a close look at it, his people are. Both Webb and I had hoped he would get on it. Obviously Obama is on it and Clinton, three out of four Vietnam veterans in the Senate are on it, people like John Warner and James Inhofe are on it. So, obviously each Senator has to make his own decision on this thing. But we are going to continue to help educate McCain's staff and we hope he becomes part of it."
RE:Obama/Hagel '08
Let me explain why I believe Hagel would be Obama's smartest choice for a running mate.
1. Yes, Hagel is a conservative, but the VP has exactly as much authority as the President chooses to delegate to him. There would be no need to worry that Hagel would suddenly privatize Social Security or nominate conservative judges when no one is watching. He could make useful contributions in the area of foreign policy and perform the usual ceremonial duties of the office.
This is a choice that is primarily about getting elected in the first place. Anyone who Obama thinks would be a useful part of the team, he can always appoint to a Cabinet post or have as an advisor. There is no particular requirement that the VP has to be someone who can contribute to the domestic policy agenda - although there's little doubt that Hagel could be helpful in terms of working with the Senate and reaching across the aisle in negotiations.
2. On Iraq and the general subject of US foreign policy, the labels liberal and conservative are no longer a meaningful way of talking about things. As Glenn Greenwald argued long ago, the critical question is whether you are with the neo-cons or against them, and Hagel is unquestionably against them.
American political conflicts are usually described in terms of "liberal versus conservative," but that is really no longer the division which drives our most important political debates. The predominant political conflicts over the last five years have been driven by a different dichotomy -- those who believe in neoconservatism versus those who do not. Neoconservatism is responsible for virtually every significant political controversy during the Bush administration -- from our invasion of Iraq to the array constitutional abuses perpetrated in the name of fighting terrorism -- and that ideological dispute is even what is driving the war over Joe Lieberman's Senate seat. It is not traditional conservatism or liberalism, but rather one's views on neoconservativsm, which have become the single most important factor in where one falls on the political spectrum.
The reason why former Republicans like Wesley Clark and Chuck Hagel (yes, Clark was technically never a Republican, but he was a Reagan supporter) have been broadly accepted by liberal Democrats is that they stand in implacable opposition to the Iraq war, the neocon agenda, and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. Hagel can make the case against McCain's brand of neoconservatism just as well as any liberal Democrat did. In fact, he can probably do so more effectively, because he can demonstrate to voters that opposition to the Bush/McCain Doctrine is not a "liberal" position, it is a common-sense position in the common national interest.
3. Hagel can certainly go toe-to-toe with McCain on issues of foreign policy, and he can somewhat insulate Obama from McCain's ad hominem attacks on his youth, foreign policy inexperience, and lack of military service. But more importantly, Hagel represents a way for Obama to add foreign policy experience to the ticket WITHOUT showing weakness.
Assume, for example, Obama picks someone like Wes Clark, who would certainly be a strong choice. The media narrative instantly becomes that Obama made this choice in order to shore up his national security bona fides, and it reinforces the idea that Obama is someone who needs help on foreign policy. With Hagel as the pick, this doesn't happen, because virtually all the focus would be on the novelty of the bipartisan ticket, the first in ages. The pick instantly reinforces Obama's promise to be a new kind of politican, and backs up his claim to be a unity-seeker.
4. Hagel helps Obama with the constituencies where he most needs it. No, he wouldn't help bring back the Clinton supporters who think she got a raw deal in this primary, but in my book, those people are either coming back or they aren't. Where Obama struggles is with conservative Democrats of the type found in places like Kentucky and West Virginia; it's not just about race, as some would have it, but about national security where these Democrats simply have more conservative views. The Hagel choice instantly reassures moderate voters that Obama does not, in fact, have some radical liberal agenda. In fact, I can't imagine a more effective way for Obama to drive home the point that his beliefs on foreign policy are widely shared.
In terms of working-class voters who lack confidence in Obama's ability to address economic issues, Hagel doesn't directly provide assistance, but he does free up Obama to focus his message on a more populist, domestically-focused agenda - the area where Democrats are traditionally stronger - while Hagel deals with some of the day-to-day exchanges with McCain on foreign policy. Just because Obama is right and McCain is wrong on the merits does not change the fact that if every day becomes a back-and-forth with McCain on whether we should talk with Iran, we're taking our eye off the ball and failing to address the serious concerns voters have about their economic future.
5. Hagel appears to be interested in the job, and he is a strong campaigner with the gravitas to deliver meaningful attacks and rebuttals on foreign policy issues.
"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."
Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.
"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."
Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."
Sometimes when Democrats reach across the aisle, as with Bill Clinton's choice of a Republican as Secretary of Defense, it comes across as a sign of weakness, an acknowledgment that Democrats aren't really trusted on certain issues. In this particular case, because Obama hasn't shied away from taking assertive stands on foreign policy issues throughout this campaign, I think it comes across as a show of strength rather than weakness. It's a way to grab the broad center of the debate and demonstrate that McCain is the one with the truly radical and extremist agenda.
The more I think about it, the more I believe this would be an inspired choice, and a choice without the downside which some might fear. Your thoughts?
1. Yes, Hagel is a conservative, but the VP has exactly as much authority as the President chooses to delegate to him. There would be no need to worry that Hagel would suddenly privatize Social Security or nominate conservative judges when no one is watching. He could make useful contributions in the area of foreign policy and perform the usual ceremonial duties of the office.
This is a choice that is primarily about getting elected in the first place. Anyone who Obama thinks would be a useful part of the team, he can always appoint to a Cabinet post or have as an advisor. There is no particular requirement that the VP has to be someone who can contribute to the domestic policy agenda - although there's little doubt that Hagel could be helpful in terms of working with the Senate and reaching across the aisle in negotiations.
2. On Iraq and the general subject of US foreign policy, the labels liberal and conservative are no longer a meaningful way of talking about things. As Glenn Greenwald argued long ago, the critical question is whether you are with the neo-cons or against them, and Hagel is unquestionably against them.
American political conflicts are usually described in terms of "liberal versus conservative," but that is really no longer the division which drives our most important political debates. The predominant political conflicts over the last five years have been driven by a different dichotomy -- those who believe in neoconservatism versus those who do not. Neoconservatism is responsible for virtually every significant political controversy during the Bush administration -- from our invasion of Iraq to the array constitutional abuses perpetrated in the name of fighting terrorism -- and that ideological dispute is even what is driving the war over Joe Lieberman's Senate seat. It is not traditional conservatism or liberalism, but rather one's views on neoconservativsm, which have become the single most important factor in where one falls on the political spectrum.
The reason why former Republicans like Wesley Clark and Chuck Hagel (yes, Clark was technically never a Republican, but he was a Reagan supporter) have been broadly accepted by liberal Democrats is that they stand in implacable opposition to the Iraq war, the neocon agenda, and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. Hagel can make the case against McCain's brand of neoconservatism just as well as any liberal Democrat did. In fact, he can probably do so more effectively, because he can demonstrate to voters that opposition to the Bush/McCain Doctrine is not a "liberal" position, it is a common-sense position in the common national interest.
3. Hagel can certainly go toe-to-toe with McCain on issues of foreign policy, and he can somewhat insulate Obama from McCain's ad hominem attacks on his youth, foreign policy inexperience, and lack of military service. But more importantly, Hagel represents a way for Obama to add foreign policy experience to the ticket WITHOUT showing weakness.
Assume, for example, Obama picks someone like Wes Clark, who would certainly be a strong choice. The media narrative instantly becomes that Obama made this choice in order to shore up his national security bona fides, and it reinforces the idea that Obama is someone who needs help on foreign policy. With Hagel as the pick, this doesn't happen, because virtually all the focus would be on the novelty of the bipartisan ticket, the first in ages. The pick instantly reinforces Obama's promise to be a new kind of politican, and backs up his claim to be a unity-seeker.
4. Hagel helps Obama with the constituencies where he most needs it. No, he wouldn't help bring back the Clinton supporters who think she got a raw deal in this primary, but in my book, those people are either coming back or they aren't. Where Obama struggles is with conservative Democrats of the type found in places like Kentucky and West Virginia; it's not just about race, as some would have it, but about national security where these Democrats simply have more conservative views. The Hagel choice instantly reassures moderate voters that Obama does not, in fact, have some radical liberal agenda. In fact, I can't imagine a more effective way for Obama to drive home the point that his beliefs on foreign policy are widely shared.
In terms of working-class voters who lack confidence in Obama's ability to address economic issues, Hagel doesn't directly provide assistance, but he does free up Obama to focus his message on a more populist, domestically-focused agenda - the area where Democrats are traditionally stronger - while Hagel deals with some of the day-to-day exchanges with McCain on foreign policy. Just because Obama is right and McCain is wrong on the merits does not change the fact that if every day becomes a back-and-forth with McCain on whether we should talk with Iran, we're taking our eye off the ball and failing to address the serious concerns voters have about their economic future.
5. Hagel appears to be interested in the job, and he is a strong campaigner with the gravitas to deliver meaningful attacks and rebuttals on foreign policy issues.
"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."
Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.
"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."
Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."
Sometimes when Democrats reach across the aisle, as with Bill Clinton's choice of a Republican as Secretary of Defense, it comes across as a sign of weakness, an acknowledgment that Democrats aren't really trusted on certain issues. In this particular case, because Obama hasn't shied away from taking assertive stands on foreign policy issues throughout this campaign, I think it comes across as a show of strength rather than weakness. It's a way to grab the broad center of the debate and demonstrate that McCain is the one with the truly radical and extremist agenda.
The more I think about it, the more I believe this would be an inspired choice, and a choice without the downside which some might fear. Your thoughts?
Chuck Hagel Takes On McCain, Repeatedly Praises Obama
Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman.
The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.
"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."
Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.
"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."
Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."
Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went on to belittle the tendency for some within his own party to disparage those who tout diplomacy. "You take some risks in talking about this," he said, "especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."
And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.
"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."
Finally, he charged that if the preeminent foreign policy objective is to achieve security in Israel and stability within the broader Middle East, then the Bush track -- which McCain has endorsed -- is ill-advised.
"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."
Much of Hagel's address, hosted by the Ploughshares Fund, was spent weaving between Obama praise and McCain quips. He urged the media, for example, to focus on important policy issues an "not just why Barack [doesn't] wear flag pins on his lapel."
Asked whether he would be open to serving as Secretary of Defense in a hypothetical Obama administration, Hagel demurred. But in the process, he praised the Illinois Democrat for being open to a bipartisan cabinet.
"Take me out of the equation," he said, "I do think that the next president and Obama has talked about this, and McCain not as much, I think he is going to have to put together a very wide, smart, experienced, credible, bipartisan cabinet. And that is going to be required absolutely."
The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.
"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."
Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.
"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."
Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."
Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went on to belittle the tendency for some within his own party to disparage those who tout diplomacy. "You take some risks in talking about this," he said, "especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."
And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.
"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."
Finally, he charged that if the preeminent foreign policy objective is to achieve security in Israel and stability within the broader Middle East, then the Bush track -- which McCain has endorsed -- is ill-advised.
"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."
Much of Hagel's address, hosted by the Ploughshares Fund, was spent weaving between Obama praise and McCain quips. He urged the media, for example, to focus on important policy issues an "not just why Barack [doesn't] wear flag pins on his lapel."
Asked whether he would be open to serving as Secretary of Defense in a hypothetical Obama administration, Hagel demurred. But in the process, he praised the Illinois Democrat for being open to a bipartisan cabinet.
"Take me out of the equation," he said, "I do think that the next president and Obama has talked about this, and McCain not as much, I think he is going to have to put together a very wide, smart, experienced, credible, bipartisan cabinet. And that is going to be required absolutely."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)