If ALL that matters is winning,.. pick Chuck Hagel as VP

[Milo_Bloom]

:rant:

Look, let's face reality folks. Having Chuck Hagel as the VP absolutely guarantees victory in November. Tell me what state Obama would lose with Hagel on the ticket that he would win with someone else? None. Is McCain gonna take CA? Or NY? MA will clearly vote for McCain in that circumstance... nonsense... he still wins all the blue states... However, having Hagel would pretty much guarantee OH, CO, VA, NC and a bunch of other purple states with independents.

Hold on... why are 80% of the people reading this gritting their teeth in anger right now and ready to vow they wouldn't vote for this ticket? Oh yeah, because it isn't and shouldn't be ONLY about winning.

I respect Chuck Hagel for his willingness to stand up to his own party, but I sure as hell DON'T WANT HIM IN THE VP SLOT.

When Obama picks a VP, he is choosing the next president after him. Either because he served his 8 years and the VP is generally the defacto nominee OR something unmentionable happens.

So, I am sick to death of hearing how the VP slot doesn't matter... it is largely ceremonial, etc.. If you REALLY believe that, get on the Hagel bandwagon, because he is the only sure bet in the house. 100% Guaranteed victory... Obama/Hagel.

:rant:

[niyad]

1. every time I hear someone on DU cheering for that thieving bastard to be the VP, I want to throw up

[Milo_Bloom]

2. No Cheering here... just pointing out an uncomfortable fact.

I am so sick of hearing how we must accept VP choices like Bayh or Biden because all that matters is "victory"... so why not guarantee victory... sell your soul completely and put an arch-conservative like Hagel on the ticket.

[niyad]

9. I understood your point completely. I was referring to the countless times I have seen "hagel as VP

on these boards. amazing how clueless some people are.

[RBInMaine]

14. WINNING IS THE GOD DAMN POINT OF ELECTIONS !!!

With all respect, kindly stop this "wussy" kind of commentary. What in hell do you think elections are all about? Grow up and get over this ultra-idealist shit because it is exactly what has doomed us in cycle after cycle. Politics is a FIGHT ! A rough, tough, rumble of a knife fight. The idea is to WIN and then do the work promised. But to win, you hit your opponent HARD and use SMART tactics! Dems need to grow a pair of balls once and for all. And part of this means you put of a VP who helps you WIN, who expands your base. Now, Hagel's not the one because he's a RePUKE. But, Bayh or Kaine DO make sense because they help expand the base into red territory and with groups we need more of to WIN !
i.e. men, whites, moderates, indys, etc. If we can take VA or Indiana, we WIN the election. !!
NOW GET OUT THERE AND PUT THE SHIT TO THE REPUKES IN YOUR AREA !!

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Hagel guarantees victory. Bayh does not.

If it's all about winning, go Hagel.

[RBInMaine]

20. BS ! Going outside the party divides the party base. Go with a moderate Dem.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. So what Blue state do we lose?

Seriously... what blue state is lost with Hagel on the ticket?


I can show you the red states we win... show me which blue state goes red.

[Lorien]

84. Hagel would guarantee a crushing defeat

in case you hadn't noticed, people are FED UP with the Republican party.

[TwilightGardener]

88. No, I hadn't noticed that people were fed up with the Repub party, since

Obama and McCain are neck and neck in the polls, and McCain leads among white men.

[Dinger]

3. Same Here (nt)

[rurallib]

6. Were Obama to do that I would really question his judgment

and therefore probably not vote for him

[Milo_Bloom]

10. I wouldn't vote for him either....

... However, he will still win all the usual blue states without a problem and pick up enough red states to easily roll to victory.

[niyad]

29. if he puts a repuke on the ticket, I will not be voting for him.

[dflprincess]

70. Exactly

If he wants to go outside the party, why not pick Bernie Sanders? (Just day dreaming)

[LostinVA]

36. Me too

[PBS Poll-435]

4. No Republicans EVAH

F that idea in the A.

[Dinger]

5. Winning Matters, But So Do A Lot Of Other Things, The Answer : Wes Clark, Period

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Milo_Bloom]

8. I'll take DING DING DING for the win, Alex!

Or should that be DINGER... either way, I couldn't agree more.

Obama/Clark makes the most sense on all fronts.

[Alexander]

41. Agreed.

[TheDebbieDee]

7. I'm a Clinton supporter who CANNOT wait to vote for Sen. Obama

in the fall. But if Obama picked Hagel or any other repuke to be his runningmate over several qualified, legitimate Dems, I would have to hold my nose to vote for that ticket.

As far as I am concerned, that repuke runningmate would be a heart-beat away from the presidency, and that's just too much of a temptation for these neocons!

[RBInMaine]

11. No Bad Idea. Bayh or Kaine, period. THEY would guarantee success !

[Milo_Bloom]

12. LOL. Oh hell, let's seal the deal and offer it to McCain.

[sshan2525]

13. They would guarantee putting me

...and half the country asleep. In any case they're both Republican lights. Hagel's the real McCoy. Republican McCoy, that is. Can't you people get the fact that Republicans aren't going to vote for a Democrat for president, even if Ronald Regan was the VP choice. We need a strong, fighting DEMOCRAT to fill the spot.

[RBInMaine]

16. No, let's put up Kucinich and get DESTROYED ! Now there's a plan.

I like Kucinich (he's got some balls at least), but he is SOOOOOOOOOOOO far to the left that he DESTROYS us in November. Like it or not, we are largely a CENTRIST nation, and Bayh and Kaine help us win the center. That's REALITY like it or not.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Did you buy that MSM line as well?

Sorry, but we aren't a "CENTRIST" nation at all.

We are a nation of single issue voters (Actually it is 2-3 issue voters).

The mistake the dems have made over and over and over again is buying into that idiotic spin that being centrist means being a little bit of something.

A little war makes you centrist... a little facism makes you centrist.

That may be what centrism is, but that ain't what America is about.

We are a group of people who feel strongly about one issue or another and lose respect for the person who flipping waffles to try and appeal to everyone.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. The reality is, it isn't about getting GOPers to vote...

Its about getting that coveted 20% of people who don't have a clue which way to vote.

40% of the country will vote Democratic if we put up a dog.

40% of the country would vote Republican if they put up hitler


There is nothing you are going to do to change that... The idea is to get that other 20% to vote with you OR to get a larger % of your 40% motivated than the % of the other 40%.

Hagel gets you a big win in that 20%. That's a fact that can't be ignored.

[RBInMaine]

23. But being able to work and govern together? Damaging the base...

Hagel would alienate too many in the base, and I don't think he'd work well with Obama. He is much like McCain: No real maverick when you look at the whole record. Kaine is the best choice. Huge crossover appeal. Bayh and close second. Go with Kaine. Take VA and you take the election !

[Milo_Bloom]

28. I am not FOR Hagel... I am just pointing out he guarantees victory.

Kaine doesn't... Bayh certainly doesn't.

Kaine, Bayh have almost no real crossover appeal. Independents don't respect them... or even know them.


I don't have a problem with Kaine... but he doesn't guarantee victory.

[sshan2525]

57. Hagel does NOT guarantee victory...

I'm telling you Hagel would HURT Obama, not help him. Naming a Republican will just piss off Dems (who may stay home and not vote) and will not attract a single Republican. It won't have enough impact on Indys to have any effect. Obama's not going to choose him and Hagel wouldn't accept, anyway so it's a moot point.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. What blue state would he lose?

With Hagel Obama wins ALL the blue states and picks up independents from the purple state and that is all he needs for victory.

Hagel is the only sure thing. In your heart you know it. However, that doesn't make it a good choice for him.

[bornskeptic]

74. Most likely Michigan, and maybe Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

He would surely eliminate any possibility of carrying Ohio or Indiana. Spitting in the face of labor is not a very promising way for Democrats to win an election in the Rust Belt during a recession.

Hagel: Rated 8% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Bayh: Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm

[bornskeptic]

58. Bayh has no crossover appeal?

He's won five statewide elections in the most Republican state east of Nebraska, the last three with over 60% of the votes. Who the hell is voting for him if he has no crossover appeal?

[Milo_Bloom]

59. Not a bit.

He has limited appeal in a single state and absolutely no name recognition beyond it. That's why he has no crossover appeal

[TwilightGardener]

60. I disagree--Repubs don't seem to have much of anything bad to say about him, just

from my observations from RW blogs. He is not hated by the right. That's the upside of his supposed DLC downside.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. But who knows him?

To have crossover APPEAL, one must have APPEAL... which means you are a commodity. Bayh MAY make Indiana more competitive, but lacks any APPEAL beyond it.

Hagel, on the other hand, is a known commodity... well known with a reputation for being independent minded and has great appeal to independents all around the country.

[TwilightGardener]

63. If Bayh makes Indiana more competetive, and has a history and resume that

doesn't turn off disaffected moderates and conservatives, AND is still safely a Democrat (no convention floor riots), then it's a win-win when the rest of America DOES get familiar with him--and I don't think he's a total unknown, he's been on the Sunday shows often enough over the years. Nobody is all that excited by Bayh, but unlike Biden, he brings a possible electoral advantage to the table WITHOUT the 30 years of mindless jabbering, gaffes, misspeaks, flip-flops, bad votes, and plagiarism charges. Kaine is just a non-starter. Clark isn't going to be it. Again, we are running out of ideal choices, now we're down to the best of the rest.

[Milo_Bloom]

68. He just demotivates the base without any electoral advantage.

He has all the disadvantages of Hagel with none of the advantages.

[TwilightGardener]

71. Sorry, there is no way that Bayh upsets the base as much as Hagel.

No way. I can understand why people get their panties in a hysterical wad over a possible Repub VP (although I don't share that senitment, myself). I do not think Bayh will upset "the base" all that much, except for a vocal few who aren't having their ultimate progressive fantasies realized.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. Other than the fact he represents everything that is wrong in the democratic party.

In reality, his politics are just to the right of Hagel. So if Hagel is unacceptable... Bayh is even moreso.

[bornskeptic]

69. Name recognition before the Democratic Convention means nothing

as far as choice of a VP.I'm sure Bayh has at least as much name recognition as Hagel, which wouldn't take much.
However, I have no idea why you think name recognition should be a factor in VP selection. It never has been in the past, that I know of. But if it's really going to be a factor, I guess we're stuck with Hillary Clinton.

[Lorien]

83. Amen. Otherwise OUR party will stay at home. There are more registered

Democrats in America than repugs, so we need to appeal to OUR base for a change.

[SoxFan]

17. Who should he pick?

You've trashed EVERY potential VP nominee. Who meets your standards? Ralph Nader? Vermin Supreme? A player to be named later?

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Where have I trashed EVERY potential VP? What planet do some of you live on?

Let's make this simple.

NO WAR VOTERS ON THE TICKET.

NO BANKRUPCY BILL VOTERS ON THE TICKET.



Those 2 things are the two biggest destroyer of lives in the last 8 years.

The choices I have trashed are: Clinton, Bayh, Biden and Edwards. Why? Because they supported one or more of the above, which shows me they have no principles, because a principled person could not vote for either of THOSE.


Acceptable choices include some of the many fine governors (Kaine included)

My top choices are: Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke

[SoxFan]

21. You do realize that Clark flip-flopped on the IWR, right?

[Milo_Bloom]

25. That debunked line again?

[SoxFan]

31. Milo, I was there when it happened

Autumn of 2002.

Clark came to NH to campaign for Katrina Swett, who was running for Congress in NH-02, the district that includes Concord, Nashua, and western NH.

Clark also gave a speech at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. After the speech, he attended a dinner party at the home of Rep. Marjorie Smith, who represents Durham in the state legislature. At the time, I was also a member of the House, serving on the Veteran's Affairs & State-Federal Relations Committee. Marjorie invited me to come and meet Clark. The party was also attended by several other legislators, city councilors, two former ambassadors, and party officials.

He was asked about Iraq, and said he would, reluctantly, vote to authorize the use of force. His position was not a "yee-haw", bomb-bomb Iraq stance. It was difficult, and based on a hope that the US would be smart enough to engage the international community in any effort to remove Sadaam Hussein from power. In other words, his position was not far from that of Joe Biden and John Kerry.

It was only later, when Howard Dean capitalized on anti-war sentiment, that Clark claimed that he was always 100% against the war.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. How would he have voted on the Levin Amendment?

That's the key. Biden, Kerry, CLinton... they all voted it down.

[democracy1st]

22. Educate yourselves he can't have a freakin repub as VP because of tie votes

[KingFlorez]

27. It doesn't guarantee victory, it throws it out the window

The only 100% chance of victory is Obama and only another Democrat. The progressives who voted in the primary for Obama would not accept anyone like Hagel as VP, not even some of the centrist would, because it would be a complete slap in the face. The Democratic base would stay home and I'm positive Obama is smart enough not to put this man on the ticket.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. What blue state would we lose?

How does Hagel depress the "base" any more than Bayh or Biden?

The only difference is Bayh and Biden don't get you independents. Hagel does.

Just look at the map and look at the states.. Hagel hands you Ohio, VA, NC, CO without any doubt and all the regular blue states and that ='s victory.

[KingFlorez]

37. He doesn't necessarily help win any states

And even if it did, it's not worth putting an anti-choice right-winger on the ticket. There are plenty of swing states that have strong Democratic voters who would not like this. If those people wanted to vote for a ticket with a Republican, they'd vote McCain.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. He wins you VA, OH, CO, NC easily... cements PA

But I agree... even though he guarantees victory, it isn't worth it.

That's the point.

[Sensitivity]

35. Any evidence of this AT ALL????

[KingFlorez]

38. Republicans are damaged goods

Is it really so hard to understand that a Republican on the Democratic ticket might cause some problems?

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Shut UP with this stuff.

If Chuck Hagel or any Republican is on the ticket, I'm sitting this one out.

ed. I hope to Goddess that your post was sarcasm.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Did you read it?

No sarcasm, but I make my position very clear.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. I did read it, which is why I had my afterthought.

I'll admit to an initial kneejerk reaction.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sensitivity]

34. If you hate the idea of Obama/Hagel more than McCain/Lieberman, then Hagel is ANATHEMA!!

Otherwise, be happy with whomever Obama thinks gives him best shot at victory.

[mvd]

43. That would be conceding that he needs a Repuke to win

I think that is almost certainly not the case, and if true, we have a big problem anyway. I advise Obama strongly against selecting Hagel.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. I agree it is not the case, but he does guarantee victory.

The question people need to struggle with is what is the real GOAL.

Is winning the only thing that matters? If it is, Hagel fits the bill.


If those of us who supported Obama because he was the only viable non-war voting candidate on the podium are being told we must accept a war voter like Bayh or Biden... why not go all the way, stop fussing around and put Hagel on the ticket. Their positions aren't that far off... all bow to corporate interests... all use religion to explain their stances on choice and gay rights. The only difference is Hagel has REAL crossover appeal.


For the record... I wouldn't vote for Obama/Hagel in the same way I wouldn't vote for Obama/Bayh or Obama/Biden all for the same reason.

Now, I think Biden would do well in Secretary of State and Hagel in Defense, or visa-versa... I just don't want them a heartbeat from the presidency and if Obama makes that choice, it tells me he doesn't care about these issues I hold dear at all.

[mvd]

49. I don't think he guarantees victory any more than any of..

the Dem candidates do. To win, you have to do two things:

1) Appeal to independents and swing voters
2) Don't offend your base too much

Not sure Hagel fits #2.

[Milo_Bloom]

50. I don't think any war voter fits #2, BUT

Hagel fits #1 better than anyone else being talking about.

[mvd]

51. I think him being from the other party..

does exacerbate #2, especially in the current climate. I think it negates him being against the war. While someone like Bayh should appeal to swing voters.

Anyway, even though we don't agree here, I'm glad you aren't supporting Hagel for VP.

[bornskeptic]

67. You're just spouting gibberish!

Bayh's most recent NARAL rating is 100.
Hagel's most recent NARAL rating is 0.
Bayh's most recent Human Rights Campaign rating is 89%, the same as Obama's.
Hagel's most recent Human Rights Campaign rating is 0%.
Bayh's most recent AFL-CIO rating is 100%.
Hagel's most recent AFL-CIO rating is 16%.
Bayh's most recent rating from the League of Conservation Voters is 73 (Obama's is 67).
Hagel's most recent rating from the League of Conservation Voters is 20.
Bayh's most recent rating from Americans United for Separation of Church and State is 100%
Hagel's's most recent rating from Americans United for Separation of Church and State is 0%.
Bayh's most recent ACLU rating is 86%.
Hagel's most recent ACLU rating is 43%.
Bayh's most recent NAACP rating is 93%.
Hagel' most recent NAACP rating is 20%.
Bayh's most recent rating from the leadership Cconference on Civil Rights is 85% (the same as Obama's).
Hagel's's most recent rating from the leadership Cconference on Civil Rights is 38%

http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm


I cannot imagine a voter who would vote for Obama/Hagel and would not vote for Obama/Bayh. Bayh's voting record is slightly to the right of Obama's on some issues, but Hagel is so far out in right field that he would repel most independents rather than attracting them.

[TwilightGardener]

77. Well, no--Hagel would definitely help us with Indies, IMO. I do believe the

ticket would win, but it would be a high-wire act during the campaign itself--it wouldn't be a risk-free win. Both men would have to explain their rationale for running together both to the satisfaction of the Democratic base, and then to the rest of the country. That's why it was unlikely right from the start--too much 'splaining to do, too many potential pitfalls. But for those who are only acquainted with his Senate voting record and nothing else, they'd be surprised to learn that he has a very formidable resume and an interesting Bill Clintonesque life story that would be an asset to a campaign. There's a reason why he was on Bush's VP short list and why Bloomberg wanted to run with him.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. I wouldn't vote for either.

However, there are a lot of independents who would vote for Hagel, but may not vote for a business as usual, finger in the wind politician like Bayh.

[jonnyblitz]

44. If Obama is STUPID enough to put a republican as VP I won't

vote for him. I will leave that part blank and vote for everybody else. I have NEVER voted for a republican in my life and don't plan on it anytime soon. People promoting republicans on DU should be TOMBSTONED!:puke:

[inthebrain]

45. He's not promoting a Republican

Read what he wrote.

He's disgusted with the party selling out the people issues it's suppose to protect to win elections.

Primarily given that some of the veep choices have Republicanesque voting records on issues like abortion.

[bornskeptic]

73. So Bayh's lifetime NARAL rating of 90% is as bad as Hagel's of 0%?

Someone who supports parental notification and some restriction on late-term abortion is as bad as someone who wants to make all abortions illegal? Which Republicans have 90% lifetime NARAL ratings? If the answer is none, then why would you suggest that Bayh's record is "Republicanesque"?

[TwilightGardener]

47. I think Bayh is the overall best choice (since Jack Reed is apparently

no longer in the running), because he won't LOSE it for us, and he might help win Indiana. Everyone else (Biden, Kaine, Clark) is riskier. So, yeah, I don't care about voting record--I only care, at this point, about winning. None of his past votes or positions matter to me--he would be serving Obama's agenda. (For that matter, I also don't mind if Obama picks Hagel, because I think the ticket would win, and I've seen and read enough of the guy as my Senator to trust that if he agreed to the position, then he would faithfully serve Obama's agenda and not subvert him--if he was Obama's choice, then Obama would obviously trust him to do so as well--but he won't be VP, so it's neither here nor there). Biden has 30 years of Senatorial baggage and can be a buffoon, Kaine has pretty much been acting like a giddy teenager waiting to be asked to the prom (ugh) and is not ready for prime-time, and Clark stepped in it and made himself a target. Sebelius would piss off too many Hillary nutjobs. We're running out of Democrats. No one is perfect, and winning is the only thing that matters. Once you lower your expectations, it all becomes much, much easier.

[mvd]

52. Clark is still my first choice

Though Obama would have to find a way around that denouncement of Clark's statement.

Others I think would be good choices are:

Hillary
Biden
Kaine
Warner, if he accepts
Schweitzer
possibly Bayh
Feingold (risky, but I like him - thinking about it more, I think he'd be a viable option)
Sebelius

[TwilightGardener]

53. I'll accept and support whomever he picks, even if it's the proverbial

ham sandwich, frankly--I like to analyze strengths and weaknesses of the VP candidates for fun and recreation, but in the end, I'm voting for Obama. That's why I don't understand refusing to vote because of the VP pick--I don't get Dems who would rather lose the whole enchilada by withholding their vote, money, or support in order to "send a message" to the candidate ("Yeah, that'll learn him! Four more years of Republican rule will teach that Obama not to put someone on the ticket who pissed me off over a Senate vote four years ago!!").

[mvd]

54. Even though I like some choices more than others..

I support your view. I'd really have a hard time with Hagel, Nunn, or Powell, though.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. at least Sen. Hagel is NOT a foreign policy neoconservative KOOK like Evan Bayh

GOOD LORD!! Evan Bayh is such a foreign policy extremist that one of this biggest problems with the current Iraq War seems to be that he worries that in might prevent a war with Iran.
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/stop-obama-bayh-08

Granted Sen. Hagel is very much an old style Reaganite Republican and is on the right on almost every single domestic issue.

And Sen. Hagel is an old style hawk. BUT a REALIST and pragmatist Hawk, not a foreign policy ideological extremist like Evan Bayh.
"This is a hallmark of Evan Bayh. A former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and a past recipient Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson Award for Distinguished Service from the neoconservative security think tank JINSA."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/03/evan_bayh_tough_but_smart.php

And granted Sen. Hagel did vote for the Iraq War. But Evan Bayh was one of the early cheerleaders along with Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman and the whole crew of neocon nuts.
"The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.

The Committee is a neo-con group that was formed to propagandize the country into war. It boasted such illustrious neocon members as Bill Kristol, former CIA director James Woolsey, and even McCain senior foreign policy adviser and Chalabi-bamboozler Randy Scheunemann, whom Josh has been blogging about."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/bayh_as_veep_he_cochaired_wing.php

[mvd]

56. Admittedly, Bayh is not among my top choices

[AlinPA]

64. We could settle all this and be really happy by picking Brian Schweitzer.

[TwilightGardener]

65. Yep--and then McSongbird can pick Mittens Romney, and at the VP debate, the

moderator can ask Schweitzer why he supported Romney for President in '06.

[AlinPA]

66. Whoa. Oh my.

[anonymous171]

72. Green party and Nader would probably break 10% in some places.

But I agree he probably would win. It wouldn't be a good presidency though.

[tigereye]

75. I can't tell if people are serious when they talk about this...

he's a Republican for God's sake. :wtf: I don't care how much he despises Bush.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. It's just about winning. He guarantees victory... but at what cost?

[tigereye]

85. I don't understand what you are saying here -

are you saying this is good, or bad? :shrug:


Hmm, you don't see anyone saying that the McCain should have a Dem. running mate. I don't know why anyone pushes this kind of thinking. It's interesting as an intellectual exercise in non-partisanship maybe, but that's about it...

[JoFerret]

76. Maybe you are right

But oh the disappointment.

Mind you-those machines could come in handy.
(But then - I don't think anyone should cheat and steal an election and that includes democrats.)

I am resigned to whatever selection Obama makes (I think). It will be fine.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

81. Putting an end to these dimwitted Hagel threads

is going to be one sweet result of Obama actually
choosing a vp. Sheesh. Those fellows in the white coats
are your friends and they have a nice present
for you behind their backs.

[Lorien]

82. That would guarantee a loss in November

liberal democrats are already having to hold their nose to vote for pro-corporate power conservative Obama. A repug VP would prove to everyone that the Democrats don't believe in the Democratic platform any more and that it really is a one party system. I know of Republican who are refusing to vote repug this time around too, so they would also be staying home. Why align ourselves further with one of the most corrupt and catastrophic parties in history? Do you really want to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory AGAIN?

[Motown_Johnny]

86. 2016 matters too, what would we do against Hagel if he spends 8 years as Obama's VP?

Lose.
That is what we would do

[demwing]

87. It's strategically unsound

we may still win those blue states, but we'll have to fight harder for our base, and Nadar becomes the spoiler, yet again.

McCain counters with a conservative sweetheart, and we lose, because then his base is wrapped up, and ours is not.

An election is about a lot of things, but strategically, winning is based to a great degree on directing the discourse, keeping on your message, and keeping your opponent OFF of his. Staying on the offense, and making sure your opponent plays defense the whole game.

Tell me how Hagel helps Obama do any of those things.