Obama Mentions Hagel as Potential Cabinet Choice

-

steve clemons and chuck hagel twn.jpg
Barack Obama has often said that he would like to have Republicans serve in his Cabinet if elected President. I think that this is a very smart move — as the only way to get back to results-producing government is to win over enough dissident Republicans to generate a new, workable political equilibrium.
Obama has mentioned Schwarzenegger, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel as possibilities for a government he might run. At the same time, Bloomberg may decide to shock everyone with his own presidential run — and Hagel is the rumored frontrunner for that VP ticket.
Just to fill out a bit more of the travel picture on where leading presidential contenders (and vice presidential contenders) have been, I asked Senator Hagel for his travel details.
In this case, Hagel responded in the format I originally asked all of the candidates — which was to share the regions of the world he had visited and the frequency.
Here are the results:

Senator Chuck Hagel – International Travel

Europe

2004, twice in 2005

Africa

2004 (May)

Asia (including South Asia and Southeast Asia; i.e. India/Pakistan)

twice in 2006

Middle East

2004, 2005, twice in 2007

Latin America

2005 (April)

It is interesting to note that Senator Hagel made the time to go to Latin America — something missing in the profiles of Obama, Clinton, Romney, and Biden, although as First Lady, Hillary Clinton went to Latin America on numerous occasions.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

10 comments on “Obama Mentions Hagel as Potential Cabinet Choice

  1. mimififi1968 says:

    Have you seen http://www.obamascabinet.org – while their
    predictions may not be very realistic, this was entertaining – be
    sure to click on the clock and the ash tray.

    Reply

  2. benjamin says:

    PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA
    AS A BLACK MAN, AND A MOVIE PRODUCER LIVING IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, I HAVE TO SAY, I WOULD FEEL VERY BETRAYED BY YOU, IF YOU SELECTED HILLARY CLINTON OVER GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON FOR SEC. OF STATE!!!
    GOVERNOR RICHARDSON WAS THE PIVOT THAT CAUSE YOU TO WIN THE HISPANIC VOTE! HE TURNED HIS BACK ON THE CLINTON’S TO SUPPORT A MAN WITH A VISION FOR THE FUTURE.
    PLEASE DON’T TURN THAT VISION INTO POLITICAL FAVORS TO PLEASE THE POWERS THAT BE!!!! NO ONE HAS MORE EXPERIENCE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS THAN BILL RICHARDSON; FORMER “U.S. AMBASSADOR”, NEGOTIATING TO FREE AMERICANS UNJUSTLY HELD IN PRISONS AROUND THE GLOBE.
    NOT TO OFFER HIM THAT POSITION WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO THE COUNTRY, TO HIM, AND TO YOURSELF!!!! DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!!
    IF WE WANTED A 3RD.
    CLINTON ADMINASTRATION, WE WOULD HAVE VOTED IN HILLARY!!!!
    “CHANGE, NOT ASSIMILATION ”
    BENJAMIN

    Reply

  3. Willam A. Ogorodny says:

    I really would like the choice of Dick Lugar as Secretary of State. His experience would add a bipartisian flavor to an Obama presidency.
    As far a Secretary of Sefense goes, I can think of no better than Chuck Hagel. He has been a watchdog of years concerning defense spending.
    With regars of Secretary of Treasury, I would like Obam to consider Robert Rubin. He performed miricle under Bill Clinton. Mike Bloomberg would also be a dynamite choice.
    As far as nation security advisor, I dont think Obama could go wrong with Richard Clarke. He had the 9-11 problem assessed correctly. ‘
    Obama should seek to to employee the best and the brightest no matter what the the indicduals party affiliation is.
    We certainly need an era of bipartisianship to seal with this country grat problems.
    Finally, I can think of no better canidate for a supreme court vacancy than Orrin Hatch.

    Reply

  4. Marcus Parrish says:

    It’s now or never people. Haven’t we all have quite enough of the absolute idiocy in our government? I think it’s time for all the conflict mongers to promptly step aside and give the clear-thinking adults a shot at the business of running the country. Let’s rethink the roles that the people in the cabinet play. Let’s have all those in elected government to write down their day to day job description so the country can have a look at it. Hell, we’re paying for it. Exactly what is it that we’re getting for our money? We need to inventory the hell out of this country. Let’s get some loss prevention going because I’m certain that we are be shoplifted. Somebody needs to stand up and explain to the world, as if it were a child, to tell it that shouting and biting and throwing tantrums do not get you what you want. We can stop the violence of war and probably a lot of the violence of the domestic sort too. The trick is that somebody has to first choose to stop fighting. Let’s let that time be now.

    Reply

  5. Tiparillo says:

    What about the Obama – Bloomberg breakfast meeting recently? Any word on what THAT was all ablout?

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Again, I see a list that tells me nothing. What was Hagel doing on those trips, and were the trips fruitful in his sworn duty to represent his constituents, and the best interests of THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES? Without that information, travel itineraries are meaningless in the quest to find a favorable candidate, or to even judge the performance of a politician. For all we know, the junkets could have been a tremendous waste of money. And, judging by the current state of our union, most probably were a tremendous waste of money.
    Come out here to real life, Steve, where the little people live, and are trying to raise families, pay education and health costs, keep their jobs. (That are being shipped to many of the destinations you name, are we to assume thats a coincidence?). Ask them how much our quality of life or security has improved as a result how many frequent flier miles these bastards have accumulated on our dime.
    Are you people in Washington living in the friggin’ Twilight Zone? I’ll be damned if some travel itinerary is going to negate Obama’s comments about executive abuse, or Hillary’s extensive world wide carousing will erase her total inaction when it comes to pressing for accountability or reigning in these criminal fascists in the White House.
    Maybe these people should forego the air travel, and ride the internet over to a copy of the Constitution, and their oaths of office.

    Reply

  7. bcamarda says:

    Lately, there’s almost always ONE member of the other party in the cabinet, either to “be” bipartisan or to “look” bipartisan. Until recently, Bush’s Dem was Norman Mineta. Yes, foreign policy is more important than the Department of Transportation, but I think the recent debates over whether a Dem would/should appoint a Republican to the cabinet are somewhat overstated. It depends on which Republican in which role.
    Frankly, I don’t see a high-level Republican — even Hagel — who I think well represents the foreign policy priorities of any of the three leading Democratic candidates. From what I can see, Hagel’s views (thoughtful as they clearly are) strike me as a bit conservative for Obama and Edwards. And Hagel strikes me as a bit too independent and skeptical of force for Hillary’s tastes.
    Of course the latest rumor is an independent Bloomberg/Hagel ticket…

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    I am all for Hagel in some important position in any kind of adm…..personally I would like to see him as Sec. of State…I think he could give that office more power.

    Reply

  9. Jeffrey Davis says:

    Maybe it’s my own chauvinism, but I see the relative absence of East Asian and Latin American travel as reflecting an East Coast view and bias. One could make a case that objectively America’s interests and opportunities are more closely tied to Latin America and the Pacific, or at the least, that they are much more so than is indicated these days around the Atlantic Seaboard. If so, it’s a pity.
    I speculate sometimes how different our pattern of engagement in the world might be if the debate and decisions simply took place on the Pacific side.

    Reply

  10. weldon berger says:

    Another way to get back to “results-producing government” would involve building solid progressive majorities in both chambers of Congress. Of course that would require a combination of political smarts, courage and a desire to do that that Democratic party standard bearers, emphatically including Obama, appear to lack.
    That aside, I question the assumption that placing a Republican in a Democratic cabinet office would engender cooperation from Republicans in Congress. Congressional Republicans will spend the next four years whining, yelling and doing whatever is in their power to undermine and disrupt and if possible prematurely dislodge the Democratic administration, and they will regard any Republican who accepts an office in it as a traitor. Hagel, as I’m sure you’re aware, is already cordially despised by many of his colleagues and their staffers, and that won’t change if he goes to work for Obama.
    And finally, what would be so terrible about appointing qualified Democrats to those offices? Aren’t there any? Are Lugar, Hagel and Schwarzenegger really superior to potential Democratic candidates for whatever slots Obama might envision them in? I know you’re something of a Joe Biden fan on the foreign policy front; would there really be an advantage in hiring Hagel over him? or, from my perspective, could he possibly be any worse?
    Of course Hilary Clinton is in on the adopt-a-Republican program too. She wants to send Colin Powell out and about as some sort of ambassador at large, no doubt to exploit the enormous credibility he accumulated during his tenure as secretary of state, and, according to Bill, she envisions a similar role for the elder Bush as well. For those who don’t recall, that’s the Bush who pardoned the major Iran-Contra figures, illegally invaded Panama and helped quash efforts by Congress to sanction Iraq for its use of poison gas against the Kurds and Iran while pushing for normalization of relations between the US and Saddam. Of course he rejected the offer, implying as it did that his son will have left the world in something less than spic-and-span condition for his successor, and in the process made her look like something of a tool. That should, but won’t, inspire some caution about these attempts.
    I am sensitive to your feeling that partisanship is misplaced where foreign policy is concerned, but it continues to strike me as somewhat demented under current conditions.
    Best, Weldon

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *