Andrew Sullivan is a supporter of an Obama/Hagel ticket but he posts two counter arguments this morning. I agree with these counter arguments.
-----------------
Obama-Hagel?
26 May 2008 11:21 am
A reader dissents:
Your huffing and puffing about Chuck Hagel being a good pick to be Obama's VP has inspired me to write as few other topics on your (often controversial) blog have. There could be, in my view, few more poor choices for Obama. First of all, your "Team of Rivals" analogy isn't really borne out by reality; Salmon Chase, William Seward, Edwin Stanton, Edward Bates were all rivals of Lincoln's within the Republican Party. Lincoln's "team of rivals" was not composed of members of the opposing political party (unless you make the tortured argument that some of the men in his cabinet had ties to the then-dying American Whig Party).
You are suggesting that Barack Obama balance out his liberalism by picking a conservative, but as an Obama supporter myself, and one whose support is based on the issues, not intellectual-historical fascination or cult-of-identity politics, I would be livid if Obama picked someone like Hagel as his VP. Post-partisan is not the same as non-partisan. Obama still has positions on the issues, and those positions are radically different in many ways from the views of Chuck Hagel. Just because Hagel is handsome, has served in the military, and is criticial of Bush, McCain, and the war, does not make him a good pick. One glance at Hagel's positions on the issues will reveal that far from being a proper political replacement for Obama should tragedy befall him in office, a President Hagel's politics would amount to a reversal of any/all accomplishments that an Obama presidency will have made.
Another adds:
For years now Chuck Hagel has been my favorite Republican in the Senate. He's the real McCain: he has all of the virtues associated with the presumed GOP nominee but without the extreme narcissistic phoniness, or, in George Will's term, "moral vanity." And for many reasons I'd welcome Hagel onto the Democratic ticket with Obama, as it would send a clear message about the future, shore up a few of Obama's political weaknesses, and goose the Democrats' odds in the electoral college.
The sticking point, of course, is choice: Hagel has never offered even an inch of wiggle room on the Grail Of All Social Issues, so I can't imagine the party would accept him as the VP, one heart beat away from the presidency, despite the reservoir of good will he's accumulated from voters on my side of the political spectrum. The problem really isn't Roe v.Wade per se; it's that for a generation choice has loomed over both parties as the defining tribal credential, the way of signaling that "you're really one of us." Which is why McCain was ultimately acceptable to the bulk of the Republican base and Giuliani was not.
Hagel could give a speech saying he'd support President Obama's picks for the Supreme Court a la Justices Ginsburg and Souter but I doubt that would be enough. There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans and plenty of pro-life Democrats (like, say, Bob Casey). But this issue festers at the heart of our partisan culture; and I can't believe Obama could embrace a running mate, even such a worthy one, whose policy positions are so far from his own.
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com |
