As Barack Obama nears the finish line in the race for the Democratic nomination, speculation will soon be rampant about Obama's choice for a running mate. A lot of Democrats have opined that having Obama and Hillary running together would be a "dream ticket."
Although a Clinton/Obama ticket could be a tough combination for the GOP to beat, it now appears that come March 4 that will probably be a moot point. Would Clinton lower herself to accept a VP spot with Obama? Not likely, and it's even less likely that Obama would ask her to run with him, given all his talk about how she represents the "old way" of doing things.
Chuck Hagel is a Republican senator from Nebraska. He's a decorated Vietnam veteran and an articulate, thoughtful man who last year considered jumping into the race himself, and has been talked about as a possible running mate for Mike Bloomberg, should he decide to run. Although a social conservative, he's been a thorn in the side of the Bush/Cheney administration with his criticism of their Iraq policy, and is basically on the same page as the Democrats on the issue.
Obama is an attractive candidate for so many people because of his desire to end the partisan bickering that has resulted in gridlock in Washington on so many fronts. What better way to demonstrate that "we are not red states and blue states, but the United States of America" than to put a Republican on the ticket? Hagel would undoubtedly help in winning over more Republicans and Independents and should help to turn some red states a bright shade of blue. His prominent membership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would also help to fortify Obama, who some perceive as lacking foreign policy expertise.
Would Hagel accept such an invitation? Appearing on CNN's Late Edition over the weekend, he gave this curious response when asked if he would support John McCain for president: "Well, I've not been involved in the primary and I am still not involved in any of that. At the appropriate time, then I'll have something to say about it." Earlier this month he was quoted as saying, "I like Barack Obama a lot. He's smart. He listens. He learns. He's a worthy candidate for president."
He also appeared to line up with Obama's views when, in the CNN interview, he talked about how we should approach dealing with rogue nations. "Great powers engage. Great powers are not afraid. Great powers trade," Hagel said. "If we're going to see any improvement in the Middle East, in Central Asia, the two wars that we're bogged down in right now, we're going to have to engage Iran."
Such a pairing, of course, would be historic, but it wouldn't be the first time it's been considered. Only four years ago, there was much speculation that John Kerry would choose John McCain as his running mate. For an Obama campaign that has already established itself as historic, such a bold move might prove that he really does represent change in a deeply significant way.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Roger Choate
An interesting piece, and an interesting thought. Anything is probably possible this year!
2 - Krutic
Obama represents change and bipartisanship only in his rhetoric. Look at his (however limited) record - he is the most predictable liberal vote in the senate. (According to David Brooks on the NY Times, a computer program can vote for Obama)
He plays it safe, stays out of contentious issues and goes along with the party line.
My guess - he'll pick some left of center, retired military general (who is critical of the war) to give him some credibility on the war issues. I heard Gen. Anthony Zinni's name being floated around somwhere.
3 - Clavos
While I don't disagree with your premise that a bipartisan ticket would be salubrious for the national body politic, I am compelled to point out a delicious irony in your article, to wit:
In one sentence you quote Obama's memorable remark, saying,
"What better way to demonstrate that "we are not red states and blue states, but the United States of America" than to put a Republican on the ticket?" (emphasis added)
And yet, in your very next sentence,
"Hagel would undoubtedly help in winning over more Republicans and Independents and should help to turn some red states a bright shade of blue." (emphasis added)
Thus highlighting that, despite Obama's high-minded rhetoric, we are all still partisan, deep down.
But, a good article even so, and a good (if somewhat unlikely) idea, as well.
4 - Doug DeLong
I am compelled to point out a delicious irony in your article.
Actually, I don't think it's as delicious as you may perceive it to be. The first "red/blue" usage
was a reference to Obama's desire for a more bipartisan political environment, while the second "red/blue" usage was just about the mechanics of winning the election, which is, after all, the goal of all the candidates.
5 - Clavos
And yet, the desire (whether yours or his) to "turn some red states a bright shade of blue" is partisan, which was my point.
6 - Doug DeLong
Well, if by partisan you mean a desire on my part for Obama to win the election, then I guess you're right.
7 - Clavos
Yup, that's what i meant...
8 - PulSamsara
Clinton attacks two points of Barack Obama foreign policy:
(1) that we should actively engage both our partners and our advisories in the world... an important distinction is that engaging does not mean tea parties, slaps on the back and watching colorful folksy ceremonies meant to procure cultural assimilation between our country and another - it means active engagement meant to spell out clear differences and to point out behaviors that need improvement or simply will not be tolerated. It is spelling out long term 'road maps' that will be mutually beneficial for both parties. Not at all easy... but a must none the less.
--- America can most certainly sit down at a table and converse from a position of strength with any nation on the globe. To surrender to fear and not actively work toward a more civilized world community in the future is to simply be handing our posterity a future of barbarism. Barack Obama is 'dead on' in his assessment in leveraging America's great reservoir of national character in order to achieve a better future for those who come after us - for our children. We have seen what the opposite approach has done for America.
(2) Instead of wasting America's blood and treasure on the Iraq blunder - Obama has LONG (more than 5 years) argued that we must use America's might to prosecute those responsible for September 11th in the Afghanistan theater of war. This 'theater' includes the mountainous regions of western Pakistan where Barack Obama has stated that 'if the Pakistanis will not go after our enemies than we will'---
We have just done this via long range guided weapons attacks and have 'eliminated' the '3rd in command'. This is the approach that Mr. Obama has advocated... and again - his JUDGMENT had been correct.
Clinton can talk about her 'experience'- but when it matters Barack Obama gets it RIGHT !
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
9 - REMF
"Clinton can talk about her 'experience'-"
Like her "experience" in living with a serial adulterer and looking the other way...?
10 - Dave Nalle
This is just as nonsensical as the speculation about McCain and Kerry, which was basically an attempt to smear McCain and is still being used for that purpose. There was no substance to it, and McCain had apparently never even considered it, despising Kerry as much as most sensible people.
As for Hagel, I'm sur he'd like to be VP, but the speculation that he might team up with Obama is just bizarre. There are all sorts of Republicans with a wide range of beliefs, but they do mostly share a common revulsion for socialism and that's what Obama is selling.
Dave
11 - Doug DeLong
Dave,
Are you opposed to the concept of a bipartisan ticket, or just this particular example of a possible ticket? Check out this Lanny Davis piece in the WaPo. He makes a compelling case for the idea of a mixed ticket and predicts that the Dems and maybe even the GOP will come up with one. He says if one party has a mixed ticket and the other one doesn't, that party will win.
Personally, I don't see McCain picking a Dem to run with because it would drive the already foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives completely over the edge. But I have no trouble believing that Obama could do it, and do it to his advantage.
And why would Hagel decline an opportunity to endorse McCain while praising Obama? I wouldn't be surprised if feelers have already been sent out to Hagel.
Of course, you may be right. I think it's probably a longshot that we'll end up with a mixed ticket, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it does happen, especially in the current political environment.
12 - michael
this would be a dream ticket for me. I really like Hagel and wish he would have ran for prez. I like Barack too but for different reasons. putting these two together, no one can beat this ticket and what a great 8 years america will have
13 - Doug DeLong
Dave said...but they do mostly share a common revulsion for socialism and that's what Obama is selling.
So Obama's a socialist now? Is that where the right is going to go now that "liberal" has lost its ability to scare people? I guess if "socialist" doesn't do the trick, you could always up the ante to "communist." That's a golden oldie that should freak people out quite nicely. Obama, the communist Muslim. Okay, got it.
14 - Bennett
Well thought out and written piece. Thanks Doug! I look forward to reading more from you in the weeks ahead.
Please ignore Dave as much as possible. He's got his maniacal mission and won't let the truth get in his way.
However, I enjoyed your response to his comment. Pretty much hit the nail on the head.
15 - Doug DeLong
Thank you sir, for your kind words. If it's serious political analysis that you're looking for, be sure to check out my epic essay entitled "Mitt Romney's Cure for Masturbation."
16 - Dave Nalle
Bennett, I'm curious what you think my 'maniacal mission' is.
So Obama's a socialist now? Is that where the right is going to go now that "liberal" has lost its ability to scare people? I guess if "socialist" doesn't do the trick, you could always up the ante to "communist." That's a golden oldie that should freak people out quite nicely. Obama, the communist Muslim. Okay, got it.
The key thing for me is the truth. There's no truth to Obama being a muslim while it is absolutely true that he's a socialist and was at one time an active communist. As for being a liberal, I'm fine with liberals. Obama isn't one.
But the point on the bipartisan ticket is that Obama would alienate the far left democrats with Hagel and also drive away moderates and even some Republicans who would otherwise vote for him. It's a plan for losing.
Dave
17 - Dave Nalle
It occurs to me that Obama picking a Republican running mate would be the equivalent of admitting that the Dems have moved so far to the left that it's not possible to balance Obama with anyone from within their own party. That'd going to scare voters.
Dave
18 - Sue Martin
I don't see how Obama can lose - after all, he will fix your computer (and more!)
19 - Doug DeLong
Dave said: There's no truth to Obama being a muslim while it is absolutely true that he's a socialist and was at one time an active communist.
Well, I see you've gotten a ticket for the "Smear Obama" express. Thanks for giving us a preview of coming attractions. If you have some actual evidence of this smear that didn't originate in some underground right-wing sewer, feel free to enlighten us. And if it has anything to do with Frank Marshall Davis, save your breath.
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
(Joseph Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy, June 9, 1954)
20 - Michael J. West
It occurs to me that Obama picking a Republican running mate would be the equivalent of admitting that the Dems have moved so far to the left that it's not possible to balance Obama with anyone from within their own party.
If by "admitting that the Dems have moved so far to the left," you mean "pretending that they've moved to the left." The Dems have been moving deep into the center since at least 1996, probably before.
Also, re #16, I've heard the bit with Obama's mentor being a communist - the tired old "guilt by association" fallacy - but this is the first time I've heard anyone say that Obama himself was "at one time an active communist." I presume you've got some tidbit of support for that accuation, Dave?
21 - Propagandist
Obama seems to be collecting endorsements of all kinds of loosers and nuts. Farrahkhan to John Kerry to Chris Dodd today.
I understand the nominee usually has no control over it, but he should at least not make a big deal of these endorsements.
Obama is also coveting Edwards' endorsement..does a two time presidential nominee loser and one time VP loser really make a difference?!
What is up with associating with loosers?
And if I were the potential democratic nominee I'd stay as far away as possible from John Kerry. And Obama seems to let Kerry speak for him on news networks. If the last election proved anything, it was don't let Kerry open his mouth.
But then I suppose Obama was against Kerry's endorsement before he was for it..
22 - Doug DeLong
What is up with associating with loosers?
That's rich...calling John Edwards a loser. Most people, even those who don't agree with his politics, would recognize that the man has had an extraordinarily successful life.
It's been my experience that those who feel compelled to denigrate successful people usually do it because it makes them feel better about their own less-than-successful lives.
But then I suppose Obama was against Kerry's endorsement before he was for it.
Lame. Really lame.
23 - Lee Richards
It can't be long now until we hear that Obama is really a neo-nazi and a serial-killer(to go along with being a communist drug-dealing anti-semitic Muslim terrorist.)
I think a number of his detracters on the right want the beatable Clinton to run against rather than him, and will say anything and twist the facts shamlessly to slander and smear him and get her nominated.
24 - Propagandist
haha!
Not that you would understand but I meant politically. Chris Dodd could not get a single delegate for himself..what exactly is he going to do for Obama?
And Edwards is a political loser by all measures.
His campaign was a joke. The guy had a socialist populist bullshit message and told everyone what they wanted to hear and what did it get him? 26 delegates; even though he had been basically working on his candidacy for over 6 years. That's a looser with a capital 'L'.
And let me venture a guess into your psychology..you arent a fan of Bush/Cheney..even though both were quite successful in their personal/business/political lives.
And yes I've heard all the - failed businessman/got in due to father's influence - arguements..so save it.
Giuliani was very successful in his career too but I consider him a total loser in presidenital politics.
But it was thrilling to hear your insights into my psychology :)
25 - Dr Dreadful
It can't be long now until we hear that Obama is really a neo-nazi and a serial-killer(to go along with being a communist drug-dealing anti-semitic Muslim terrorist.)
He also took my ball in recess and wouldn't give it back!