Beautiful: He is plaining on appointing Repukes, PRECISELY the reason he is the wrong choice

[debbierlus]

The bipartisan bs lines: reach across the aisles...work together...

It is all a load of pure crap.

Now, he plans on PUTTING THEM IN HIS CABINET.

Lovely.

The people we need to fight, the people we need to work to unseat, the people we need to make a memory....

They are going to get jobs with Obama.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece

There he is...your boy king. It should be very amusing to watch this democratic board try to rationalize this...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece

[axordil]

1. I can think of several GOP senators

That would make great cabinet members. As it happens, they all come from states with Democratic governors. :)

[blm]

2. Every administration does it. The key is to find one most compatible to Dem policies like Chaffee

There are some out there, you know.

Did you think Clinton wouldn't, or that McCain won't appoint some Dems if HE wins?

Luv ya, Deb, but you need to check the history books.

[DJ13]

3. The Ron Paul site is over there --------->

Im sure they could use someone of your temperment.

[Skidmore]

4. As opposed to Hillary, who has hired Republican operatives to manage

her campaign--exactly the same ones who manage McCain's campaign, no less.

[AZBlue]

5. ONE MORE TIME: Point out the Presidents that don't have a bipartisan cabinet and you'll

be pointing out exactly the worst Presidents ever.

And, once again: please stop with this desperate and pathetic tripe. It is the worst bullshit I've ever seen thrown on DU and it needs to stop now, for your sake and the sake of your candidate's.

[RiverStone]

6. Remember Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense???

William Cohen was a rethug.

When will this negative crapola end?

[Window]

43. And, he was excellent.

[Bicoastal]

7. Didn't FDR do the same thing? Or am I hallucinating?

[George_Bonanza]

8. So what? Hillary's DLC cronies are DINOs anyway

Besides, there are some good Republicans out there.

[sniffa]

9. I'm sorry you're only in the anger phase

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4848697&mesg_id=4848697

:hug:

[babylonsister]

10. Find me one quote where he said that vs. speculation from others.

I don't imagine he has a cabinet selected when he doesn't even know if he'll be the Dem candidate.

[Johnny__Motown]

11. TIMESONLINE IS PURE BS, Get a reputable source. this is all crap

[ruggerson]

12. Chuck Hagel opposes getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell

''The U.S. armed forces aren't some social experiment,'' said Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and Army veteran


So, someone 'splain to me how this synchs with Obama saying he will toss DADT?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. When did Hagel become a spokesman for Obama?

:rofl:

[ruggerson]

16. So you agree that Obama shouldn't be floating him as a possible DOD Sec

correct?

[TwilightGardener]

21. I think Hagel is a very smart choice for SecDef or SOS, myself--in either party.

[ruggerson]

23. But Obama supports getting rid of DADT

How can he appoint a DOD Sec who scores 0% on the Human Rights Campaign rating and opposes gays in the military?

Are you telling me that getting rid of DADT is just cynical campaign rhetoric?

[TwilightGardener]

32. Obama is the boss. If it's Hagel or anyone else, his job is to say, "Yes sir, right away sir."

[ruggerson]

37. Not with that issue

you need someone who actually believes in human rights, because for the first few years they are going to have to actually actively prosecute soldiers for anti gay harrasment until the troops catch up to the policy. To do that you need a DOD head who actually believes in the repeal. I'm not opposed to giving the job to a reasonable, moderate Republican, but not to Chuck Hagel.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I don't think there are any Repubs who want to eliminate DADT and

allow gays to openly serve--I imagine there are conservative Dems (Webb?) who probably wouldn't want to do it either. But if given the job, and told to do it, I'm sure he'll do it. He was going to run as Bloomberg's VP, and Bloomberg is more pro-gay-rights than any of our Dem candidates. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out--may not even come to pass. Not worth getting our panties in a wad right now.

[ruggerson]

47. Actually I think there are plenty

Larry Kolb (remember him?) for starters. He's written about it extensively. We've lost a huge chunk of our military translaters because of this idiotic policy. We don't need it to continue to do more damage.

This isn't the divisive issue it once was. Almost all Democrat support the repeal and about 1/2 of Republicans, believe it or not.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

We can do much better than Chuck Hagel.

[TwilightGardener]

48. Well, it's all up to whom either Obama or Hillary are comfortable with--

but I wouldn't worry about a cabinet appointee trying to steer the ship, or not taking or following through with orders, no matter who it is. Cabinet members know their place, and when they don't, they get "resigned".

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Lanny Davis and Joe Klein have floated the idea of Hagel as VP.

And they are idiots. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find any evidence that the Obama campaign is specifically considering Hagel for anything. Even the Times article doesn't say that. And no, I wouldn't want Hagel to be either VP or SecDef.

That's a Murdoch publication, BTW.

[ruggerson]

27. great, I agree

and if Obama gets the nomination and I work to get him elected, I will be one pissed off m'fucker if he does something like this.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Obama mentioned Lugar and Hagel as Republicans he admired, in Newsweek

a couple weeks ago, in response to potential bipartisan cabinet appointments. He'll put at least one of them in there, but why should it bother anyone? It's expected, and Obama has a knack for attracting the smartest people to help him.

[cali]

13. Why post blatantly false crap?

First of all NOWHERE in that shit article does Obama say he's going to appoint repubs. Secondly the article is from Rupert Murdoch's flagship paper.

Try acquainting yourself with the truth and stopposting stinking lies.

[last1standing]

15. Damn! We need to nominate someone who wouldn't appoint William Cohen.

Someone who wouldn't bring Dick "the toe sucker" Morris in on strategic decisions, someone who won't buddy up to the bushes.

We'd better hope that Clinton gets the nomination.

Uh....wait a second......

DUH!!!

[sabbat hunter]

17. most presidents

except for * have people from the opposition in their cabinets. It is very common.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Even Bush did

Norm Mineta was his Secretary of Transportation.

That said, I think it's stupid to entertain the notion now.

[sabbat hunter]

49. I disagree

There are republicans out there that can serve quite honorably in a democratic presidential cabinet. Lincoln Chaffe for one, Jim Leach for another (voted against the iraq war and against the bush tax cuts)

[GoreVidalIsGod]

18. Bill Clinton and JFK both did it.

So you're saying they suck too right?

OK Gotcha, hon!

[WVRevy]

19. And therein lies the difference between Hillary and Barack.

Hillary looks at Republicans as the enemy. Barack looks at Republicans as the opposition. One approach leads to the ridiculous division in this country right now (because, after all, Shrub, Rove, and company AGREE with Hillary on this). The other might lead to getting something DONE for a change.

[blm]

34. Baloney - Clintons govern to PROTECT BushInc. and their agenda.

You think Jackson Stephens groomed Bill for the populist agenda of Democrats?

[WVRevy]

35. My apologies...you are correct.

Should have said, "Campaigns as if Republicans are the enemy."

[TwilightGardener]

20. You've got to be kidding. Hillary will use Repubs, too. Edwards has said he

he would as well. And as it stands, the number of good, smart, qualified, honorable non-neocon Repubs can be counted on about three or four fingers. Obama named two of them. He's smart--he wants the best people around him.

[debbierlus]

22. Oh, give me a BREAK. Everyone of those sleeze balls stood with Bush on EVERTYTHING

It is absolutely astounding watching this 'progressive' board justify Obama's right wing slants.

We have gone from DEMANDING single payer universal health care to DEFENDING Obama's rationale to keep it for profit for corporations.

We have gone from DEMANDING the purging of Repukes & the rage of the pseduo bipartisan bullshit to RATIONALIZING why it is necessary.

With policies slightly to the right of Clinton, this young Senator who LOOKS the part...he doesn't even need to say the RIGHT things as long as he says it in the RIGHT WAY.

Man, oh man, oh man.

Oh man.

[Cha]

26. Your canned outrage is pathetic.

Do some research and then start an OP.

[Window]

44. GMTA.

I was going to post the same thing. LOL!

[last1standing]

28. Why is Dick "toe sucker" Morris better than Hagel?

Please tell us all what qualities this man has that makes him such a good choice to bring into the white house under a Democratic president. And please don't tell me that it wasn't Hillary's decision. She's running on 35 years of experience so she has to include the bad with the good.

[TwilightGardener]

33. You are very uninformed. Read up on Lugar and Hagel.

[tpsbmam]

39. I don't defend Obama's health care plan

any more than I defend Clinton's. I think they're both misguided when it comes to keeping the insurance industry that created this mess in the mix. If HRC had a universal plan without the insurance industry involved she may well have gotten my support -- she doesn't and neither does Obama. But these are the two candidates we have so we have to choose. I've made my choice and clearly you have too. You appear to emphasize flaws you perceive in Obama while possibly ignoring some of Clinton's flaws. I choose to see the flaws in both and the strengths in both and weigh them to make my choice. I've chosen not to denigrate the candidate I didn't choose -- I wish others would do the same.


Edited for another damn typo.

[tpsbmam]

24. Depending on the Republicans....

I have absolutely no problem with this. I'm fed up to here (see me waving my hand way over my head) with infighting and cross-party shots. I'm fed up to the same heights with doing what's right for one's political party before doing what's right for the country. I'm ready for someone who can look at the quality of the individual, the job that needs to be done, and what is right for the country. I'm sick to DEATH of this party crap -- it's gotten this country nowhere. We have some Dems who are FAR worse than some Republicans. No, he's not a Dem any longer, but Joe Lieberman is the first that comes to mind. We have a Congress that is pathetically impotent. Maybe, just maybe we can get someone in the White House who can actually get something positive done! And if that person achieves it by managing to work with people in both parties, then I say bravo for him!

[Zhade]

29. Rightwing source, NEXT.

Dismissed.

[last1standing]

31. Hmmm....O/P posts a hostile thread,,,won't respond to anyone but herself.....

Looks like a flame and run thread to me. Should be locked.

[Window]

45. That's because she doesn't know what in hell she's talking about.

[OHdem10]

38. Obama is saying our party is so weak he cannot find significant

candidate and therefore he, himself is so weak he can only be
pumped up by a Republican.

Some Cabinet position is ok. but the top Positions like VP. Sec. State
and Sec. Defense (other than keeping Bob Gates), he should appt Democrats.

The Country is changing. If we cannot offer a Democratic Slate
then we should give up and vote Republican.

The GOP has helped decide our Candidate . This is enough. .

[stevenleser]

41. Intellectually dishonest OP. EVERY adminstration appoints people from the other party

its tradition to try to appoint one or two people from the other party to your administration. Every administration has done it. If Hillary miraculously turned the race for the nomination around and won the whole thing, she would name one or two 'pugs to her administration/cabinet as well.

[Robbins]

46. Cabent

Bill Clinton appointed a Republican Defense Secretry.JFK appointed republicans as Secretary of Defense and Treasury,and as head of the CIA.It Is not out of the question If he wins to pick hagel as Defense secretary he Is one Republican senator he has really turned against Bush on Iraq.

[Thurston Howell III]

42. Though I am an Obama supporter, I think it is stupid that he ponders on that!

Most of us already understand he will reach across the isle. But when he makes frightened is a premature judgement on Republicans in his cabinet - which most know he will have there - I wonder if he will dismiss the base once he gets the nom. I don't like all this bi-partisan crap.

[RoadRage]

50. The people we need to FIGHT are TERRORISTS...

ROUGE NATIONS, ANTI-DEMOCRACY... POVERTY... AIDS...

"Fighting" Republicans... that would be different from the past how? That would get what accomplished? Some.. but probably not much.

Wow.. what would happen if we'd work with them and try to push through things that are good for EVERYONE. I'm sorry, but many people (myself included) are not interested in fighting anymore.. we're interested in fixing the problems in this country. And the democrats are responsible for some of them. The republicans are responsible for more.

I don't think Obama has plans on putting the most conservative far right winged repubs in his cabinent.. but there are a few that are also interested in bettering the country, and those i'm more then happy to see him work with. That's why he's getting my vote, and millions more like me.

[saltpoint]

51. Nonsense. Check out Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet appointments.

Bill Clinton appointed Bill Cohen as Defense Secretary. He was the husband of one of our current candidates.

[rodeodance]

52. Deliverance or Diversion?--March 3, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

March 3, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Deliverance or Diversion?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

After their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections, it seemed a given that Democrats would try to make this year’s presidential campaign another referendum on Republican policies. After all, the public appears fed up not just with President Bush, but with his party. For example, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center shows Democrats are preferred on every issue except terrorism. They even have a 10-point advantage on “morality.”

Add to this the fact that perceptions about the economy are worsening week by week, and one might have expected the central theme of the Democratic campaign to be “throw the bums out.”

.......

Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing.

[JoFerret]

53. Enough accomodation already

As if there are not enough excellent dems to fill positions.

Cheney/ Bush supporters/ apologists need not apply - imo.
Our time? Who is this mythical "our"?