Hagel: "I will see what the options are" . . . . . . (may back a Democrat in 2008) . . . . .

In this latest blast from the retiring Sen. Hagel,

(his most explicit statement to date came at the very end of the article):








It's been clear that Hagel's statements, especially since announcing his retirement, have been totally inconsistent with supporting whoever ends up on the warmongering GOP ticket in 2008.



Hagel's statements are NOT the words of a "My party right or wrong" Republican:

- - GOP Senator Hagel: "The Republican Party Has Won Two Elections On...Fear And Terrorism...It's Going To Try Again"

- - Think Progress: Hagel Suggests Possibility Of Bush Impeachment: ‘He’s Not Accountable Anymore’



(Somehow it seems doubtful one will ever see Hagel wearing a "Guiliani for President" shirt.)









Hagel has now crossed the Rubicon . . . . . specifically stating he may back a Democrat (or perhaps some other non-Republican) in the 2008 general election.



IF the Democratic ticket is led by someone (Biden, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich come to mind) committed to ending the occupation, and avoiding unending war with Iran (& others), Hagel is likely to PUBLICLY SUPPORT the Democratic ticket in 2008.

Hagel's sentiments are shared by a significant number of purple state independents, just the kind of voter that went strongly Democratic in 2006.






The flip side of this reality, unfortunately, is that a DLC strategy of attempting to appeal to "the center" by running a hawkish, pro-war Democrat, instead of standing for our values (and those of the great majority of Americans) is misguided . . . and a recipe for defeat.

The winning strategy . . . the way to deserve the continued support of independents (and disillusioned Republicans) . . . is to run a candidate strongly committed to ending the occupation, avoiding unending war, and reversing the constitutional abuses of 8 years of Bush/Cheney.



Which strategy will we choose?

I may do an I V expresso and then come back to this one.

May need a couple blueberry bagels as well.

I guess one thought is that Hagel's comments on Iraq generally serve as a gauge for how badly the Republicans are positioned in 2008.

Not just in the presidential race, either.

I want to like Hagel more but that overall voting record is appalling.

But he does seem to have his wits about him on Iraq.

Obama may be the most likely to give a big post to Hagel, a big mistake in my book, as it would signal the new guy was going to take a bipartisan route with nothing but scoundrels and fatal compromises to cripple his path to "something new".

Somehow in these considerations Dems forget that consistent strong action, fair media and fair elections would make all leanings to any Republican merely an act of improvident charity.

people in both parties (well, less so in the Repub party, but still)--why not use them? Hagel's not a scoundrel.

It would nicely counterbalance some of the perceived weaknesses that many say Obama has, it would show inclusiveness, add gravitas and foreign policy experience, etc. That said, I don't think it is likely to happen.

They were and are far closer on foreign affairs issues than he is with Bush.

look like a man with many regrets. It is quite striking how he seems to have aged in just a few short years....

:toast: