Obama Plans to Appoint Some Republicans to His Cabinet

Sen. Hagel for Secretary of Defense? Sen. Luger for Secretary of State? Barack Obama believes that's one way to "neutralize John McCain."

A reporter from the Sunday Times (UK) traveled on Barack Obama's campaign plane last week. Both campaign advisors and Obama told him in interviews,

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.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary.

....Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.

Obama made similar comments in Dallas this week:


Earlier Obama had told the audience at a suburban high school rally in Dallas, Texas, that he intended to follow the example of his hero, President Abraham Lincoln, and appoint a cabinet of the talents, irrespective of party labels.

It's a calculated move to take votes from McCain in November:

Obama believes he will be able to neutralise McCain by drawing on the expertise of independent Republicans such as Hagel and Lugar, who is regarded by Obama as a potential secretary of state.

The reporter said Obama acted as if he were confident Hillary will be out of the race in days:

On the plane Obama walked the aisle, chatting to journalists with a confidence that came from knowing his mighty opponent might be on her way out of the race in 48 hours and a slight edge of nervousness that the nomination is now his to lose.

Obama also sounds ready to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. All of a sudden, that's acceptable? To whom? I wonder what his supporters who believe him to be the anti-war candidate will think.

Obama intends to pour more troops and resources into defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

He also seems anxious to play parent-in-chief not just commander-in-chief:

He drew the noisiest whoops and cheers of the day when he admonished parents for their failings. “Turn off the TV set, put the video game away. Buy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give them help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher. Make them go to bed at a reasonable time. Keep them off the streets. Give them some breakfast. Come on! And since I’m on a roll, if you’re child misbehaves in school, don’t cuss out the teacher! Do something with your child!”

Is there anything he doesn't feel qualified to lecture us on?

He's also hyping his religion:

Obama was equally at home the next day at a gathering of evangelical ministers in Brownsville, southern Texas, where he talked about his introduction to Christianity as an organiser in Chicago. He opened the meeting by referring to the prophet Jermiah, who told people “in a time of uncertainty and despair” that God had plans to “prosper” them and give them “hope”.

“The calling to apply the values of faith to our society is one that has been heard throughout the ages,” he said. “I think about the evangelicals I know who may not agree with me on every issue” - he was thinking of abortion - “but know that poverty has no place in a land of plenty.”

It's a sickening puff piece of an article, particularly at the end where the reporter seems to have bought the talking points that Hillary should drop out. But I'm writing it up because it has details we should know about.

Since Obama's experience is not an issue for the reporter, the main question I have after reading it and learning of his presidential plans is, how much about Barack Obama do we really know, other than what comes from his books, website and speeches? Are the Democrats about to buy a pig in a poke? If it happens, I'll be voting for him with my fingers crossed.

< Rewriting Dean's Legacy | Hillary on Saturday Night Live Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Abraham Lincoln? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    Building a Bridge back to the 19th century!

    For his sake (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:07:16 PM EST
    I hope NO has confirmed support from Hagel and Luger or it will be embarrassing if they come out and say they don't support him.

    [OT--can we please have a thread about SNL--pretty please :) Thanks!]

    Of course, Hillary might be on I see (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:11:08 PM EST
    I had no idea, thanks for letting me know. Of course, a thread for it.

    I posted the info on the open thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:24:17 AM EST
    hours ago :(

    Hate the idea (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Prabhata on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:08:54 PM EST
    I could not support Obama in November.

    I love it... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Tatarize on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:05:39 AM EST
    Any Republican senator should be offered a fairly cushy job in the administration. We're going to pick up about 6 seats in the senate and only need half a dozen more.

    Lincoln actually had a number of people who strongly disagreed with everybody else. Good ideas are good ideas, and actually I'd prefer everybody be the most qualified person for a job... and if you could get rid of a few senators especially some well qualified RINOs from bluer districts.


    By that logic (none / 0) (#176)
    by Duckman GR on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:05:41 AM EST
    then Lugar would be the one to pick since Hagel is already leaving.

    But to think that Dick Lugar is one of the best qualified for anything pretty much escapes me.  A weak kneed Bush Rubber Stamp is not my idea of highly qualified.  And just because he's been a Senator for a long time doesn't mean didly, either.  Strom Thurmond was a Senator forever, think he was of any value to the country after, well, ever?

    The only saving grace of these comments is the "someone like" parts, then you can pick whoever you want.

    I just pray in my unbelieving way that if Obama gets elected that he can be persuaded to get progressive, because as many have noted many, many, many times, Republicans are untrustworthy, greedy, and selfish, and that does not make for good "bipartisanship."


    Military Support (sorry for O/T) (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton endorsed Clinton today. He joins an esteemed group of flag officers supporting Hillary Clinton for Commander-in-Chief:

    1. General Wesley Clark
    2. General John M. Shalikashvili
    3. General Henry Hugh Shelton
    4. General Johnnie E. Wilson
    5. Admiral William Owens
    6. Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
    7. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
    8. Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
    9. Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
    10. Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vllrath
    11. Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
    12. Major General Roger R. Blunt
    13. Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
    14. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
    15. Major General Paul D. Eaton
    16. Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
    17. Major General Antonio M. Taguba
    18. Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
    19. Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
    20. Rear Admiral David Stone
    21. Brigadier General Michael Dunn
    22. Brigadier General Belisario Flores
    23. Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
    24. Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
    25. Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
    26. Brigadier General Preston Taylor
    27. Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
    28. Brigadier General Jack Yeager

    Please don't go off topic (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:17:18 PM EST
    and reprint lists, thanks, just do a link on an open thread.

    Remember how many times (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:14:19 PM EST
    Kerry asked McCain to be his running mate?  I think it was six, followed by six no's.

    Hagel is a good friend of McCain's.  I suspect he'll hold out for a McCain post.  Wow, is Obama ever getting arrogant for a guy who hasn't even been attacked by Republicans yet.

    More troops in Afghanistan?  Where's he gonna get them?  From the hope and change pony?

    And in conclusion, Obama, a Democrat?  I think not.  If he wins the nom, we won't have a Democrat in the race.

    Whatever you think (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:37:30 PM EST
    is fine with me....

    I'm obviously seeing something very different from you.

    And that's our perogative.  


    Oh right, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:16:06 PM EST
    you're on the West Coast.  

    I don't want to give anything away but it was great--not just a debate sketch, but two surprise appearances (one much more significant) and a funny TV Funhouse spoof on BO--which I don't think BO-folk will find too humorous.  

    Sorry, back to the topic :)

    was Hillary there?? (none / 0) (#24)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:28:26 PM EST
    I read somewhere today that she was not on the plane --

    tell -- oh tell -- please please please


    Yes - Hillary was there (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:15:16 AM EST
    and SNL has pegged Obama perfectly.

    Historically Wrong, Again (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST
    Earlier Obama had told the audience at a suburban high school rally in Dallas, Texas, that he intended to follow the example of his hero, President Abraham Lincoln, and appoint a cabinet of the talents, irrespective of party labels.

    This appears to be wrong.  Looks like Lincoln appointed only Republicans to his cabinet after he was elected, although admittedly some had recently changed to Republican since it was essentially a new party.  (You can check out the cabinet members' political affiliations by clicking on the links).  

    The point of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, which I presume is where he gets this idea, was that Lincoln surrounded himself with people who disagreed with each other, not people who were from different parties.  

    a number of presidents have had people (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    working for them that disagreed in private. there is nothing new there. lugar? i am going to have to back away from my on the fence position and say out loud, if that is the case. i am writing hillary's name in.

    the things coming out of obama's mouth leave me saying wtf. he disses the 60s and 70s. he seems to have less knowledge of past presidents than his education would suggest. he disses clinton's time in the wh and then talks up reagan. enough of this bull!


    HelloThere ... and good morning to you! (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST

    One does not have to go to the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    to avoid the echo chamber effect.  

    I think what bothers me about Obama - among other things - is that he seems willing to jettison - or at least sell out - core Democratic principles as a means to changing things, and I'm getting really tired of his dismissive attitude toward people who were responsible for some of the most sweeping changes this country has ever seen.

    He seems not to realize that there is a way to have your vision, to have a progressive agenda carried out by progressives, and also have a healthy environment where the expression of people's doubts and differences are encouraged as a way to solve problems and move forward.  There are tons of qualified Democrats who can serve that purpose.  

    I don't doubt that Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar know their stuff, but do they know more than Joe Biden, for example?  No, and the advantage of having someone like Biden on the team is that he is also a strong advocate for core Democratic principles, and even as he is advising the president, he also has in mind things like constitutional rights and civil rights and isn't going to sell those out when he consults with the president.  I can't say the same for Lugar and Hagel - and Obama should know that, too.

    The question I keep asking is, when you give the speechwriters the day off, when the crowds stop cheering and the glow of adulation wears off, what is Obama's vision, really?  Does he have the commitment to the work - and it will be work - that is needed to put us back on the right track?

    The man who has blown off his subcommittee responsiblities for 14 months because he wants to get elected is not the guy I want in the hardest job there is.


    yup, you got it. (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:50:31 PM EST
    in fact obama reminds me of bush when i read your post. and that is not a good thing.

    Fixed Link (none / 0) (#25)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:31:27 PM EST
    Bill Clinton chose a Repub for Sec of Defense (none / 0) (#72)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    Hopefully a Dem will be in that position soon!
    IIRC - a Republican has held that position for the past 28 years.

    IIRC (none / 0) (#118)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:52:51 AM EST
    Bill Clinton only appointed William Cohen to be Secretary of Defense in his second term. He had Les Aspin Jr and William Perry in the first term. I'm pretty sure Aspin was a Democrat (though thinking back on these things, it's not clear how much that matters).

    I guess I don't necessarily mind Obama thinking about appointing Republicans to his Cabinet, though I wish I could be more certain about his commitment to the Democratic Party first.


    Les Aspin was a Dem (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:17:45 AM EST
    and a noted anti-Vietnam War Dem from Wisconsin (from my neighborhood, actually), and he was BC's first Secretary of Defense. Would have stayed on longer but for health reasons.

    It was Somalia (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    that did Aspin in.....He took the fall for not ordering in armor (tanks) when the Rangers asked for it....

    Thanks for the correction (none / 0) (#132)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    My point is - Dem presidents need to choose Dems for Sec of Defense.

    really and just look at the holy mess! (none / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST
    One more thought (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:21:58 PM EST
    Pig in a poke...that's what superdelegates are for...

    Hillary, stay in the race, even if you lose Texas.

    Afganistan, who knew he was so concerned? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    the audacity:

    Obama also sounds ready to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. All of a sudden, that's acceptable? To whom? I wonder what his supporters who believe him to be the anti-war candidate will think.

    Does he have any standing for discussion of Afghanistan considering the fact that he's (still) too busy campaigning to conduct hearings?

    What does it say about the Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:27:19 PM EST
    if Obama feels he has to go to the republicans to get qualified people for the job?  He's not even nominated yet and he's filling his cabinet with republicans?  I know nothing is confirmed yet, but if this story is true and that's part of the plan...jesus.  I know he already has a bit of disdain for the democratic party (I keep waiting for Obama to start calling it the "democrat party" ala Bush and McCain), but this is just horrific.

    Here, here! (none / 0) (#121)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:45:36 AM EST
    Apparently Obama thinks there aren't enough talented people in the Democratic party to staff the ten or so cabinet positions, instead he will need to get them from the Republican party which has done such a wonderful job in the WH and Congress over the last couple of decades.

    Either that or he is just another cynical politician carving up his hypothetical administration for votes....


    first of all repubs as a group are (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:18:16 AM EST
    too organized and dedicated to vote for obama. it won't help there. the independents are very turned off with the republicans, so how will it help him there. the answer, it won't.

    democrat party. i have taken two posters to (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:53:00 PM EST
    task on here who are obama supporters for using that same term one even claimed to work for the "democrat" party 50 hours a week. yeah, right, sure!

    No (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    I think he is going to find that a lot of democrats will NOT buy that pig in a poke. That Pew Research poll keeps coming back to me, that 20% of democrats will not vote for Obama. If he keeps this up, that figure is only going to rise. We've had 8 years of republican mismanagement at all levels of government. If these clowns had a clue, the country wouldn't be crumbling around us. I don't want a dem president giving them half the keys to mess up even more. Let's get the place cleaned up and actually working again first.

    Yes, they will (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:20:09 AM EST
    Because of Roe.  Hillary's core base cares very deeply about Roe....and electing the first woman.  They will not abandon Roe if they don't get their gal.

    i answer to that demographic... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cdo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:58:03 AM EST
    and let me tell you, don't count on me voting for obama just to save roe. come november, i will only vote for a democrat. if i don't see one on the ballot, then no dice. i will never vote for a republican, and i am not interested in voting for an independent. after 8 years of lunacy, i'm not interested in any candidate who prefers getting cozy with republicans over getting cozy with me.

    Okay--kiss Roe (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:00:15 AM EST
    goodbye--I find that less disturbing than most here....

    sorry, but this is just a silly talking point (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    Number one - if McCain is elected, it's implausible that we will "kiss Roe goodbye".

    Number two - if Roe is overturned someday, it is far from a simplistic outlaw of abortion.

    Number three - most women I know have little confidence that Obama would appoint more liberal justices than McCain would.

    I could go on and on.

    But short summary:  the more the Obama supporters keep trying to bully Hillary supporters (and let's get real here - this is about scaring women about Roe) into voting for Obama in the GE by waving Roe around, the less likely we are to vote for him. Do you think women respond well to bullying?


    I have read that some hard core (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    pro-choice'ers want Roe to be overturned because

    1.  the constant restictions are making it less and less a pro-choice right.

    2.  without Roe, many who once took abortion for granted will demand something similar to the original Roe  

    Yes, I've read that too (none / 0) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    I've also sensed an increasing feeling from women that they are so sick of the constant talk about whether their reproductive rights will or will not be threatened, that they've just tuned out about Roe. They realize that, no matter what a bunch of guys say about legalities, women will take care of women who need abortions. Yes, I know it sounds regressive and weird, but there are these sentiments out there. I think they are just fed up with hearing a bunch of old guys threaten them about Roe all the time.

    I like this blog (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    I have learned that for some Hillary supporters their support of her is so strong they would rather see
    overruled than Hillary defeated.  It is all about electing a woman President....

    And, no threat about

    , as my other posts would show, I think
    has been a giant headfake--most Republicans are in the end against criminalizing abortions and are thus pro-choice....

    I am reasonably okay with

    being overturned; I thought most here were not, but I guess not.....

    sorry (none / 0) (#163)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    I didn't mean to lump you in with the threateners, really!

    well (none / 0) (#100)
    by cdo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:29:05 AM EST
    I find it very disturbing. so the fact that i would say what i said should give you some indication of how serious i am.

    roe doesn't seem important now (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:23:56 AM EST
    however when it is gone, i suggest that it will become very important. all these young people salivating over obama find it gone and? that's right with the open sexuality now, there will be a lot more pregancies and secret abortions. as someone who had a lady in my family have that happen, i can tell you it is very important.

    the truth is high placed republicans in houston are laughing. that's right laughing at obama. they say, if by a long shot he is elected, it will be one term and the presidency will be theirs for a generation. that is what republicans are saying.


    I get the feeling that the younger (none / 0) (#155)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:30:25 AM EST
    voters do not care about Roe. Nor do they care about
    gender or race.

    What they appear to care about is cleaning out Washington DC politicians.  That means Pelosi and Reid, Kennedy and Kerry, etc. Also means policies that they do not connect with.

    That, appears to me, to be their passion ...change Washington and there is no need for party affiliation to accomplish it.


    actually there is a need for party (none / 0) (#161)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    to change it. i can't help but wonder if the older party members coming out for obama have really thought through their decisons. i think not!

    change is not always good. not that this is the same story, but the voters who were dissatisfied in germany after ww1 wanted change and voted for it. i don't think they found the change they got to their liking. the same could be said for the russian revolution.

    so many young people today don't have critical thinking skill either. too much american idol here. do you remember where they asked the obama supporters just what he stood for and the only answer they parroted back was change? that's not good.


    they will care about roe if it is knocked off. (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    they haven't had to get out and fight for what they have now and take it for granted. let them start losing their rights, and there will be a backlash.

    desperate women will do desperate things. having a law won't stop abortions. it never did.


    Why tout a Republican for Defense Secretary? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by larry birnbaum on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:22:30 AM EST
    Hagel might well be a terrific Defense Secretary.  And maybe this will help Obama reassure both independents and people who are more worried about the national security challenges we face.  But it seems to me that it also helps to feed the meme that Republicans are stronger on national defense than Democrats.  This is a persistent image problem that the Republicans have carefully nurtured and I don't think it's a good idea to give it credence in this way.

    It depends... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:28:10 AM EST
    ...on the Republican that is chosen.  I understand your concerns, but Senator Hagel is not a typical Republican.  What Democratic candidate would you suggest?

    Wes Clark (none / 0) (#130)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:39:49 AM EST
    Nonetheless it undermines his claim... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:49:35 AM EST
    ....about judgment. Not unless he finds a Republican who was opposed to the war in 2002. Unfortunately, that might leave him with just Pat Buchanan.

    there are far too many prominent and (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:25:34 AM EST
    talented democrats to name on here. and that is the point. by the way, i don't think hagel would accept. he will of course come out and endorse mccain. and won't obama look silly!

    The civics ignorance level (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:29:59 AM EST
    is really astounding, not to mention the political ignorance.

    Where did anyone get the idea that the presidential nominee is free to choose whoever they want for a running mate?  Do people not have a clue that BOTH nominees -- for President and V. P. -- have to have a majority of the votes of the DEMOCRATS at the DEMOCRATIC National Convention?

    And does anyone think there is a Republican alive who could get a majority of votes of Democrats at the convention as a candidate for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?


    Suggesting he might like a Republican running mate is the quickest and surest way for Obama to lose the nomination.  Fine by me.  

    Wicked Messenger has been banned and all his (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:46:10 AM EST
    comments wiped out. I warned him earlier today to stop chattering and attacking. He didn't listen.

    Alex 82 is limited to 4 comments a day. All in excess will be deleted. See the comment policy on chatterers.

    People who disagree with TalkLeft will not be allowed to dominate the threads here. They can express their disagreement civilly without attacks, without posting the same argument repeatedly, without name-calling  and insults or they can post elswhere. Or get their own blog.

    Commenting here is a privilege not a right.

    Thanks, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:19:38 AM EST
    I just came on to this thread and it looked like  it had been hijacked by Obamabots.

    This is Going Overboard (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by bob h on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:58:23 AM EST
    I could see a token Republican in a minor Cabinet job, but why would you give Secretary of State to someone like Lugar, when we have so many good Democrats to pick from?

    If you put someone like Hagel in the DoD job, aren't you just reinforcing the cliche that national security is a job for Republicans?

    if secretary of state is given to lugar (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    it is time for me to start looking for another country to live in. again i make my comment that high placed republicans in texas are laughing about obama saying that if by chance he gets in, it'll be for one term. then they'll have the presidency back for a generation. with that type of thinking in having lugar, i would suggest they are on to something.

    Obama liked Rummy (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    and thought that many of Bush's other apointees were fine too ....goes to his judgment and naivety, I think:

    YouTube Link to Obama interview

    One of the several reasons that's a bad (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    idea is that Obama doesn't know much about Defense or foreign policy. Which would make Hagel and Luger particularly powerful. State and the Pentagon are not things we want to hand over to Republicans when we have a weak President.

    A Challenge to Jeralyn (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    Your posts consistently attack Senator Obama for willing to reach out to Republicans.  Please explain your refusal to acknowledge Senator's Clinton's attempts to reach out to Republicans on issues ranging from the Iraq vote, her experience in the White House supporting triangulation that she campaigns on and more recent efforts to demonize Iranian elements at the expense of our national security, to say nothing of her support for draconian criminal sentencing.  Once you have adequately addressed my concerns, I will accept the idea that you are not, as you say, "shilling" for your preferred candidate with these ridiculous posts.

    you lose all credibility (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:58:46 AM EST
    and I'm not going to respond when you make misstatements like "her support for draconian criminal sentencing."

    I've written too many times with quotes and dates to  convince those who refuse to believe otherwise.


    Oh please... (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    A) The post you linked to only responds to my concerns about mandatory minimums, and even there she hedges.  "We need to go after mandatory minimums" but they are "appropriate" for some violent crimes.  Left undefined.

    B) I have lost all credibility?  This entire site has lost all credibility with the ridiculous anti-Obama chorus.


    Afghanistan, Jeralyn? (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:27:12 AM EST
    "Obama also sounds ready to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. All of a sudden, that's acceptable?"

    All of a sudden? What are you talking about? Obama has always held the view that the war in Iraq was a distraction from the war against the people who attacked us.

    Are you pushing some GOP meme that to be against Iraq means you are against any effort against the terrorists who actually attacked us?

    From Obama's speech on counter-terrorism, LAST AUGUST.

    "As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

    We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

    Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

    Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety."

    No wonder Clinton supporters keep talking about empty suits and no specifics. Seems like they simply are unwilling to spend the 30 seconds necessary to find the information.

    you sound like Bush and Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:41:48 AM EST
    Let's go invade Afghanistan again even though there hasn't been an attack here since 2001. I don't want any more wars, and I don't appreciate Obama threatening to send more troops to fight in Afghanistan as part of his attempt to sound like he knows what he's talking about on foreign policy.

    It's one thing to be concerned about Afghanistan and place well justified criticism on Bush for not finishing the job there. It's another five years later to say more U.S. troops are going there.

    He's doing the same as Bush...instilling the fear of terrorism in the heart of every American.

    I'm not buying it.


    bush and cheney? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:55:12 AM EST
    whoa, maybe you should delete your own comment. :)
    Thats a real low blow.

    He is not threatening to send more troops to invade again. It is a policy of sending enough troops to finish the job of getting bin Laden and securing the democratic government.

    How can I put this more eloquently...

    "The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them. Yet current U.S. policies have actually weakened President Hamid Karzai's government and allowed the Taliban to retake many areas, especially in the south. A largely unimpeded heroin trade finances the very Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists who are attacking our troops. In addition to engaging in counternarcotics efforts, we must seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding crop-substitution programs, a large-scale road-building initiative, institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in society."

    Thanks Hillary, couldn't have said it better.

    But of course when Hillary says this, it is an example of her wise and tough leadership. When Obama says it, he is Bush, instilling fear, trying to pretend that he knows what he is talking about.

    Its one thing to be a strong advocate for your candidate. But to try to tear down her opponent for having similar positions, well, I just find it pretty disappointing.


    Obama said (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:05:24 AM EST
    according to the reporter:

        Obama intends to pour more troops and resources into defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    I also think the narco-terror angle is a faux one -- one that will end up increasing drug penalties here which are already sky high.  

    The way to win elections now is to be tough on terrrorists rather than tough on crime. It's time we got smart instead of just tough about both.

    Whether it's the threat level or Afghan poppies or  the missing Osama, it's always the same ratcheting up of the fear factor.  I don't accept it.


    "ratcheting up of the fear factor" (none / 0) (#115)
    by dogooder on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:25:25 AM EST
    Did you see Hillary's 3am ad?

    what is the difference between (none / 0) (#116)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:34:09 AM EST
    "pour more troops in" (reporter's words) and "military effort reinforced". Maybe you just disagree with Hillary too. Thats fine, I dont mean to imply that since you are a Hillary supporter you must agree with her on everything.

    I know this is not the time or place for an extended discussion of crime and punishment. I suspect that I would agree with much of what you say.

    My objection of course, was to your utter trashing of Obama, and Obama alone, with the vilest invective (Bush), disparaging his knowledge and his motivations, for having a similar position as Hillary. I find it really unfair.

    I really dont see why the position of either candidate really qualifies for the fear factor label. There are problems in the world, and it should be possible for the candidate to discuss them and propose solutions without being accused of fear mongering. I dont see anything in either statement that uses heated rhetoric or raises unjustifiably frightening prospects, or is in any way seemingly intended to get the blood pressure up.


    Well, he had these ideas back in August. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:05:08 AM EST
    So why didn't he call a meeting of his subcommittee?

    Why why why why why?


    despite what you might have heard (none / 0) (#117)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:44:24 AM EST
    jurisdiction over Afghanistan is under the  Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs chaired by John Kerry.

    And it is the Foreign Affairs Committee, not Armed Services.


    Who said Armed Services ctee? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:29:52 AM EST
    I don't see it in this thread. Correcting someone no longer here?

    ah, no (none / 0) (#166)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    The issue at hand was sending troops to Afghanistan. That is, as a subject matter, the oversight concern of Armed Services, not Foreign Affairs. My point was that there is not only a geographic disconnect underlying the question asked of me (why didnt Obama hold hearings if he has these ideas about Afghanistan), but a subject matter disconnect as well.

    Pig in a poke? (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:09:54 AM EST
    Well, there sure are a lot of people going around calling up AAR and Nova-M and reading off of a sheet about how Barack Hussein Obama might be an al-Qaeda operative. Though, wouldn't it make more sense, if you were sneaking an al-Qaeda operative into the US presidency, to give him or her a name less like Mohamed Hussein Osama Baruch ben Chaim bin Laden and more like, oh, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton?

    Fortunately for Barack Obama, I am his age and a diehard lecturer, always willing to change the lecture but not afraid to give it, so I think he and I will get along just fine.

    BTW if you want to know whom to support, simply apply Bill Clinton's rule. It's as easy as that. I assume Mr. Clinton will be voting for Barack Obama.

    republican in our primarys...why (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jejajaja3 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM EST
    Please stop and think why are republicans doing this!! They
    have something on the most liberal senator? What could it be..." MINISTER " Farrachan... obomasheep shady real estate deals... obamaosheep will vetrens vote for someone who won't salute the flag... obomasheep can he win Florida... obamasheep...funny how he agrees with everthing Hillary says oh except health care going to be long meeting where he must STAND THE WHOLE TIME...obamasheep..."I'll change nafta but let me check with canada first"...obamasheep...Teddy Kennedy can pick a winner just ask john Kerry oh wait that didn't work did it hmm...obamasheep... " I reserve the right to go back in to Iraq"...obamasheep..."I'll hold hearings on nato when I'm not so busy maybe"... obamasheep I'm a uniter black super delegates must vote for me let the white folk do as they may... obamasheep... 50 million in February ... 49 from oprah... obamasheep... just stop and think....

    Hagel (none / 0) (#8)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:15:07 PM EST
    Strange...as a lifelong Democrat I hoped that Senator Obama would select Senator Hagel as his running mate.  

     I suspect that this post, more than anything else it purports to convey, shows how out of touch Clinton supporters have become.  Do you actually believe most Americans dislike Senator Hagel, or that a bipartisan coalition is something we would be turned off by?

    Why? Other than speaking out against how (4.00 / 4) (#20)
    by ivs814 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    the war was conducted, Hagel is rated one of the most conservative Senators.  Hard to believe a "lifelong" Democrat is rooting for a hardcore Conservative.  Best you move on to the Republican Party.

    Hagel as VP (none / 0) (#14)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    no - no and no

    With the Supreme court as tight as it is now with Republicans - we do not need any reason to have a Republican tip it even more in their favor


    i agree that hagel.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by jor on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:12:16 AM EST
    ... shouldn't be VP. But that doesn't mean he should not be considered for sec. of defense.

    No GOP for sec of Defense either (none / 0) (#106)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:51:11 AM EST
    Whole purpose is - to get us out of Iraq - remember

    the democratic slot belongs to a democrat. (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:36:46 AM EST
    to think otherwise is very foolish in my humble opinion. the republicans are not our friends and won't be. they are mean and have no limit to what they will do to gain the presidency. hagel has already said he won't leave the republican party.

    Yes, I do believe (none / 0) (#160)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    that a bipartisan coalition, during this situation in American politics, would turn off a lot of people. If you think progressives are just DYING for the opportunity to work with Republicans, you need look no further than any progressive blog.

    The nice nicknames for Republicans include Repugs and Repukes (with many other variations on this theme). McCain is often called McInsane. Santorum anyone? Dummy Rumsfeld? Chimpy?

    (The right has come up with names for progressives and Democrats, too. Although, they are far less creative and utterly dull.)


    i suggest you turn your research to (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    just what the repubs have done to the american people. and what do the repubs call the democrats? i'd hate to think what they call others behind closed doors where they plot to beat the hapless democrats one more time.

    concentrating on the names is very superficial by the way.


    Names are not so superficial (none / 0) (#177)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:22:33 PM EST
    They're a good gauge of how various groups view others. Name calling is quite informative, even if it is silly. I wasn't citing the name calling as evidence against progressives! By any means. I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying.

    I was simply pointing out that progressives don't seem to want to work with Republicans--and with good reason. Conservativism is, in many cases, wrong; and the Republicans are often obstructionists.

    My main point was against the idea the original comment: that people in this country just want to get along and work together. Obviously not, based on a survey of the comments on blogs (both conservative and progressive).

    And you are right to point out Republican name calling. [I did the same thing.] Conservatives are not interested in working with progressives.

    Indeed, my view is that Obama's desire for the main political factions to work together is not feasible. Precisely because of the sentiments that underline the name calling.


    Of course (none / 0) (#178)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    These sentiments stem from fundamental disagreements on the issues. But the sentiments are, arguably, the oil that keeps the fire stoked.

    Where to start (none / 0) (#9)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    Jeralyn - I am afraid it is going to take more than crossed fingers to make this work

    There are so many things wrong with this picture of Obama as described above - and my number one problem

    Reality is missing from it all

    Hagel, HAGEL - - you must be kidding
    Lugar, LUGAR -- why not trent Lott then
    Obama as Parent-in-chief -- I've had enough of Bush as parent-in-chief do not need a parent

    and of course religion - yes we have loved it with Bush harping at us with his religion

    all I can say - is stay the hell away from my religion - it is honestly none of your business -
     remember the separation between church and state!!

    All that makes me (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:44:34 PM EST
    more willing to support him.....

    Ok then - - n/t (none / 0) (#105)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:49:51 AM EST
    The Barack I know. (none / 0) (#12)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    Is there anything he doesn't feel qualified to lecture us on?

    This is the Barack that was lecturing black churches and Republicans about corruption while he was closing on his house.

    Here in Chicago we always have a public service campaign to get kids to school on the first day so they're counted. I always laughed when I'd see Sen. Obama standing with his kids on the news  talking about getting kids off to school. It is real easy to  get your kids to school when they go to a private school and the parents he's lecturing are sending their kids to crumbling schools in gang infested neighborhoods.

    Cohen... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:22:59 PM EST
    Not to belabor an obvious point, but am I now to view Secretary of Defense Cohen as a fundamental betrayal of Democratic principles?  Or is that another part of Senator Clinton's experience I should ignore?  The rules are hard to follow, I know, but I am busy trying to understand the Texas primary before it is settled in the courts...at the behest of a campaign that appears to follow its own rules.

    Mistake By Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    I believe Cohen, while a decent fellow, should not have been appointed Sec. Defense by Bill Clinton.  It angered Sam Nunn, who helped Republicans knee-cap Clinton on gays in the military within a couple of weeks of Clinton's inauguration.  Worse, it sent a message that the best choice for Secretary of Defense was a Republican.  The military was anti-Clinton and having a Republican, even a decent one like Cohen, as Sec Def did not help at all.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, my biggest fear about Obama is that he's going to be Bill Clinton's first term all over again.


    Cohen was not the first SecDef (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:42:57 PM EST
    under Bill; Les Aspin was.....

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    I totally forgot about Aspin.  I still think Cohen was a mistake because it sent the message that there were no other democrats qualified for the job.

    Sam Nunn, etc. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
    and Cohen's wife is a lovely African-American woman.  I suppose that had nothing to do with the objections to him....

    Incidentally, Clinton's cabinet and White House staff fulfilled one big campaign promise...it did look like America.

    Luckily, it was more competent and less corrupt than America...not that anyone cares about that.


    Are you honestly suggesting... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:21:09 AM EST
    ...that by pointing to Cohen I am engaged in race baiting?  Because Cohen's wife is African American?  I really want to understand, because I find the comment "had nothing to do with objections to him" not only troubling but potentially offensive.  The point was that he was a Republican.  

     Please let us conduct ourselves honorably in this campaign.


    Calm down, Alec...it's not about you. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:44:46 AM EST
    I am suggesting that Sam Nunn's (and others') objections to Cohen had multiple facets...one of which was racism...yes.  Sam Nunn would not object to a Republican on party grounds alone.

    You will recall that prior to Cohen's appointment Clinton had been undermined by both the Joint Chiefs and the Congress (including Dems such as Nunn...and others) in his attempt to allow gays to serve in the military without descrimination.


    Sam leans so far right (none / 0) (#128)
    by joc on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 08:21:02 AM EST
    he makes Zell Miller look like Bernie Sanders.

    But I think his real objection to Cohen as Secretary of Defense was that the he wasn't the one being appointed. Given the way Nunn, kneecapped Clinton on the 'gays in the military' issue in the first months of Clinton's Presidency this was not a surprise (Nunn not being chosen), but I'm sure he still thought he should have got the job.


    Yup. (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    Cohen was hardly (none / 0) (#19)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:25:29 PM EST
    a hardcore Republican

    Besides - if you must have a token Republican then make it a transportation secretary like Bush did -- hardly anything that will make the big difference


    So... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:27:47 PM EST
    ...why is Senator Hagel objectionable as Secretary of Defense?  Or are you simply unprepared to answer that question, because you believe Senator Hagel to be too conservative?  If so, please identify all of his differences from Cohen that concern you.  Please start with his criticism of the Bush administration's failures in Iraq and how they are insufficient.  

    Hagel was suggested for VP (none / 0) (#33)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:39:51 PM EST
    and besides - if we are going to get out of Iraq - i truly doubt that a Republican will be of much help there --

    I mean that was the whole point - get us out of Iraq??


    I do not... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:44:33 PM EST
    ...agree with Senator Hagel on many if not most issues.  But I agree with his approach to politics, I find him honorable and I believe he sees this war for what it is.  Why would you reject reaching across the aisle for the sake of partisanship, particularly when the alternative is selecting someone who voted for a war that is literally at the heart of all of our problems?  A Republican who can admit to a mistake is almost always preferable to a Democrat who feels that admitting to a mistake is a sign of weakness and implicitly promises to continue failed policies.  

    He voted for the war. (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:23:24 AM EST
    He's a conservative Republican.  He has a 0% rating from the HRC.  He wants to privatize social security.  He doesn't want to expand healthcare.  He's really bad on the environment...

    If the Democrat you are referring to in your post is Hillary Clinton, she has the same vote, and later regret, on Iraq, BUT actually supports Democratic policies!  

    But Hagel is more or less John McCain 2.0 - New and Improved Straight Talker Edition.  


    The Rs (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:10:11 AM EST
    do not deserve to be on board a dem. admin. They did plenty of damage. Besides, democrats have very qualified people.

    Obama is sounding like Lieberman already.

    Chuck Hagel is not an honorable guy asfaic. He was president of a company who supplied  voting machines when he first ran for the senate and won against a popular governor. A virtual newbie and wins out of 'nowhere'.  It doesn't pass the smell test with me.

    Chuck Hagel maybe a viet vet, but he voted consistently with GWB on the Iraq
    war. He talked against the war but when it came to a vote. he never voted against the war.



    go take a long hard look at hagel's (none / 0) (#152)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    record. he is very right wing in most of his votes. he took a stand on iraq and i respect him for that. however, that doesn't mean he needs to be obama's running mate. heck no!

    cohen perhaps wasn't a hard core (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    republican. i can see that. however, lugar is. there is no place in a democratic cabinet for lugar. as an independent, i find that idea insulting.

    Traditionally there is one member of the (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    opposing party selected for the cabinet. W put Norm Mineta in charge of transportation.

    It's like we get it, (none / 0) (#27)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:33:06 PM EST
    you like Republicans.  There's a fine line between working with the other side, even having one or two in your cabinet, and a full embrace.

    I don't think Cohen was a mistake in that he's quite moderate--more socially liberal, no? (not that it's relevant to his position as Defense Secretary, but I think you get my point).

    I'd be interested to hear what Dodd, Kerry, Kenedy (none / 0) (#31)
    by ivs814 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:37:36 PM EST
    Dorgan, Rockefeller and company think of their pre-mature endorsements now.    If Obama is elected, Republicans who have voted in lock-step will be relieved to hear that they won't have to skip a beat.  

    RedState support (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:38:23 PM EST
    Obama's pull among Independents is not a conspiracy....

    His religion will help him tremendously......For Valentines Day, he flew back to Chicago to be with his family.....I like that about him....

    Hillary's worked the refs really well and now has SNL in the tank for her....

    You can't go after independents (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:40:42 PM EST
    while losing the base.  

    That is NOT good politics.


    Being religious (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:48:41 PM EST
    will alienate the base?.....

    I want no part of that kind of Democratic Party....


    Pushing said religion on others won't help. (none / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    Nor will his holier than thou (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:54:01 PM EST
    lectures about many topics.

    Like... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:56:02 PM EST
    ...suggesting that Senator Obama's supporters are threatening the health and safety of infants at three am in the morning? Or that the campaign message for this year should be 2008: Abandon all hope...?



    Your idea of pushing (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:08:08 AM EST
    is probably different than my idea of pushing.....

    After the whole Clinton mess, I would like normal.....


    Could be. (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:13:15 AM EST
    I'd also go for a bit of normal after the whole Obama mess.

    obama doesn't suggest normal to me. (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:19:42 PM EST
    what it suggest to leaping and not looking. it suggests lack of critical thinking, arrogance and hubris.

    that is naive! you are misreading (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    what is being written. most of us are sick of having bush's religeous views shoved down our throats and being used in politics. i respect anyone's religeon in private. i don't want it in politics. next!

    you really think this helps him with (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:42:25 AM EST
    independents? oh come on! i am an independent and former republican. i find the idea beyond disgusting. lugar as secretary of defense? heck now! he backed bush's bad policy decisons. independents are turned off with republicans. what can obama be thinking? that's right, he clearly isn't hubris and ego have taken over.

    excuse the error, lugar-secretary of state! (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    Hey (none / 0) (#34)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:40:07 PM EST
    McCain for the Supreme Court!

    Can we all get behind this nomination? :-) (none / 0) (#60)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:07:14 AM EST
    buh bye (none / 0) (#41)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    Chuck Hagel might well be a good SecDef in the cabinet of Clinton, Obama, or McCain.  

    However, unless the attempt to blackmail Clinton supporters into voting for Obama because they'll lose reproductive rights with McCain is no longer operative, he would not be a good choice for VP since he's pro-life.  Other than the criticism of the Iraq war, he's always been very conservative.

    That you believe... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:52:25 PM EST
    ...abortion is a litmus test is indicative of Senator Clinton's problems with virtually everyone except the boomers.

     The social issue litmus test is gay rights, on which she has no leverage, protestations to the contrary.  As a pro-choice voter, that issue is to me moot.  But when Senator McCain tells his "base" that he is pro-life with a wink and a nod, all the while willing to sacrifice our economy and the lives of my peers to the idolatry that is the Iraq war, well, if abortion is your issue, you are barking up the wrong tree with Senator Clinton.  


    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    So right to privacy is not a priority for Obama?

    Then what's with all the threats from other Obama supporters that if women don't vote for him, mean old McCain will take their rights away?


    These folks are on a hit (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:59:49 PM EST
    and run mission, Ralph.  Wicked has only posted today.

    Ignore them.


    Capital idea, thanks :-) (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:02:29 AM EST
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:07:56 AM EST
    ...of the threats of which you speak.  As near as I can tell, they are all pro-choice.  Senator McCain purports to be pro-life without much convincing.  

     But look, for some reason people are stuck on abortion as a litmus test.  Good luck with all that.  Most people in my generation (y) and the predecessors (X) think that issues like gay rights really show how commited one is to individual autonomy, and for good reason.  Abortion is a deeply divisive issue, but it does not reflect the same problems opposition to homosexuality does.  Senators Clinton and Obama both support reductions on abortions in the U.S.; does it follow they should hope there are fewer homosexuals?  Moreover, it does not help partisan for partisansake Democrats that Justice Kennedy, a moderate Republican appointment, has proven to be the greatest supporter of gay rights on the Supreme Court.  


    Interesting re Kennedy (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:15:36 AM EST
    and gay rights....

    I think the Roe issue is largely a huge head fake....Even staunch pro-lifers George Allen and Fred Thompson would not make abortion illegal in the first trimester, which is when 90% of abortions occur.

    And Obama is absolutley right that all of Hillary's supporters would vote for him--in large part because of


    Amazingly enough I agree that Republican (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:23:17 AM EST
    politicians don't really want to overturn Roe.  If they did, it couldn't be used as a campaign issue anymore.  It would decimate Bush's base.

    If posters here are any guide, Hillary's supporters don't seem terribly moved by the Roe argument either.  After all, there will be a Democratic congress which will have to confirm any McCain nominations.  So I think Obama is quite wrong.


    Good point (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:30:02 AM EST
    It makes it easier for me to vote for McCain....He is good on the environment....Hillary's a hawk and is unlikely to remove the troops anyway....

    I have never been a registered Democrat--used to be a registered Republican until Bush, and now am a registered Independent....The tax cuts will expire anyway even under a President McCain, so the deficit will tend to take care of itself...

    Going the way of Ahnold as a socially liberal/ moderate Republican is starting to grow on me.....I have been voting for Democrats the last few years.....Hillary would cure that....  


    Ah, MKS is another Reagan Dem (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:25:13 AM EST
    and that makes much clear here. (Btw, have you been to DKos? It's run by another Reagan Dem.)

    That is indeed literally true (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    I voted for Reagan.....a long time ago....

    I vote now for Democrats about 85% of the time and almost always for the Democratic Presidential candidate.....

    But, yes, Hillary would do quite well at shrinking the Democratic Party.


    obama is absolutely wrong. (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:22:55 PM EST
    we know better than to think that roe is safe with obama.

    let's see! gay rights is important but (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    choice for women isn't. yeah, right! move along folks, nothing being said here that will win anyone an election.

    That clearly (none / 0) (#165)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    ...was not what my post stated.  This kind of dishonesty is what is pulling votes away from Senator Clinton.

    no it isn't! and there's no dishonesty (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    on her part.

    Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:55:03 PM EST
    don't want Independent voters....It is about copying Rove's playbook (fighting the last war) of turning out your base.

    And, God help you, if you express any religious conviction or that you understand that the majority of people in this country are religious......

    Secular people just like Hillary are all that is needed....Everyone else can take flying jump in the lake--yeah, that's Hillary's style.....

    hahahaha (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    Do I sense a bit of worry on the part of the Obama camp?

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:04:07 AM EST
    New Hampshire always looms...And the Clinton machine has got NBC in line....

    and will work over caucus goers in Texas....and has written instructions to their people on how to do it....

    Of course, I wrote here that I thought Obama would lose Wisconsin....  


    Too bad you were not (none / 0) (#64)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:10:20 AM EST
    correct about Wisconsin.  I'll be caucusing in Texas.  If I get worked over, will let you know.

    Actually, we Hillary-supporters (none / 0) (#61)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    only urge non-swimmers to jump in the lake.

    We're hard core but no use wasting effort needlessly.  

    For swimmers, we have other suggestions.  How do you feel about mushroom quiche for lunch?


    Can this old Iliberal Independent (none / 0) (#127)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:32:53 AM EST
    be a part of the Pro-Hillary support group even if I don't want to jump in the lake? :) And even if I have no idea what the ** you are talking about?

    Yup! (none / 0) (#138)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    that's funny. i am an independent. (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    it seems to me that obama supporters are saying to the democratic base to go and jump in the lake.

    i am a former republican and now (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:29:40 PM EST
    a registered independent. i am voting for hillary. a number of women i know who leaned to the republicans in years past are also voting for hillary.

    Repubs in Obama's Cabinet not a new position (none / 0) (#52)
    by jfung79 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:15 PM EST
    Obama was suggesting Lugar, Hagel, even Arnold Schwarzenegger, for his Cabinet, since way back, before the Iowa caucus.  As a former Californian who suffered under Arnold's college tuition hikes, I was really turned off by the Schwarzenegger suggestion, which convinced me that Obama is not someone I can support.

    It's probably best to get elected before (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:01:09 AM EST
    naming you cabinet anyway.  Works out best I imagine.  Hard to get them confirmed if you lose.

    Unfortunately, some of Obama's supporters (none / 0) (#134)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:14:31 AM EST
    cannot hear that song... this is what they believe

    Obama wants to use the power of politics to get us a MAJORITY in Congress to pass progressive legislation

    Just personal opinion (none / 0) (#82)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    that reforming this horrid process is really important for the future.  

    yup, if he's willing to pick these guys, (none / 0) (#87)
    by OldCoastie on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
    can Supreme Court Justice Lieberman be far behind?

    makes my head hurt...

    yee ha, imagine the invective (none / 0) (#92)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:55:25 AM EST
    flying around here if that were discoverd coming from the Obama camp.

    Jearlyn (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:24:53 AM EST
    Amazing, it seems whatever criticism is made of Obama, someone, mainly supporters, will find a quote on his website or something in what he said that supports the other side.  What does this man stand for?   Obama is a construct designed to win at all costs using the paradigms that have one in the past from the Republicans.  He is only designed to win.  After that, no one has a playbook.  God help us after that, if he wins.  I insist if it's still around, watch the Reno Gazette interview, not the part about Reagan, that was nothing.  where he talks how he will staff his cabinet and choose a VP--if that does not scare you I don't know what will.  He starts by talking about all the areas that he does not feel secure in:  Military, economy (gee, just a few little things) and he will just hire the experts.  I guess "his judgement" is what we are buying.  You know the one he described as "boneheaded".  

    if he appoints Republicans (none / 0) (#102)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:38:31 AM EST
    who supported the Iraq war, it doesn't give him credibility on the charges he levels at Hillary.
    He is saying it doesn't matter because I want  these guys despite their vote. Just on that alone, I would not even consider a Rethug after they enabled GWB and all his failings.

    Obamas cred would take a hit. He should keep his mouth shut lest he  loses the undecideds.

    He's sounding like he want to be everything to everyone. Typical politician.

    And no, I don't want dear Abby advice on the campaing trail telling me to help my kid with his homework. Bleh.

    Chuck Hagel? (none / 0) (#111)
    by phat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:07:59 AM EST
    You're kidding me, right?

    That has got to be a joke.

    Speaking as a Nebraska Democrat, um, I think I'm offended.

    Chuck Hagel?

    Chuck Hagel is an embarrassment.


    Is that legal? (none / 0) (#120)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:19:19 AM EST
    I thought US law prohibited candidates from naming cabinet members.  Surely, Bush strongly indicated Powel for SOS (and you know Media just lapped us anything W gave them.)

    Yet I thought there is a law against it, since it could be contrued as bribery for support(I mean this as historical refrence only).

    Appoint Lieberman (none / 0) (#126)
    by jnickens on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:29:25 AM EST
    Obama should find a suitable position for Joe Lieberman to get him out of the Senate too.

    Clinton Wants Bipartisan Cabinet (none / 0) (#179)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    She just said so on the Daily Show. Something like "I have often said I want a bipartisan cabinet"

    I posted a similar message on a more timely recent thread, but thought this was directly on point here.