Hagel for obamas Veep!

Im on a hagel high.

:puke:

for crissakes

:dem:

as Secretary of Defense, but not VP. Hagel is very conservative on social issues but is more in line with the Democrats on foreign policy/defense issues.

I mean look at mccains stand on some social issues. The best thing about it would be the signal it would send, the democratic party is a very big tent, and that being pro-life does not equal republican.

Too close for comfort IMHO.

I have no problem with people being pro-life. I just don't want them being in a position of putting their views in our public policy. I would be very concerned about what kind of judges Hagel would nominate to SCOTUS.

your history says otherwise. Still, maybe a deal could be worked out before hand in regards to those issues.

The President gets to appoint the SCOTUS. THe Senate has to approve the nominee and unfortunately there are enough Democrats in the Senate who won't protest enough if it's another Alito clone. Plenty seemed to think Roberts would be okay and look how well that worked out.

...Secretary of Defense is the best bet - Iraq is the only issue where he agrees with the dems and he won't be in line for the presidency.

...didn't know that - still - far enough down the line.

Hagel for Mayor!!!

Of Bellevue, NE!

...I didn't know that.

that's a myth. He is essentially a Dem on foreign policy and immigration, and a Repub on fiscal and social policy. I think he would make a better Sec of State than of Defense. But I would support him as VP in the unlikely event that Obama chose him, because I trust him (he's my Senator) and I think that that ticket would kick McCain's ass.

though he feels so strongly about anything military and is so appalled by what happened to it in the last few years that, in spite of his passion for foreign policy, he may prefer the defense post. But it is not for us (nor for him) to decide :-).

...Hagel would not even be my third choice for State. Defense is a good fit for him and you know more about him than I do, if his stance on foreign policy and immigration are the same as the dems, that works for him at Defense as well.

have very well-matched views on global affairs--they echo each other, and there is no daylight at all between their foreign policy approaches. And they have worked together on several foreign-policy initiatives. I would bet he ends up as SoS, rather than defense--he's very careful and diplomatic, NOT gaffe-prone or potentially arrogant (unlike Richardson or Biden), and Obama is probably comfortable working with him. I see Webb as a better SoD, since he has that DoD experience in his past.

but also a similar way of thinking, approaching, and analyzing foreign policy issues, which may be even more important.

Obama should really put us on his team--how could he live without our invaluable ideas and advice? :D

Did you check out the video link I posted below(Cleland)? Worth a click I think...

I don't deny that Hagel would be qualified for the job. I'm just tired of playing into the notion that Republicans are somehow stronger on national security issues. That is a perception we should combat, not reinforce.

He was Sec of Defense for Clinton.

I don't think it'sd necessarily about picking a Repub because of the perception that they are stronger on national security, but about picking someone who would be good for the position. He's not the cookie cutter Republican war monger with the attitude that there is a military solution for everything.

But there are also qualified Democrats, as well. Jim Webb comes to mind, though I'd rather see him as VP.

Hagel is a self-hating elephant.

but self-hating? I seriously doubt it.

I am so sick of this. If something happened to Obama, I do NOT was a Republican President by default! That has to be a consideration, as unpleasant a thought as it is.

As others here have said, Secty of Defense would be okay, but VP -- not so much.

No Repukes on our presidential ticket. :puke:

I think he (and us) would be better off in the administration than as VP. It would be damn interesting though...

Chuck Hagel stole his own election with his ES&S machines, and (along with other Repukes like Diebold) enabled this fraud to go nationwide.

So he's reached a level of sanity when it comes to Bush PNAC fascist foreign policy? Good for him. But we know who his machines will be rigged in favor of in November, and it won't be OUR nominee.

That would be like drawing a giant target on a Democratic president.

of an idea.

Hagel's an anti-choice Republican. NO THANKS.

Just saying, if being pro-choice is a test to voting democratic this fall, thats a damn shame.

go ahead...I'll wait over here

The majority of Americans think that individual women, and not the government, should be in charge of their own reproductive systems.

If people are "against abortion", that's fine and dandy. But if they want to outlaw it, or outlaw the birth control pill (as per the HLA plank in the GOP convention that Hagel presumably supports) or if their religious "pro life" convictions drive them to interfere with potentially life-saving stem cell research (again, like Hagel, and again, massively out of step with the majority of Americans) then that is something entirely different.

Sorry, bub, but support for Roe v. Wade is a non-negotiable for many of us. People can be as "pro-life" as they want- as far as THEIR OWN BODIES are concerned. The problem with anti-choicers like Hagel comes in when they want to legislate onto other peoples' bodies.

And like I said- the American People are overwhelmingly PRO CHOICE. If anything, they're far more liberal, and socially libertarian, than the conventional wisdom poo-bahs in either party give them credit for (remember how Terri Schiavo bit the GOP on the ass? Hmmmmm?) ... If anything, we should stop worrying about a few over-courted "values voters" and focus on the people who want government OUT of their bodies and bedrooms.

So no. No anti-choice, reactionary knuckledraggers on the DEMOCRATIC ticket. No sale.

Period.

even think about it????

The son of a bitch voted against insurance for poor kids. He's voted FOR every republican ditty except he's tired of the war.

He's a VERY VERY conservative, nasty, phony bit of goods.

...was to assure more Democratic votes.
Hagel is not only a Republican, he's not even a moderate.
And he doesn't believe that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Why would anyone who believes in equal rights for all people vote for him?

it would cause his base to implode overnight, and he'd lose way more support than he'd gain from anyone in the "middle." Obama is far smarter than that.

To answer your question, they wouldn't. At that point he'd even manage to piss me off. :P

Published on Friday, January 31, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
by Thom Hartmann


Maybe Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel honestly won two US Senate elections. Maybe it's true that the citizens of Georgia simply decided that incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a wildly popular war veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was, as his successful Republican challenger suggested in his campaign ads, too unpatriotic to remain in the Senate. Maybe George W. Bush, Alabama's new Republican governor Bob Riley, and a small but congressionally decisive handful of other long-shot Republican candidates really did win those states where conventional wisdom and straw polls showed them losing in the last few election cycles.

Perhaps, after a half-century of fine-tuning exit polling to such a science that it's now sometimes used to verify how clean elections are in Third World countries, it really did suddenly become inaccurate in the United States in the past six years and just won't work here anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and tabulating ballots.

But if any of this is true, there's not much of a paper trail from the voters' hand to prove it.

You'd think in an open democracy that the government - answerable to all its citizens rather than a handful of corporate officers and stockholders - would program, repair, and control the voting machines. You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open and their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and audited if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with computerized vote counts.

You'd be wrong.

The respected Washington, DC publication The Hill (www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) has confirmed that former conservative radio talk-show host and now Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska.

Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."

What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company.

"This is a big story, bigger than Watergate ever was," said Hagel's Democratic opponent in the 2002 Senate race, Charlie Matulka (www.lancastercountydemocrats.org/matulka.htm). "They say Hagel shocked the world, but he didn't shock me."

MORE >>>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

that he didn't even file FEC or campaign finance reports, or something like that. Hagel didn't need to "steal" his elections--he was an impressive guy with a solid Repub resume, at a time when Nebraska turned sharply red.

(since your quote refers to both) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tLlS_ReRpg

Also suggesting that Rush should run for president since he is so eminently qualified.

It's like walking into upside-down-land some days.

which is more probable.

unlikely as it is that Obama would pick Hagel as VP, I think that McCain picking him is WAY less likely. And so are the chances of Hagel accepting.

Sure it's not crack? Hagel is one of the most conservative Republicans in the senate. He's right on the war but wrong on just about everything else.

No effin' way. Obama picks Hagel, he loses this Dem.

Bake

Since you're Canadian, maybe you don't know that. As a Dead dog Democrat, I have never voted for a Republican in my entire life, and I never will. Go eat something so you can get yourself off the ceiling - you're TOO high.
Choosing Hagel would cost the Democrats the White House. This would be a campaign killer.