Hagel to endorse Obama, or so says

Steve Clemons, who knows Hagel quite well and is a rather knowledgeable insider. For what it's worth... http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/hagel_to_endors/#comments

:bounce: Let the pile on begin. :D

It would be great if tons of Repubs endorsed Obama.
That would seriously outweigh Loserman's endorsement of McLame.

Unlikely, but who knows?

but they split their EVs.

The only thing less popular is a Democrat. But I've consistently said he has a small chance in the Omaha district.

wonder what changed his mind? Clemons knows him pretty well, so I believe it.

to endorse in a highly unplanned, spur of the moment, kind of way :-)? Seriously now, my feeling is that Hagel intended to be close lipped and non-committal and to play down his own importance about all the speculations on endorsing, whose cabinet would you be willing to serve in? etc., but every now and then his true feelings just spurted out. I may be wrong, obviously, and surely biased because I like both Obama and Hagel a lot, but I think that it would be difficult for somebody like Hagel not to feel if not enthusiastic at least very interested in somebody like Obama, especially once he gave up on his own presidential dreams. They have their differences, we all know about that, but IMHO the overall approach to politics is strikingly similar. And I think that Hagel really hopes and wants for Obama to succeed (in what he wants to do, beyond just winning the presidency) where himself basically failed, and would be glad to contribute to the best of his quite outstanding capabilities if given the opportunity.

and go for the racist vote?

how can you say that and then be open to Chuck Hagel as Veep?

The two are mutually exclusive ideas.

views on civil rights.

and a Vice President is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Why would we want to do that to more than half our party?

I thought he was more liberal than that.

on pretty much everything else, he's a far rightwing nutcase.

ever publicly trashed gay people (and no, voting as a conservative Repub in the Senate does not by my definition make someone a "vicious homophobe").

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=6

How conservative are you really? Tell me the truth: You don’t care whether or not gay people get married, do you?

"No. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that’s because I see it as a religious union. As a legal contract, marriage should be up to the states. If a state wants to change the rules, that’s up to them."

as of '06.

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
He opposes ending Don't Ask Don't Tell
He opposes the Employment Non Discrimination Act

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

which are public record?

I'm saying they pick the criteria they want.

Do they provide the quote on gay marriage that was posted here just a few posts up? Is that on their website? How much of the picture do they present to their readers/members?

He is quite candid that he supported BOTH the Defense of Marriage Act and the Nebraska Amendment to the State Constitution banning same sex marriage.

His opposition to the national marriage amendment on state's rights grounds doesn't ameliorate those positions.

He opposes a federal ban.

"Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he will oppose a federal amendment. 'I don't think the Constitution was ever written and set up for those kinds of amendments,' Hagel said. 'I think those kinds of issues are better left to the states.'"

And btw, as a US Senator Hagel does not get to vote in the NE legislature.

Is he not a Nebraska resident? Does he not VOTE in Nebraska?

The state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage was approved by the VOTERS in 2000.

He supported it publicly and voted for it.

does not own property at all in Nebraska.

In any case, I can't find a single quote where he says he voted for it.

In fact, there's not much about Hagel and this issue at all, which is understandable as it's not a huge issue.

Enjoyed the discussion. Off to lunch!

http://books.google.com/books?id=bjPCecGKIsMC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=Chuck+Hagel+defense+of+marriage+act&source=web&ots=U3q8LQZnBd&sig=iomcECdwFAc-HbCqjjjSI07f97I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Wherein he reiterates his support of DOMA and the Nebraska Amendment and details why he opposes a Federal amendment on state's rights grounds.

Btw, when push came to shove on the Federal Marriage Amendment, he voted yes on cloture (which was the REpublican position to end the debate, keep the amendment alive and move the vote forward.)

edit to add: by the way, the excerpt you provided makes him seem pretty reasonable and thoughtful, actually.

Hillary's position was to first repeal the section dealing with the federal recognition issues and then, when politically possible, to repeal the section dealing with inter-state recognition.

Hagel doesn't advocate repealing any of it.

And Hillary really doesn't have anything to do with what we are discussing.

Hagel's own words show he really doesn't much care about the issue, except in terms of his own religious beliefs and his obligation to respect the wishes of his constituency--in fact, he went against their wishes by opposing the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He's just not big on cultural wedge issues, and never was.

because of homophobes. I realize to you these are academic questions. To many of us, these are our lives. When a public servant votes against gay and lesbian families, time and time again, they are attacking fellow Americans in their very homes. It is both vicious and unforgivable. We, as Democrats, should not be rewarding such public behaviour.

make a point that is kind of weak to begin with, no offense.

By the way, do you believe that if someone doesn't agree with a certain issue they are "phobic" about it?

period.

than they are enablers of bigotry, if not bigoted themselves.

If someone in the 1960s voted consistently against civil rights for African-Americans, would you consider this just a cultural wedge issue?

Hagel may well not be a vicious homophobe himself; but his votes enable those who are.

And the point is: why have a REPUBLICAN running-mate, and not even a terribly liberal Republican except on one issue?

your link is for the 2006 vote.

The biography references the 2004 vote, wherein Hagel voted YEA for cloture to keep the amendment alive.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155

Like many people, this is not a huge issue to him, and he doesn't seem to care all that much other than saying it should be up to the states. That seems in line with the Constitution.

I suppose that makes me a raging homophobe as well who merits expulsion from the party for failing to follow the exact party line???

or a cabinet member who has authority over gays and lesbians.

(I can't even believe I'm having this discussion with "progressives")

And I'm sure we've both had that debate (equating race with sexual orientation) dozens of times and still believe what we believe.

Again, I see no valid argument for DQ'ing someone over one cultural wedge issue that the person doesn't seem to care about anyway (which puts him in line with many voters, btw).

Lastly, I never claimed to be progressive. I don't claim any label, nor do I put labels on others. I have positions and beliefs independent of any party or ideology. That's what I like about free thought.

we come from different planets and worldviews. I understand you don't believe this is a big issue, because you already have your rights, but for tens of millions of GLBT Americans who are living under a Jim Crow system of second class citizenhood, these are issues of paramount importance to their families. At the VERY least, we should not be rewarding someone with a post as Veep or Cabinet member, who actively opposed, over many years, equality for GLBT citizens. That is not too high a bar to set as Democrats.

I happen to agree with you, but for different reasons, I think we need a Democrat with an ability to relate to working class, possibly rural America. Either that or we need Bill Richardson...

So, who do you want as veep, as you have been so passionate in telling us who you don't want?

but since he's taken himself out of the running, I'm leaning towards Schweitzer or Biden. My main problem with Joe is that he's a Senator and I don't think we should have two Senators on the ticket. I'm not averse to Strickland, but I don't think he's interested.

Although I might prefer Biden for Secretary of State.

that's because to me, crime is crime, I don't care what the motive is, it should be punished with an appropriately harsh sentence for whatever circumstances were in place. Not sure I agree with special funding for businesses, either--I am not a big affirmative action person, I think it hurts as much as helps. The voting record and the ratings don't paint a portrait of hatred, sorry. Just a conservative guy.

not an element of crime that has to be proved in court.

People often confuse "intent" and "motive."

and votes do not always reflect who a person is. BEYOND that, do you know of anything he has said that can qualify as vicious? I am asking seriously, with no snark whatsoever. I don't, and i have followed him quite closely for the last couple of years. And I like him. But if indeed there are instances where he actually said something viciously anti-gay or even anti-choice (which in my book is much more acceptable as a personal opinion) most of my admiration would disappear in a puff of smoke.

Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members). (Dec 2006

I realize not everyone ELSE in the country shares my religious beliefs. I guess that's why none of this bothers me too much. I do support stem-cell research. Hagel wouldn't be appointing SCOTUS nominees in the cabinet.

when a man votes to take away their power over their own reproductive choices. (or when a woman votes that way, for that matter.)

are also examples of MY apparent evil, since I agree with some of it. I tend to support those who support the pro-choice position, but I also like some politicians who are pro-life, like Bob Casey. I am not a single-issue voter.

It would seem that some of us here deviate from what this poster considers the norm.

I said I KNOW about his votes. Being pro-life does not qualify one as being VICIOUS. There are many very decent people that are pro-life for religious reasons, some of them have to cast votes in COngress. Not to mention that some of the examples in your list are debatable at best. Do you have a problem that he is against human cloning? Are you FOR human cloning, and if so why?

Bottom line: people, be they politicians or not, that hold opinions that are different from yours are not automatically evil just because you disagree with them. And I personally have a huge problem with people throwing insults around without weighing the impact of their words. Words do matter, you know. Not to mention that disagreeing without being disagreable bit, that matters to.

To be honest, I think he tows the party line on social issues but honestly doesn't care. He's a big business lacky and that's basically why I don't like him although I respect very much that he can break with the party on Iraq.

seems that's exactly what he thinks.

You are ignorant for making such a statement.

Republickers push Dems to be bipartisan while they are very much the opposite. They push Dems to compromise toward right wing goals, then suggest in their unofficial propaganda that Dems are wimpy and wishy washy. Watch those Republickers take Dems in for photo ops on some of their legislation but hang as a stubborn block against legislation introduced by Democrats. Why would we want to continue rewarding them for that?

Republicans usually WEAKEN OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE but their propaganda machine keeps the old myths cranking that Dems caring about social programs means we won't be strong on defense. Republicans think spending tons of money makes you better on defense.

Now that they have bankrupted our country by privatizing too many military services and giving those contracts to war profiteers they are willing to support a Democrat for president? So they should be. Doesn't take a rocket scientist this time to see how much damage Republicans have inflicted on our national security. I don't think any special reward is required just because Hagel may be smart enough to see his team has screwed up.

that would make me reconsider my vote. Clinton First. Hell, Lieberman First. Hagel should only be a choice if every other democrat, former democrat, and independent in the country dies. And I do mean EVERY. And even then, he wouldn't be first on my list.

GA. It makes me want to pull my hair out. And I like my hair.

but you never know...

Civil unions, yes, but marriage? I cannot think of any name, I am sure there are some, but not many.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155

How many Democrats voted for it. Two, Byrd and Nelson. Byrd is an homophobe, and Nelson, who knows?

some Republicans voted AGAINST it, like Sununu and Snowe, and (gasp) McCain.
Talks are easy. Without votes and actions, they do not matter.

Ironically, some Republicans have said very convincing things about Iraq and global warming, but, when it comes to acting, there is usually nobody there.

generally a party-line vote. He stated his intention to vote against the bill.

to me--that was just a kow-tow to his party leadership. He's repeated that he doesn't think there should be an amendment against gay marriage, it's a states' rights issue. I suppose I'll take him at his word.

whose lives were being impacted directly by that cloture vote.

But I realize it doesn't affect YOU, and that's what is important apparently.

Not too much difference between Webb and Hagel on gay-rights issues. You demonize one, and laud the other. You are inconsistent.

has evolved on the issue. I read that he has indicated he would support a repeal. The only time I have ever seen him remark on it was during a debate two years ago where he was against repeal, but
sounded open to persuasion. Apparently, he's been persuaded.

More importantly, there is a huge difference between Webb and Hagel on the larger penumbra of women's and gay issues.

Webb is strongly pro choice, is firmly in favor of civil unions and will vote both for ENDA and for inclusion of gays and lesbians in hate crime statutes.

All this, of course, is academic as he does not want to be Veep.

yeah, he's "evolved" socially since then, and I appreciate that, and I welcome him into the Dem fold. But all the same, as recently as 2006 he supported DADT, and does not support gay marriage. You need to keep in mind that if Obama taps Hagel for a cabinet post (or even VP) that somehow involves these issues, Hagel will have to "evolve" too. He is willing to help Obama, willing to endorse him--I think that speaks very well of Hagel's open-mindedness and willingness to support the right candidate for the country, despite his long-held religious and personal beliefs on cultural issues. What other prominent conservative Republican do you know who might endorse Obama, that gay-loving, baby-killing liberal anti-American commie? I never smack someone across the face for doing the right thing, for helping the cause, no matter what background they come from. I don't know why others would.

If it's the bipartisanship issue, there are plenty of other Republicans, such as Bill Weld and Lincoln Chafee, who Obama can give cabinet posts to, who would do an excellent job and with whom most Democrats agree on important issues.

Hagel is a non starter for a great many people in the Democratic party. Why even push it?

towards this one guy, who by all accounts is a pretty good person. He's my Senator, first off, and I feel that he stuck his neck out--as much or more than anyone in either party--to help stop military members like my husband from pointlessly dying or getting maimed in Iraq since the war started, and he's a staunch ally of military families and veterans, too. I can understand that you feel he doesn't do good things for you, but he HAS for me and my family, so he's earned my defense of his record when applicable.

wonderful things for my family, but had voted to damage yours, I would oppose him. This country is about all of us, not just particular segments.

There are many people qualified to be in Obama's administration. While you may admire Hagel's willingness to buck the prevailing Republican on the war, and while you see that as standing up for your family, there are many families who feel that Hagel has done just the opposite on a wide variety of other issues and voted in destructive ways to harm THEM.

There are many good public servants who you and I would more than likely agree on. Why wouldn't Obama choose from that pool, which would satisfy both of us, instead of insisting on someone who would divide us?

and I respect that. But objectively speaking that cloture vote did not impact ANY life whatsoever, since there was no bill.

Please forgive me if I sound patronizing, this is not my intention AT ALL, but I really believe that it would be better and more constructive if you stopped seeing all the GLBT issues as us vs. them, if you do not agree with us 100% you are the enemy. I am afraid it can be as divisive as the extreme right using gay rights as a political wedge issue, and as counterproductive. I used to have a very dear gay friend, long passed away, I still get tears in my eyes at times when I think of him.... He had been much more of a protest activist in his early years. In his middle years when I got to meeet him, he was instrumental in obtainig the same benefits, including of course health insurance, for gay couples at the major univeristy where he was working (I am talking late 80s). That was useful and constructive. If he were still around, I am sure he would be for gay marriage, BUT he would work his ass off to get civil unions recognized first. And he would not rage against those who would disagree with him, as long as they do it in a reasoned way. One of the smartest, most trustworthy, and admirable people I had the pleasure of meeting in my life, by the way.

(in this limited medium), is that the Democratic party should not be rewarding a public servant who, over the years, has voted against the interests of women and gay citizens. I think that is a very low bar to set.

I do not see you, or other Democrats, as the enemy, but I do see Chuck Hagel and those like him, as enemies of my family as they would deny me the right to visit my partner in the hospital, to file joint tax returns, to have the protections of the state for our children, to benefit from inheritance law and all of the other 500 plus federal rights and privileges that accrue with marriage. They perpetuate a Jim Crow system, where gay and lesbian families suffer daily as second class citizens. This is NOT what the Democratic party should be standing for. It's not what we're about.

Btw, I don't see you and other Democrats as the "enemy" on this. But I do see it as the job of people like your departed friend and other gays (and straights) to try to educate folks who may not have given this issue much thought or who may live in areas of the nation where anti gay propoganda, mainly propogated by religious groups, is so overwhelmingly prevalent that it has almost subconsciously affected their political views.

I did not mean to imply that you see me or others like me as the enemy. I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage because the religious aspect of marriage is a non-issue to me. But I can understand that many, possibly a majority, I do not know, think differently. I could not agree more that the legal discrimination against gay couples is an abomination. But as long as these barriers, at least most of them, the more outrageous ones, are eliminated, whether it is through civil unions, or marriage, or whatever term is being used, that's what should matter most in the end. I have no idea whether Hagel has said anything regarding civil unions, but my educated guess is that he would have no problem with it whatsoever, as I think any reasonable and non-fanatical person's attitude should be.

not one of his most consistent votes, since at the same time he was saying that it is not something the federal government should decide. Well.... those presidential ambit ons I guess + what I saw in a link posted above to a book about Hagel where it said that he received more than 11,000 mail in a few days urging him to vote for it. In any case, one of his (many) votes that do make me cringe. I never said he is perfect :-).

Like many people, this is not a huge issue and he doesn't seem to care one way or the other, except for saying it should be left to the states.

just because YOU don't believe this is a big issue does not mean others disagree with you vehemently.

I fully support gay marriage, but to call it a "basic human right" is a bit insane.

that is, being treated EQUALLY by the state, is a basic human right.

If there is currently a population that is being treated, by the law, as second class citizens, then that is indeed a human rights issue.

Some valid, some invalid.

The state doesn't treat everyone equally, nor should they.

There are some things we probably all approve that the state treats people differently on. Everyone doesn't get a driver's license. People can't marry a brother or sister, minor, etc. There are million examples of licenseing, etc where the state decides who gets a priviledge and who doesn't.

Marriage is a bundle of priviledges and pitfalls... My girlfriend/fiance/whateveryoucallher and I have not gotten married b/c of the tax consequences. (We would be paying 15K more per year just for getting married). We now have a kid and people are saying you "HAVE TO GET MARRIED"... not for 15K per year we don't.

Marriage is a lot of things, but a "basic human right" it is not.

if the state mandated that people with blue eyes couldn't get driver's license, it would be an issue of rights for blue eyed people.

You and your girlfriend CHOOSE not to marry. You have the option to marry or not to marry.

Gays and lesbians do not have the same choice you have (except in MA and CA).

The state is discriminating against them, because of who they are, and thus it becomes an issue of equal rights under the law.

You have to pass several tests to get that license. Many people who are otherwise eligible may not get one, sometimes because of a judgment call made by an agent of the state.

Brother and sister do not have the option to marry, because of who they are. Different states recognize different familial levels as valid and invalid. The legal age of marriage is different in different states, some 18, some 17, some 16... all arbitrary decisions made by the state.

Marriage is nothing more than a collection of privilleges... not a "basic human" right.

Do I think the state should bestow these privilleges equally upon people? Absolutely. But, a "right" it is not.

The underlying reason that this is a human right's issue is because it involves what is at the heart of our country and our constitution:
equality under the law.

The constitution disagrees with you:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

The United Nations as far back as 1948 disagrees with you;

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

U.S. Jurists disagree with you:

"A San Francisco Superior Court judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Monday, saying it violates the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice.''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPILS1.DTL

Other than one confused jurist, the other stuff doesn't disagree with me at all.

You are still confusing the concept of a basic human right with a privilege.

You also fail to understand that the privileges & immunities clause is not absolute.

Marriage is not a basic human right... if it was, I could marry my sister or multiple people if we are all consenting. I can't and they can't. The law dictates otherwise.

Marriage is nothing more than a collection of privileges bestwoed upon some individuals by the state.

Not a right.

Our entire system is based on it.

Yet there are limits to property rights. You can't buy a public park. Eminent Domain occurs regularly when governments wish to build public roads. You cannot seize that which belongs to your neighbor.

Your reasoning that something isn't a right because there are some limits to it is not sound.

And reread the UN declaration. They are calling marriage a human right. It's not just "one jurist" in California. (Who, btw, is far more schooled on this subject than you.)

Where you are confused is that owning property is said to come with a bundle of rights, but owning property itself is not a basic human right.

You're the confused one. John Locke felt that life, liberty and property were basic human rights. Lockian philosophy is what underscored the thoughts, words and deeds of many of the founders of our country.

"At the centre of Locke's argument is the claim that individuals possess natural rights, independently of the political recognition granted them by the state. These natural rights are possessed independently of, and prior to, the formation of any political community.
<snip>
In order to successfully discharge this duty of self-preservation each individual had to be free from threats to life and liberty, whilst also requiring what Locke presented as the basic, positive means for self-preservation: personal property. Our duty of self-preservation to god entailed the necessary existence of basic natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke proceeded to argue that the principal purpose of the investiture of political authority in a sovereign state was the provision and protection of individuals' basic natural rights. For Locke, the protection and promotion of individuals’ natural rights was the sole justification for the creation of government. The natural rights to life, liberty, and property set clear limits to the authority and jurisdiction of the State."


http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm

So not only are you confusing personal property with real property, but you are also basing your entire concept of what is or is not a human right on the musing of one philosopher.

even though you have nearly descended into madness on this, blinded by the hole you dug yourself, I will give you a chance to climb out.

Try, for a moment, to distinguish between the concept of basic human right to life and liberty, which encompasses with it the right to feel ownership over your "things" aka personal property vs the idea that each individual has a god given right to property ownership. Follow that logic and if someone wants something they do not have, they have the right to it.

Once you can tackle that, you will learn to see the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.

Once you have learned that lesson, you will understand that marriage is a bundle of privileges bestowed upon ELIGIBLE individuals. It is up to society to define what is are eligible individuals. If marriage was a basic human right, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

However, there are... thus, it is not a right.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

dominate everything else?

probably fewer than here, actually :-).

We've seemed to have taken more kindly to Chuck Hagel than say...

...


.....Mr. LIEberman.

I hope Obama doesn't choose him as his running mate. Except for the war, Hagel marches in lock-step with all the other republicanz.

He is however also a traditional Reaganite Republican on most other issues.

What I do see good about him is that he does have the national security and foreign foreign background and the foreign policy credibility to stand up against the Neocons and if he did have a prominent position in the Obama Administration, he would be a strong voice of reason on what I believe is the single most important issue; preventing any more imperial wars in the Middle East. He is also someone who understands at least the Machiavellian necessity of working aggressively for peace in the Middle East.

In many ways, given his particular background, he would be a much stronger and persuasive influence in deterring foolish military adventures than any liberal Democrat could ever be.

Having sad that, I repeat, he is on almost every domestic issue a traditional Reaganite Republican.

_______________

BTW Steven Clemons' Washington Note is a great insider source. One should consider subscribing to their free daily E-mail updates:

http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=217581

I am very, very reluctant to cheer for someone who has been on the opposite side of key social issues - like abortion and equal rights for GLBT.

What’s more, Senator Hagel opposes the President’s call for a Constitutional amendment codifying marriage, emphatically stating: “I don't think the federal government has any business in dictating what constitutes a marriage.”


Is that the wrong side of the issue?

That actually matches Obama's stance.

I wouldn't want him as VP, but he is hardly the evil personified some people are claiming he is.

But I don't want him as VP. On this we agree.

Here is a link to ratings on his voting record. It's pretty scary:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

He also wants to privatize social security. This guy's a real winner.

I'll still leave it in my post, maybe we can get some of these Hagel fanboys to go check it out...

I can't believe anyone would seriously want that piece of shit as Obama's VP.

Go learn:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Freepers think with ONE mind. DU'ers don't!

.......

:P

however, there used to be things I thought I would never see earnestly defended here, and Chuck Fucking Hagel for VP is one of those things.

as well as being on crack if it thinks Hagel should be anywhere NEAR the Obama campaign or inside the Obama White House

That said, I will not hold my breath on a Hagel VP nod...or a cabinet nod for that matter.

Need I remind everyone here of the West Wing episode about a TEMPORARY relinquishment of the Presidency via the 25th amendment?

http://www.westwingepguide.com/S5/Episodes/91_7AWF83429.html

or the failed series where Geena Davis promised, as an Indy VP candidate for a Republican (he only reason he got elected), promised to relinquish her position if anything ever happened? She did not.

I know these are fictional instances, but they also were a good example of things that can happen in an INSTANT

No, only the insane or crack/methheads would consider it. There are too many great Dems for these jobs.

I'm tired of Repuke shills posting this crap on DU. Go advocate for Republicans somewhere else.

..... ..... With Hagel on our side, his voting machines might finally be programmed differently..

Seriously people, Obama has been endorsed by over a million people, does he have to give them all important positions in his White House then, or make them his VP? No of course not.

Just take a Hagel endorsement, and Hagel attending Obama on a visit to Iraq as a gift to help show undecided voters he's willing to work across the isle, without having to actually give something to republicans for it.