After days of speculation, the news was confirmed today: Barack Obama will travel to Iraq and Afghanistan accompanied with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and Democratic Senator Jack Reed.
Hagel has not (yet?) endorsed Obama, but he has also pointedly refused to support the campaign of his longtime friend John McCain. Obama’s choice to travel with Hagel is first of all Obama’s effective response to McCain’s association with Joe Lieberman. Even if Hagel does not officially endorse the Illinois Senator, Obama’s campaign knows that he would be a very effective voice if he were to defend the Democrat’s national security credentials — and perhaps even offer the media some scathing soundbites regarding McCain’s Iraq plan.
Hagel would be an especially powerful spokesperson on Iraq because of how unlikely a candidate he is for such a role. Besides being the Republican Senator most critical of the Iraq War, Hagel has a very conservative voting record, putting him in a very different position than a politician like Zell Miller who had always been known as a conservative Democrat.
This leads to an obvious question: Does this mean that Hagel is under consideration to be Obama’s vice-presidential pick? I remain skeptical of that possibility. As anti-war as Hagel has become, he remains a very conservative politician and is miles away from acceptable Democratic positions on a whole range of issues — starting with abortion (TNR points out that he has a zero rating with NARAL and argues that he would surely have voted in favor of the Medicare bill earlier this week if he wanted to be considered). Given that the Clinton-Obama reconciliation process has not gone as smoothly as it could have, will Obama take the risk of angering woman and pro-choice groups?
In fact, Obama choosing Jack Reed is as significant as the selection of Chuck Hagel — and could end up a more significant development in the veepstakes. If Obama is looking for a Senator with foreign affairs expertise and does not want to go with Joe Biden (who said this week that he was not being vetted…), Jack Reed could be a very viable possibility. And Reed did vote against the Iraq War resolution back in 2002, something Obama argued throughout the primaries was an essential test of judgment.
Overall, Obama’s two choices are clearly meant to make his trip appear less political and he chose Hagel and Reed rather than, say, Biden and Clark to discourage veep speculation and add gravitas to the trip. Obama is aware that the GOP will be looking to criticize his days in Iraq as a political stunt. By choosing Hagel and Reed, Obama is ensuring that his trip is taken as a serious commitment to reevaluate possible exit strategies based on careful assessments of the conditions on the ground.
That Obama will receive advice as to how he should assess what he is seeing around him from a Senator of the opposite party who has not even endorsed him will allow the Obama campaign to present their candidate as freed from ideological constraints — a theme that has long been at the center of Obama’s candidacy.
As a closing note, some speculation about the future of Hagel’s counterpart Joe Lieberman: While no definite plans have been leaked, it has long been rumored that Lieberman would address the GOP convention in St. Paul in early September. This has led liberal activists to up their pressure on the Senate leadership to dump Lieberman from the caucus and strip him of his chairmanship. Robert Novak now reports that Lieberman would be sure of being kicked out of the Democratic caucus if he does indeed address the GOP convention. That would mean that Democrats need… 10 seats to reach a filibuster-proof (as if 9 wasn’t hard enough).
Robert Novak is not the most credible source. I think he likes to speculate a bit too much and then print his speculation as if it is authoritative. He’s a bright man, but not someone who I would bank on.
If Lieberman was to speak at the GOP convention, the Democrats will nonetheless be more upset with him. I hope he speaks at the GOP convention because he bores me to death. He might suck the life out of that convention.
Robert Novak is a credible source, but only when it comes to Republicans and Conservatives. He is generally way off when it comes to left wing connections. However I do hope the Democrats kick out Lieberman if he speaks at the convention. He makes me sick. The worst thing is that we won’t be able to get rid of him until 2012, but fortnuantly he is so hated by Democrats in connecutuit and his standing among independents has dropped significantly that this term that he won in 2006 will likely be his last.
On Irag, its a good thing that Obama is going with Hagel and Reed. Hagel would be my #1 choice for Defense Secretary in a Obama administration but he is way to conservative to be vice president, even if he changed his party affilation, let alone with out it. You are right taniel, pro-choice women and liberals would leave the Democratic party and droves and Nader would do even better this year than in 2000. Fortantly I think Obama is smart enough to see this and htis won’t happen.
I also think that Jack Reed would be an excellent VP candiate. He is much safer than Joe Biden and has excellenet foreign and miltiary experience. He wouldn’t help him win any states or many voters (Rhode Island is safe Democratic territory) but he would be very useful for Obama on the job. In fact he is probably my number one pick for Obama, with Kansas governor Kathleen Selibius not far behind.
One problem with Jack Reed as VP would be that RI’s Republican Governor Donald Cariceri would appoint a replacement senator.