Eishenhower?! Who the heck is that?

Come on, he's no Richard Perle, or Norman Podhoretz! Or even Bill Kristol! I mean, come on, has this Eisenhower guy even been published? Who is he, some little known liberal humanist philosopher or something? He sounds like a wussy.

Steve, when you write that we "need a new centrist social contract across our nation" I don't know what you mean by that.

I think there is a compelling need in an economy that is going to continue to be rocky well into the future, for a major upgrade of the level of economic security our citizens are provided with, along lines Jacob Hacker suggests in his outstanding book The Great Risk Shift. (And I know you have had Hacker present at The New America Foundation; I attended his talk there.) I think this is true regardless of whether your leanings on trade are more "free trade" or "fair trade".

But especially if you lean towards freer trade, I think this political conclusion is inescapable. Otherwise the backlash, now growing, will become more widespread and that may lead us in all sorts of counter-productive directions as broader and broader swaths of the US middle class feels abandoned and left to twist in the wind with inadequate protection and support from their own out-of-touch government.

And as you well know, Steve, that sort of scenario is one to be avoided to foster the sort of US foreign policy that you favor (an approach with which I am also broadly sympathetic).

Perhaps Senator Hagel shares this view of the domestic economic and social situation in our country. If so I have not seen this written about. I am concerned enough about whether Obama sees the situation in this way.

For those seriously promoting Hagel as the running mate as you are, in order to be persuasive in a forum such as this I think you would be well advised to say more about Hagel's views on domestic policy, as well as your own.

If you are talking about Hagel for Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State, that is an entirely different matter. I am quite open to, and far more sympathetic to, the case for Hagel for either of these positions. I do think he shows good judgment on many foreign policy issues.

Steve,

While I understand your point, that a Unity ticket has some chance of drawing Rs to vote for the D ticket, Hagel's record doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

In fact, except for Iraq and the Webb bill, he's as anti-progressive as they come, as I detail over at my place.

Can you imagine suggesting Eisenhower as VP for the Democratic ticket? The man who ran with Dick Nixon as his VP choice two times! I'll grant you that Eisenhower, by today's post Bill Clinton standards is somewhat to the left of much of the Democratic Party. But, come on. Is that what the "progressive wing" of American politics has become? Yes, Eisenhower would be a vast improvement over Bush et al., but so would James Polk. Is this really where we want to go?

I'm a flaming liberal, yet, I've watched and strangely admired Chuck Hagel over the last few years and to me, he is visibly evolving. I have actually seen him physically wretch while listening to the nonsense being spewed by his party (on CSPAN).

He is clearly a man in conflict, ripe for the picking by the Democratic Party. Yes, he has some conservative tendencies, but "the conservatives" have treated him like dog shit. He's too intelligent and thoughtful not to listen to reason and see the light on issues.

He'd be a strong addition to President-elect Obama's cabinet - and our President-elect has already said he wants a diverse cabinet full of differing opinions.

Ummmmm...the only problem is Chuck Hagel, while correct on the Iraq War, is no Eisenhower.

I read those Eisenhower quotes and get a chuckle. The political frame of reference has been moved so far to the right in the country if Eisenhower was saying that stuff today he would be considered to the political left of the DLC...yep he would be considered just another liberal "terrorist coddler".

I respect the position Hagel has taken on the war but that doesn't make him acceptable on any democratic ticket.

Eisenhower, outside his office, (while looking at me) to Bedel Smith;

"Keep those paras out of my liquor cabinet."

SHAEF HQ, Frankfurt, Germany, 1945.

"Only Americans can hurt America."

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

A prescient Ike, foreseeing Bush?

I like the general idea of an Obama/Hegel ticket. But there's one big thing that worries me: how will it play out with the "independents." Indys aren't that easy to court, you need to play toward the two big groups, right-leaning and left-leaning. Putting Hegel on the ticket may attract the right-leaning folks, or it may backfire with the mixed ticket alienating both the right and left-leaners. Honestly, i dunno.

On the plus side, at my last job we had a lot of contact with Hegels Foreign Affairs aids setting us Congressional Study Groups on Asian affairs, and those guys knew their stuff solid. Hegel would bring sooooo much foreign policy knowledge and wisdom. Looking past the naked politics of capaigns and elections, an Obama/Hegel ticket would do a fine job governing.

After her RFK comments, I offered HRC the weekend off. After reading this post, I offer the author the weekend off. Have a beer. Get some barbecue. Stop suggesting that the best way to get a Democrat elected is to pick a running mate who is clearly a DINO or one whose only winning quality is that he has the common sense to know that Bush has completely mismanaged U.S. foreign policy. Don't we have any REAL DEMOCRATS who know that Bush has completely mismanaged U.S. foreign policy? They shouldn't be too hard to find...

Obama-Hagel ???

are you forking crazy ???

I got two words for ya

Lincoln/Johnson

you could look it up

maybe you don't understand how this vice presidency thing works ...

I agree with the comments above that we cannot win an election only to put a Republican a "heartbeat away from the presidency". What Obama can try to do it to take a page from parliamentary democracy by announcing a partial Shadow Cabinet. If he could get Hagel to sign on as Secretary of Defense, great. Name Richardson Secretary of State, John Edwards Attorney General, and Mike Bloomberg Secretary of Treasury. Each of these appointments would emphasize the massive failure of Republican policies over the past eight years. Collectively they would challenge McCain to respond in kind and preempt criticisms that Obama's inexperience would mke him unprepared to take over on Jan 20.

Hagel is an admirable guy in many ways, but aside from his sensible caution when it comes to military adventures, he's a very conservative Republican, who I wouldn't want to exercise the powers of the presidency, especially nominating Supreme Court justices.

Why not a real Eisenhower, victorious SACEUR Wes Clark, who led a fractious 19-nation coalition to a quick victory in the Balkans, which stopped a genocide and resulted in a successful peacekeeping operation.

Clark shares virtually all of Obama domestic policy positions as well as his views about Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. As an internationally renowned diplomat, Clark knows the score and could commandingly defend Obama from attempts to paint him as weak on defense.

Like Ike, Clark knows the military-industrial complex inside-out in ways no one who hasn't dealt with it as an executive officer can. Read SECRET EMPIRE about how Ike's presidency was primarily focused on preventing the MIC from running amok, as it has during the Bush years. Clark as veep, or if necessary as president, would be able to keep it from getting us into more tragic misadventures and bankrupting the country.

The GOP and bin Laden will pull out all the stops to keep the status quo. Clark would be invaluable during whatever October surprises they'll spring.

I recommended this post because a) I like Hagel for his stance against Iraq, b) I would love to see him appointed to Obama's cabinet, c) I think the idea of a cross-party ticket is a very interesting one, and d) I think everyone here commented very well.

Yes, well you've done a good job of cherry-picking.

Eisenhower selected John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State (War? I forget). Eisenhower refused to accept the triumph of the Viet Minh, forced the division of Viet Nam, and started us down the road to that war. It was under Eisenhower that Mohammed Mossadegh, Jacobo Arbenz, and probably others were overthrown. And so on.

In sum, while Eisenhower hated war he was certainly prepared to wage it.

Just recording disappointment that Steve has not responded to the many commenters in the thread asking him to say more about why he thinks progressive Democrats should be interested in Hagel for VP. I hadn't thought all of these questions were entirely rhetorical. Mine was not.