A Hopeful Sign

March 2nd, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Talking about credit, credit where credit is due: I’m fairly critical of Barack Obama, believing that he’s a very liberal politician who disguises as a moderate (by talking moderately), but this is a hopeful sign that I may be wrong. ” AS Barack Obama enters the final stages of the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is preparing to detach the core voters of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, with the same ruthless determination with which he has peeled off Hillary Clinton’s supporters,” the Times (London) reports.

How is he going to do that, you wonder? Easy. “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.”

Democratic partisans won’t like that, I am sure, but to me, this is a great sign. I, and many moderate conservatives / centrists with me greatly respect people like Hagel and Lugar. Not only that, appointing Republicans in his cabinet may also ensure that a Obama-administration won’t be too partisan and ideologically slanted.

The question is of course whether these Republicans are willing to take him up on the offer and, more importantly, whether they’ll actually play an important role or whether appointing them is purely an opportunistic move: an attempt to persuade Republican voters to vote for Obama and giving an Obama administration a “bipartisan face” while its policies are anything but bipartisan?

Yes, there’s always room for criticism and I think that, especially in politics, a critical approach is healthy.

But it’s a hopeful sign nonetheless. I don’t trust this man when it comes to foreign policy, but if he promises to appoint some Republicans at key places who do understand foreign policy, well, Obama becomes less unacceptable. In this regard, it seems that Obama is contemplating appointing Hagel as his defense secretary. That would make Hagel incredibly unpopular among Republican partisans I am sure, but it wouldn’t be a bad move in my opinion.

Others consider Hagel to be a great possible running mate.

I don’t think this is going to happen – that would make Obama very, very unpopular among the Democratic base – but that they’re even talking about it is a great sign indeed.

Again, caution is warranted. For now it’s nothing but gossip, that’s one, and – two – it could also be that they’re talking about this purely out of opportunistic reasons (knowing that they’ve got to convince at least some Republicans to vote Obama if he wants to beat McCain in November). Caution warranted, but a hopeful sign indeed.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Kat
    March 4th, 2008 at 20:58
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I was hoping to get a chance to vote Chuck Hagel for president before this election. Obama suggesting Hagel for Secretary of Defense is a hopeful sign that Senator Hagel won’t completely leave government. As one of his constituents who voted for him every chance I got, it would be great to see him as the defense secretary. I thought Secretary of State, but defense is a better fit for someone who cares deeply for the military of this country. I can tell he is saddened that they are being used in this nation-building phase we seem to be going through. Chuck Hagel is compassionate, easily accessible and a straight talker who will not be stingy with the truth, even if it hurts. He also cares about other people around the world. Keep an eye on him, he’s always been my hope for a better future.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.