Hell, maybe even higher. Hagel might be, could be, possibly be the VP pick.

All aboard the Obamatrain!

All power to the dialectic!

Smitty: Senator Chuck Hagel says "Obama has the best chance of bringing the country together." Behold, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Because presumably everything in an Obama administration will be based around who can give the best speech?


/ducks

After 5 years of GOP cheerleading and propagandizing for the war in Iraq, appointing a Republican as SecDef would be completely idiotic. If Hagel wants the position, Obama should tell him to become an independent or no deal.

TofuTheAlmighty: After 5 years of GOP cheerleading and propagandizing for the war in Iraq, appointing a Republican as SecDef would be completely idiotic. If Hagel wants the position, Obama should tell him to become an independent or no deal.

Yeah, partisanship!

Ugh. Dems good. Repubs bad. Ugh.

/or vice versa, if you're of the similar insanity

Behold, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

A U.S. Senator doesn't need a Defense Secretary and that's exactly where Obama will be this time next year.

barneyfifesbullet: Behold, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

A U.S. Senator doesn't need a Defense Secretary and that's exactly where Obama will be this time next year IN MY MIND.

TofuTheAlmighty: After 5 years of GOP cheerleading and propagandizing for the war in Iraq, appointing a Republican as SecDef would be completely idiotic. If Hagel wants the position, Obama should tell him to become an independent or no deal.

Isn't demanding someone leave a political party if he wants to work together kind of going against that whole idea of "uniting"? I thought Obama was about rising above partisanship. Or is that all just some campaign schtick?

Colin Powell would be good as defense secretary. He lost his credibility in diplomacy, but he still knows the Armed Forces.

You can make cross-party appointments. Norman Mineta, a Democrat, was Bush's Secretary of Transportation on 9/11. They just don't happen often.

In any case, I've got Joseph Cirincione as SecDef. Obama likely won't make that pick, but that's mine.

TofuTheAlmighty: After 5 years of GOP cheerleading and propagandizing for the war in Iraq, appointing a Republican as SecDef would be completely idiotic. If Hagel wants the position, Obama should tell him to become an independent or no deal.

Hagel was one of the first Republicans to start questioning the war in Iraq (a few years into it), and unlike McCain, he isn't selling out his skepticism for another office.

Hagel seems to be of the old Republican set that doesn't have a seek and destroy strategy and is willing to compromise. It's no surprise he sees an Obama presidency will be the best thing to end hyperpartisanship.

barneyfifesbullet: A U.S. Senator doesn't need a Defense Secretary and that's exactly where Obama will be this time next year.

What's with you righties and proclaiming victory already?

You realize just saying it doesn't make it true, right?

Gosling: You can make cross-party appointments. Norman Mineta, a Democrat, was Bush's Secretary of Transportation on 9/11. They just don't happen often.

And Bill Cohen was Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary. There'd be a precedent for a Republican Senator at Defense under a Dem Prez.

barneyfifesbullet: Behold, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

A U.S. Senator person in a mental insitution doesn't need a Defense Secretary and that's exactly where Obama Hillary will be this time next year.

Speaking of people that just don't understand anything about policy, economics, healthcare, the war in Iraq, how to be charismatic, or telling the truth, did you know that non-total farkers can use ignore now?

Churchill2004: Ugh. Dems good. Repubs bad. Ugh.

More importantly, which all-girl R&B band is going to punctuate his more eloquent ramblings with a well-placed shoo-wop-a-be-bop.

Oddly enough, Obama already floated a trial balloon a week or two ago saying that Hagel would be somebody he would like to have in his cabinet.

I don't understand what the big deal is with bringing the country together. Just because someone or something brings the country together doesn't make it the best course to take. I am much more interested in how a policy is actually going to work than I am about how many people support it.

Can Obama supporters give me one issue where Obama is willing to give up something that is important to Democrats in exchange for Republicans giving up something important to them in order to bring people together and get a bill passed?

Ed Willy: Hagel was one of the first Republicans to start questioning the war in Iraq

Jimmy Duncan. John Hostettler. Amo Houghton. Jim Leach. Connie Morella. Lincoln Chafee. And, yes, Ron Paul.

Those are the Republicans that actually voted against the war.

how, exactly, would a carpetbagger republican-of-convenience make a good SecDef for a Democratic administration?

but... but.. REV WRIGHT!!11!eleven!

Churchill2004: Smitty: Senator Chuck Hagel says "Obama has the best chance of bringing the country together." Behold, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Because presumably everything in an Obama administration will be based around who can give the best speech?


/ducks

Churchill2004: TofuTheAlmighty: After 5 years of GOP cheerleading and propagandizing for the war in Iraq, appointing a Republican as SecDef would be completely idiotic. If Hagel wants the position, Obama should tell him to become an independent or no deal.

Yeah, partisanship!

Ugh. Dems good. Repubs bad. Ugh.

/or vice versa, if you're of the similar insanity


actually, obama has been talking about putting the best person for the job in his cabinet, regardless of political party. you know... competency instead of loyalty as the deciding factor. it will be refreshing.

burndtdan: actually, obama has been talking about putting the best person for the job in his cabinet, regardless of political party

That does not address my first (purely snarky) post, nor is it relevant to my second post (where I was attacking Tofu's statement, not Obama).

burndtdan: you know... competency instead of loyalty as the deciding factor

No, public appearance rather than either loyalty or competency as the deciding factor.

You're acting as if there'll be "disloyal" Cabinet secretaries under Obama.

burndtdan: it will be refreshing

No, it won't, because it will be combined with crappy policies.

And, again, my Boobies was just a joking dig. I don't support Obama, but I wasn't trying to make a serious point.

i voted for chuck hagel in '02 for two reasons: 1) he is a constant thorn in the side of the bush administration and 2) there was no serious dem challenger.

he had my vote when he suggested that chickenhawks like richard perle be "in the first wave into baghdad."

he speaks truth to power, has a deep grasp of foreign policy and has actually experienced combat. personally, i think he'd be a great secdef.

Killer Miller: I don't understand what the big deal is with bringing the country together. Just because someone or something brings the country together doesn't make it the best course to take. I am much more interested in how a policy is actually going to work than I am about how many people support it.

Can Obama supporters give me one issue where Obama is willing to give up something that is important to Democrats in exchange for Republicans giving up something important to them in order to bring people together and get a bill passed?

That's not the issue. Majorities shape policy for a long time. See the legacies of FDR and Reagan -- the last 2 presidents to build large coalitions.

Reagan's coalition is dead. It was on it's way out with a changing electorate, but it was put in the ground with the Iraq war.

Many of us believe the next great realignment in the electorate will be built by Obama. Perhaps it won't be, but McCain and Clinton aren't going to do it. . . and the 50% plus 1 governance we've practiced the last 10 years or so is on it's way out.. . The electorate is just waiting for the right leader to articulate it.

burndtdan: actually, obama has been talking about putting the best person for the job in his cabinet, regardless of political party. you know... competency instead of loyalty as the deciding factor. it will be refreshing.

Which is fine, but I think Churchill2004 was responding to the demand that Obama only take on Hagel of he leaves the GOP. Which would seem inconsistent with that, no?

lol i wasn't arguing with you just commenting

burndtdan: lol i wasn't arguing with you just commenting

Fair enough.

Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

Muta: declaring defeat is no way to run a war.

You sound like you think you know how to run a war Internet Tough Guy. Shouldn't you be in Iraq?

DarnoKonrad: That's not the issue. Majorities shape policy for a long time. See the legacies of FDR and Reagan -- the last 2 presidents to build large coalitions.

Reagan's coalition is dead. It was on it's way out with a changing electorate, but it was put in the ground with the Iraq war.

Many of us believe the next great realignment in the electorate will be built by Obama. Perhaps it won't be, but McCain and Clinton aren't going to do it. . . and the 50% plus 1 governance we've practiced the last 10 years or so is on it's way out.. . The electorate is just waiting for the right leader to articulate it.

If this is your way of saying that Barack Obama is not interested in bipartisanship then I agree with you.

More like Secretary of Surrender Chuck Hagel...

Churchill2004: Smitty: Senator Chuck Hagel says "Obama has the best chance of bringing the country together." Behold, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Because presumably everything in an Obama administration will be based around who can give the best speech?


/ducks

Are you saying Hagel is not a competent person? I am a Democrat but Hagel is a formidable man no matter how you stack it.

Muta: declaring defeat is no way to run a war.

you don't ever really declare defeat. you might accept defeat, but generally, when you've been defeated, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not. you still lost.

however in iraq, we can't really win or lose because we don't have a defined goal or strategy.

inconnu: More like Secretary of Surrender Chuck Hagel...

They should make you Secretary of HURRRRRR

There are a number of excellent Republicans, among others, who would be well suited for Secretary of Defense. William Cohen, if I remember correctly, did quite well under President Clinton. Chuck Hegel has his strengths, but I don't think defense is one of them.

Killer Miller: DarnoKonrad: That's not the issue. Majorities shape policy for a long time. See the legacies of FDR and Reagan -- the last 2 presidents to build large coalitions.

Reagan's coalition is dead. It was on it's way out with a changing electorate, but it was put in the ground with the Iraq war.

Many of us believe the next great realignment in the electorate will be built by Obama. Perhaps it won't be, but McCain and Clinton aren't going to do it. . . and the 50% plus 1 governance we've practiced the last 10 years or so is on it's way out.. . The electorate is just waiting for the right leader to articulate it.

If this is your way of saying that Barack Obama is not interested in bipartisanship then I agree with you.

It's my way of saying what I said.

Eh, I kneejerked. I realize that was snark, now, Churchill.

Muta: Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

I heard recently that people who post the F-R-E-N word on foryms are terrorists. You need to hide under your bed and be afraid of yourself for a while while the adults fix your mess.

Muta: Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

Yes, sir, General Muta. Victory...what IS victory in Iraq, anyway?

inconnu: More like Secretary of Surrender Chuck Hagel...



I think you mean former GOP Secretary of State James Baker III?

Sabyen91: Muta: Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

Yes, sir, General Muta. Victory...what IS victory in Iraq, anyway?

Crushing French Resistance of course.

DarnoKonrad: It's my way of saying what I said.

very existential.

DarnoKonrad: Sabyen91: Muta: Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

Yes, sir, General Muta. Victory...what IS victory in Iraq, anyway?

Crushing French Resistance of course.

I need to go get me some Freedom Fries. I am hungry for some whoopin'

Sabyen91: Muta: Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

Yes, sir, General Muta. Victory...what IS victory in Iraq, anyway?

Killing the terrorists and bringing democracy to the region.
How does that compare to your plan of letting the terrorist kill Americans and allowing Islamofascists to rule the world?

If people like you get their way then we'll all be facing Mecca on Sunday mornings.

Muta: Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.

You do know that President Sarkozy is practically alone among NATO allies in offering to send MORE troops to Afghanistan (new window), right?

Muta: Sabyen91: Muta: Obama/Hagel has less of a chance of bringing victory to Iraq than McCain/Anyone.

/Going French and declaring defeat is no way to run a war.
//Just sayin'

Yes, sir, General Muta. Victory...what IS victory in Iraq, anyway?

Killing the terrorists and bringing democracy to the region.
How does that compare to your plan of letting the terrorist kill Americans and allowing Islamofascists to rule the world?

If people like you get their way then we'll all be facing Mecca on Sunday mornings.

I didn't realise you could get brains in 'lite' versions.

Why does Chuck Hagel hate America?

burndtdan
however in iraq, we can't really win or lose because we don't have a defined goal or strategy.

It seems to be coalescing around crowning al-Maliki as the new strongman.