By indicating his readiness to consider being a running mate for a Democratic candidate, Sen. Chuck Hagel has raised the possibility of a precedent-shattering move by one of the Democratic contenders that could transform the race for the Democratic nomination. Such a move may also offer the best chance this country will have to make the fundamental change in foreign policy that it needs.
In a significant development that the Times and Post both failed to cover, Hagel introduced a potential wild card into the Democratic race Wednesday when he was asked about running for vice-president on the Democrat ticket next year. He said he didn't think he would be asked, but then added: "If there's an area I could make a difference in....I would entertain these kinds of serious questions...everything's possible."
Hagel also said he would rate the administration "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area, I would give it the lowest grade." That broadside and his open expression of willingness to run on a Democratic ticket signal the end of his career as a Republican.
Hagel has been demonstrating throughout 2007 that he understands that he cannot help get the United States out of the strategic crisis in the Middle East that the Bush administration's militarized foreign policy has created within the Republican Party. In May he said he would consider running for President as an independent, and in September he announced that he would not run for a third term in the Senate, which would have required staying in the GOP.
If either Barack Obama or John Edwards were to negotiate with Hagel now on his being the candidate's running mate if he is nominated and then announce it before the end of the year, he would stand to gain a significant advantage in the Iowa caucus as well as the New Hampshire Primary and deal a major blow to what had seemed until very recently an inevitable Hillary Clinton candidacy.
Hagel is not angling for a spot on a Hillary Clinton ticket. In an interview on Bloomberg News November 9, he said that when world leaders "hear leading presidential candidates talk like cowboys with the lowest common denominator being `I can be tougher than you, I'll go to war before you or we aren't going to talk to anybody,' that's recklessly irresponsible.'' That was an obvious reference to the criticisms by Giuliani and Clinton of Obama's statement that he would begin his presidency with direct talks with Iran.
Hagel has a political appeal that transcends party identification. He has the image that John McCain once had as a truth-teller but combined with a reputation for thoughtfulness on national security that McCain lacks. He is a straight shooter who doesn't shoot from the hip.
Even before he began his disengagement from the Republican Party, Hagel was articulating an alternative to the Bush policy in Iraq as though he were in the opposition party. In 2006, he called for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and insisted that a new strategy for Iraq "must include timeframes", calling them "forcing mechanisms that prompt action and define consequences."
And in 2007, Hagel has become the leading advocate in American politics of a diplomatic settlement with Iran. In an October 17 letter to Bush, Hagel called for "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran." That letter was a shot across the bow of the Bush administration for its insistence that Iran must agree to the main demand of the United States - suspension of its uranium enrichment program - before any negotiations about its nuclear program and other issues linked to it can begin.
Both Edwards and Obama appeal to large progressive segments of the Democratic Party base but lack credentials on national security - a point that Clinton has exploited to emphasize her electability. Nor has either of them succeeded in forging a compelling message on national policy. Having Hagel as vice-presidential candidate would instantly enhance the credibility on national security of any Democratic candidate whose ticket he would join.
In announcing that Hagel would be his vice-presidential running mate, a creative candidate could offer the prospect that Hagel would be the single most influential figure in his administration on foreign policy and national security. In other words, as Vice-President Hagel would do whatever is necessary to promote a strategy of disengagement and diplomatic settlement, just as Dick Cheney has done whatever was necessary to justify aggressive war in Iraq and Iran in the Bush administration. That concept would have a powerful appeal to activists in Iowa and New Hampshire and create a new dynamic in the rest of the primary states.
No presidential hopeful has ever identified the vice-presidential running mate before the first primary, let alone chosen a running mate who is technically still in the other party. But then there has never been such an opportunity to put together a presidential ticket that could pull the country out of one war and prevent yet another. The democratic contender who grasps the Hagel opportunity will demonstrate exactly the kind of boldness needed for both the general election and challenge of forging a new foreign policy.
when it comes down to it, he is still a rethug and I would definitely make use of his knowledge and opinions, but as far as a contolling force within a democratic administration, that would have to be looked at more closely.
On the other hand, this quote in the OP "That broadside and his open expression of willingness to run on a Democratic ticket signal the end of his career as a Republican." may be right on target, I do not know, the man is difficult to read.
As to the unlikelihood that he will have anything to do with a Clinton administration, I 100% agree. In addition to what he said in the Bloomberg interview, he had these rather funny and decidedly non-enthusiastic comments in the recent CFR appearance:
"HAGEL: Well, that's up to the voters, actually. I've always been of the opinion that we're a nation that allows people to ascend to great heights -- go as far as you can go based on your hard work, and your initiative, and your talent, your capacity. And if that means we have Bushes and Clintons as far as the eyes can see -- I mean, I can't control that, that's up to the people of the United States.
I don't think that they should necessarily be penalized either. I don't think Hillary Clinton, for example, should be necessarily penalized because her husband was president for eight years. She's in the Senate and we've had our -- we've had our belly full of Clintons, and that's it. We've tried the dynasty thing with Bush and it didn't work. So let's -- we're not going to try with Clinton.
(Laughter.)
I mean -- I think you should judge your candidates based on each of them individually. If the American people decide to elect Hillary Clinton, they elect Hillary Clinton. She's -- she's certainly capable.
Link to the transcript, definitely worth a read IMHO.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14895/conversation_with_chuck_hagel_rush_transcript_federal_news_service.html?breadcrumb=/publication/by_type/transcript
'Help Make Hope and History Rhyme'...BIDEN/HAGEL '08 It's written in the stars
While these two are pretty much joined at the hip, so to speak...there is still the ongoing and mystifying dilemma of the Hagel vote against the Biden amendment to promote a political solution in Iraq that must be resolved. And, by the way, if anyone around here can shed some light on that subject, I would be grateful.
However, the two have collaborated fairly closely on Iraq and any number of issues over the years and definitely occupy the same wavelength, more or less...Iraq political solution pending, of course.
And besides, Joe Biden has already publically expressed his choice for VP...Hagel just hasn't accepted yet. But, I feel an announcement coming!
before there's a 'P' candidate, but maybe
that's the state of politics in the Good Ol'
USA. Who would be the ideal Demo person to
hook up with Hagel, anyway? Hopefully, there's
no one out there named Marks.
The only time we've ever had P & VP of opposing
parties was right after George I, when John
Adams (Federalist) was P & Thomas Jefferson
(DemoRepo) was VP, and that only happened
because that's how the Electoral College did
it back then. It worked badly enough (as John
& Tom did not get along) that the rules were
changed a.s.a.p.
It must be a bad practice, unless we're talking about...
Kucinich/Paul - Tag Team 2008 - It's Time for the Terrible Two!
If you choose a Republican as your running mate, I think someone is going to take you out in order to get that Republican in.
Edwards should choose someone just as progressive as the positions he's taking in this campaign. Someone like Russ Feingold, or even a "compromise" candidate like Barack Obama, that many people in this country probably won't want to be President, just yet.
If you choose a Republican, I think the big money players "behind the scenes" are going to take you out somehow.
i think for it to really make a difference to voters it needs to be the vp.
So what's left is a ticket like Richardson & Hagel. Republicans would be outflanked by such a ticket in most key issue areas. Richardson and Hagel would, more than all others, be perceived as common sense guys who would call a spade a spade, especially when it came to a failed foreign policy that Republicans have nothing to offer except more of the same.