Chuck Hagel vs. Jon Bruning: Guns a'Blazing

ROUND 3

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning took the big step today of offically announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by two-term Republican incumbent Chuck Hagel.

This move has, of course, been expected for some time. Although it was only March when Bruning declared himself "a Hagel guy" who would only run if Nebraska's senior senator decided not to seek a third term, Bruning has since become convinced that it's time to go for the Nebraska Republican Party's king-maker.

What's probably most surprising is how upfront Bruning has been with his accusations of apostasy. In Thursday's press conference, Bruning used every angle he had to portay Hagel as out of touch with Nebraska and as a traitor to his party and president at a time of war.

This went above and beyond attacking Hagel's half-hearted impeachment talk and his siding with the Democratic Party in opposing Bush's "stay the course" rhetoric and escalation of the war in Iraq. Bruning actually accused the sitting Republican Senator of being a carpetbagger from Virginia more interested in making a name for himself on TV than serving the people of Nebraska. He also went after Hagel for talking about an independent bid for the Presidency as yet another betrayal of the Republican Party.

When challenged with Congressional Quarterly's report that Hagel was more loyal to Bush's agenda than any other Senator in the country in 2006, Bruning bet the questioner "a nickel" that no such report existed. Besides owing that reporter a nickel and looking a bit unprepared and ignorant about Hagel's actual record, Bruning was still able to save some face with the suggestion to “Call the White House and ask them how they feel about Senator Hagel.” Considering the Bush Administration's vindictiveness and Vice President Dick Cheney's outright denunciation of Hagel, it's hard to believe there isn't some behind the scenes support for an anti-Hagel insurgency here in Nebraska (which Bruning appears to have tried tapping with a fundraising trip to New York last weekend).

Considering that Hagel's 1996 Senate victory is rightfully understood as the foundation on which Nebraska Republicans built their position of outright dominance in Nebraska politics, Bruning comes across quite like Robespierre declaring "Louis must die, so that the country may live." (i.e. "Hagel must fall, so that the party may live.")

If history is any indicator, Bruning might just get his way. . . but he's also likely to get his soon thereafter.

It would be one thing for Bruning to have announced that he couldn't wait any longer for Hagel to make up his mind. . . that he's running because it's his time, he's the best candidate for the office, and refuses to be constrained to decisions and time tables outside his control.

Rather than that more respectful approach that would have allowed Hagel to walk away from this race with his dignity intact, Bruning made quite clear today that - besides his own out-sized ego - this campaign is mostly about getting rid of Hagel. Bruning could have left Hagel an out but has instead chosen to define himself as "the anti-Hagel," essentially slapping Hagel in the face and daring him to do something about it.

This might appear to back Hagel into a corner but one can't help wondering if it isn't truly a reflection of the corner into which Bruning had already been backed. Whether or not Hagel was going to seek re-election, the institutional, inner-party forces at his disposal were likely going to work against Bruning and for another candidate no matter what.

In essence, every bit of influence Hagel has (most importantly, that behind the scenes) was probably going to someone who wasn't Jon Bruning. I suspect Bruning realized that and is now taking Hagel on and making him the issue not just as an attention-grabbing strategy but also as a matter of his own political survival. What's impossible to know is whether division in the Nebraska Republican Party made this conflict inevitable (with Bruning permanently wait-listed to make the next step) or whether Bruning's raw ambition simply wouldn't allow him to wait his turn any longer.

An intriguing dynamic any way you look at it. For now, this is a two-man race. But, we don't know if it's Jon Bruning vs. Chuck Hagel or Jon Bruning vs. himself. Bruning is trying very hard to make this a race about Hagel in hopes that Hagel's perceived weakness will play to his benefit whether or not Hagel ever appears on the 2008 ballot.

As Hagel and his people are concerned, Bruning's is pretty much a scorched earth strategy, which suggests divisions in the Nebraska Republican Party even greater than we might have previously imagined. Either that or Bruning just doesn't have the agenda to back up his ambitions and plans to win this race on negativity and personal attacks.

After attacking Hagel with every weapon he had, this latter possibility became especially evident in the delight Bruning showed at suggestion of a general election showdown with potential Democratic candidate and former two-term U.S Senator Bob Kerrey. With perversely little concern for winning an election based on ideas, Bruning's campaign strategy was succinctly revealed in his confidently dismissing Kerrey as "so easy to assail."

For now, Bruning gets points for going on the offensive with such reckless abandon. But, it's very, very early, and there's a lot of fight left - not to mention plenty of other potential challengers waiting in the wings.

Scorecard Through Three Rounds
Jon Bruning 09 - 10 - 10
Chuck Hagel 10 - 09 - 09

Go to full text...

Bob Kerrey Strikes Back

Two weeks ago, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey provoked some very understandable outrage with a column decrying the American left for its short-sighted and reactionary approach to the Iraq War. I offered a half-hearted defense of Kerrey because there was a valid point somewhere in the middle of his apologetics and revisionism, but it was not an easy argument to make because Kerrey was just so wrong about so much.

Lucky for us - as Nebraska Democrats wanting to maintain faith in one of our party's favorite sons and as progressives wanting constructive ideas for challenging the Iraq War's disastrous stay the course status quo - the conscience of the American news media, Bill Moyers, provided Kerrey an opportunity to elaborate upon his ideas and to vindicate his vision for our future military engagement in the entire Middle East.

On PBS' Journal this weekend, Bob Kerrey stated in his own words:

I would say we end the occupation today. Our mission should not be to occupy Iraq. Our mission should be to be a reliable ally of the Iraqi government in their effort to survive.....

I think it's likely that the Iraqi government will say, we need some kind of U.S. force to make certain that a much stronger in Syria, much stronger military in Iran, and much stronger military in Turkey don't take advantage of a potential power vacuum. But they have to ask us what they want....

I would say yes to maintaining some kind of military force for that purpose. And if they ask us to have forces left not as occupiers, but to help make certain that those borders are protected, I would say yes....[T]hey ask us for economic and military assistance, I would say yes, up to a point.....

I think where we get in trouble is where we are out there operating their prisons, operating their jails, operating and even training their police force. It's very difficult to get that done in a fashion in the modern age, without these images of us knocking down doors, which I think undercuts essentially what we're trying to do....

I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are the same. But there are things that are very much alike. The first is, you're occupying this country. And you can't expect a kid that we've trained to be a good soldier to understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. We're trying to sensitize them. But at the same time, you're training them as soldiers. And...they're not trained as diplomats. They're not trained as aid workers. They're not trained as policemen. I do not think a mission of occupying Iraq is going to be successful.

I think that going after radical Islamic jihadists is absolutely essential. And I think as well, remaining a reliable ally of Iraq is important. But a reliable ally does not mean that we have to say yes to everything that's asked of us. And I think finally I would say...within reason -- and there's a lot in that statement, "within reason" -- you have to constantly press to expand the negotiations that are going on, both in the region and internationally, about what to do to make certain that Iraq has a chance of becoming a stable government in the aftermath of this war....

[T]he problem is that we don't have a bipartisan foreign policy today to deal with these radical Islamic jihadists. And...for the sake of our...soldiers that we're sending over there and for the sake of this larger battle, [we've got to] find a way to get bipartisan consensus on what to do about global jihadists.....

I think that the politicians in Washington understand that they can't survive the status quo. I don't believe that you're going to get Republican members of Congress very smiling ear to ear when they hear the President and the Vice President say we don't care about public opinion because we don't have to face the voters again. Republican Congress, people in Congress do face the voters. And they understand that that status quo is unacceptable. That's what the voters are saying....

The casualties are up. The cost is up....And the President still refuses to go to funerals. And the coverage of the caskets coming back are not national news. At home, they are....Those kids are coming home and they're being buried, and their families are grieving them, and their families are welcoming back their sons and daughters without legs, with brain damage, et cetera. And they don't like it. And I do not believe that Republicans or Democrats in Washington, D.C. misunderstand that. They know it....

The problem is, the very people who criticize us getting rid of dictatorships will then go on to say our problem is we're supporting all those dictators in the Middle East....[W]hich way do you want it? Do you want us to support dictators or oppose dictators.

We brought the dictator down....What's going on now is a war against a government....[T]hat war against...[the Iraqi] government is being fought by people who not just see liberal democracy in the United States as a problem, but liberal democracy in Iraq as an even bigger problem.

[M]any people in this debate are saying get out, period. Bring them all home tomorrow...[T]hat basically says...we're not going to help you in any way, shape or form. It was a mistake for us to go in. It's your problem. You fix it. And what we're doing is making the same mistake that many people made prior to the 2003 invasion, imposing our own ideas upon them.....

Iraq has become central to the war on terror. But the question now is, what do you do about it? And how do we responsibly respond to that fact? And it's very difficult to do because you could play an Air America piece and get a radio piece that was critical of what I said...It's sort of what's going on in many parts of the world. People who are trying to express a moderate view get driven out of the debate because they become the most important target....

I don't like the status quo of us saying, well, we have to support these dictators, because look what happened in Iraq....I mean, for the United States foreign policy to say we're just going to accept the status quo and go back to the status quo, putting our arms and cozying up to dictators because at least they provide stability. Saddam Hussein provided stability in Iraq by killing any Shi'a and any Kurd and anybody who opposed him....that's what he did. Was it stable? Yes. Was there violence inside of Iraq? Yes. If you were a Kurd, if you were a Shi'a, if you were anybody who opposed, he drove you either into prison or he drove you out of the country.

But...it was more acceptable for us, because it wasn't the kind of sectarian violence and brutality that we're seeing right now. And our troops weren't on the ground....

[T]he loss is incalculable. I mean, you've got a young person who dies and never develops, never, you know, sees their kids...It's an incomparable loss. And I think it's one of the things that I think the President has made a mistake in not doing -- going to funerals and allowing us to grieve these losses. And the losses are as great in Iraq, with families who are losing -- losing loved ones as well. Two million refugees...have left Iraq.

Allow[] yourself to feel that. Otherwise, it's not possible...to proceed in a correct fashion. You can be paralyzed by it. I would definitely say I do think that if this government of Iraq survives....if it survives as a democracy, I do believe that you're going to be able to say that the price was worth it....

The end game for me is one, we have to say we are not the occupying force. And it's not a small matter. We're not occupying Iraq any longer. We're ending the occupation. Secondly....that we are going to work to create bipartisan domestic and global strategies to deal with global jihadism. And thirdly, that we will remain an ally of Iraq and let the Iraqi government...make your requests. Tell us what you want. And we will say yes or no, depending upon whether or not we believe that it's an appropriate mission and appropriate for us to do it, or we have the resources....

I just see both the left and the right choosing to use words like betrayal and treachery any time somebody reaches a compromise....The problem is we don't have the conversation to find out where we agree and that's what's missing - the means by which the public can have a conversation and discover where the agreement is and then urge the Congress to do something in that area....

[Last November,] voters basically said "no" and that's not very clear instructions. In Nebraska, it's the number one issue. 49% of Nebraskans self-identify the Iraq war as the number one issue....I've never seen that situation, but if you poll...what should be done. Equally divided - withdraw, stay the course....

But neither answer is an answer. That's the problem.

Of course, there's some pretty heavy-duty editing going on above. I've left out Kerrey's defense of the Democratic Congress' recent compromise with President Bush from charges of capitulation, as well as his controversial call for refocusing the War on Terror on more surgical strikes with seemingly little to no regard for Middle Eastern countries' territorial sovereignty. Frankly, I agree with Kerrey about the former but am quite severely troubled by the implications of the latter and its potential to ignite a true regional conflict that could quickly become global in scale.

But, for now, its worth emphasizing to precisely what degree Kerrey has vindicated himself with a well-reasoned and comprehensive vision for ending the occupation of Iraq and moving forward with a new idea for American involvement. You don't have to agree with Kerrey on every point he makes, but his central proposal is as bold, as thought-provoking, and as deserving of respect as any I've seen put forward.

That Kerrey has now articulated himself in a manner that still challenges established liberal orthodoxy without going out of his way to blame its adherents for the four years of failure and the nationwide fatigue resulting from a war they opposed from the start should go a long way towards restoring confidence in Kerrey and confidence in his credibility as a true voice for reform.

As for talk of Kerrey returning to Nebraska politics, there's nothing I can say about such speculation that isn't said more entertainingly and probably more astutely by the following piece of brilliant editorial cartooning by Neal Obermeyer, as it appeared in last week's Lincoln Journal-Star.

Go to full text...

Bob Kerrey: Wrong About the War But Right About the Stakes

In his singular style, Bob Kerrey - the former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator who is rumored to be considering a 2008 bid for the Senate seat once held by his colleague Jim Exon...if his friend Chuck Hagel does not seek re-election - penned a controversial opinion column about the Iraq War in yesterday's Wall Street Jounal that has outraged and infuriated many of those who would otherwise be his most ardent supporters (I, II, III).

I can understand why a number of Democrats and progressives would react negatively to Kerrey's article. By repeating the case for originally invading Iraq and admitting that he still believes it was the right thing to do, Kerrey does seem to have blinded himself to the reality of this four year debacle that has threatened our economic security and demoralized our military while leaving the people of Iraq in a state of perpetual chaos.

However, as wrong as Kerrey may be about the war, this does not imply that he's wrong about the stakes. Nor does it mean that he's wrong about the course we must follow from this point forward. While there's a lot to be said for a clear understanding of the past being necessary to chart the best course for our future, I am probably more bothered by the reactionary fervor against Kerrey's ideas than I am about the ideas themselves.

It's easy to hold against Kerrey his stubborn, almost Bush-like refusal to reasses the threat actually posed by Iraq after 9/11. It's easier still to hold it against Kerrey when bloggers at the arch-conservative National Review declare "Bob Kerrey Just Became My Favorite Democrat" or when notorious right-wing blow-hard Rush Limbaugh decides "Bob Kerrey is right." But, in a democratic debate of free-thinking individuals, you're going to see people with very different agendas and very different worldviews sometimes finding themselves on the same page.

If the issue of Iraq were truly a partisan one, then perhaps we would be in a position to judge Kerrey by the company he currently keeps. But the ongoing debate of the Iraq War that has only really begun since the Democratic Party took control of Congress in January cannot and should not be conceived along these oftentimes arbitrary and wholly political lines we call party labels. As a proud Democrat, I can see why Democrats would want such lines drawn to insulate themselves from the failures of the Iraq War and to position themselves for the 2008 elections, but the perils of playing games while this disaster unfolds are too great to allow message control and party fealty to trump the free debate in which we place our faith and trust.

Although I disagree with a great deal of what Kerrey wrote, he is right to call on Democrats and liberals to re-examine the best course of action from this point forward. Like it or not, opinion polls and an 18 month presidential campaign cannot dictate how we proceed if we have any true concern for the international community, our own security, or the continued suffering of the Iraqi people. Kerrey may infuriate with his singularly contrarian style, but there is a lot of truth in the below statements that we'd be fools to dismiss for such callous and so obviously political reasons:

The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it....

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes"....

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq.....

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

For everything Kerrey may be wrong about in Iraq, there's enough truth in the preceding passages that they deserve more careful consideration than what I've seen from those who've reacted so negatively to this opinion piece. Of course, the above message may have been better received if Kerrey had come on bended knee apologizing for his previous errors of judgment in Iraq, but that's not Bob Kerrey's style.

Never has been. Never will be. And, you know what, that's a lot of the reason why Nebraskans love him so damn much.

I've been an outspoken opponent to the war in Iraq since 2002, but I'm not looking for an ego-stroking as we decide what course to set for eventual U.S. withdrawal and for the faint but still living hopes for establishing an Iraqi democracy. One thing is for certain - Iraq is a mess that we can not wash our hands of or turn a blind eye to if we are a sane people with any conscience whatsoever as a nation.

Other than that, I don't claim to have any answers, and I question those who do. This is a complex situation with no simple or short-term resolution. Whether a U.S. military presence can bring any sort of peace to Iraq is doubtful, but that doesn't preclude our playing an essential role in making that peace possible and in preventing the outright genocide that could otherwise result.

To these challenges, regardless of where I personally disagree with the man, I welcome Bob Kerrey's most recent contribution to this all-important debate. And - yes - I would most certainly welcome Kerrey's return to the Nebraska political scene that has been far less entertaining, less enlightening, and less challenging in his absence.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel Highlighted in NEWSWEEK's Presidential Hypothesis

The Washington Post has been very good to Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel over the years, from its editorial pages giving him a national platform, to long-time columnist David Broder's consistent praise, and even in its regular coverage, where a certain affinity for Hagel and his brand of conservatism has often crept into the Post's reporting.

One can assume that Hagel has been good to the Washington Post as well. A politician has plenty of ways to build relationships with a newspaper and its reporters, whether by providing choice quotes, easy access, or even the occasional leak. Considering that Hagel lived in the Washington D.C. area for nearly two decades, working on Capitol Hill and building connections in political circles and the private sector, it's entirely possible the intelligent and ambitious Hagel's ties to the Washington Post go back even before being elected a U.S. Senator in 1996.

So, it doesn't surprise that Hagel's supposedly waning Presidential ambitions are being trumpeted in this week's NEWSWEEK, my personal favorite of the news-weeklies and probably the farthest reaching outlet in the Washington Post's media empire. Not only is there a featured article that contrasts Hagel with Sen. John McCain on the Iraq war but also a column by Jonathan Alter specifically making the case that Hagel is the more attractive - perhaps most attractive - candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

First, McCain vs. Hagel on the war:

McCain, a Republican from Arizona, was a Navy bomber pilot, shot down and imprisoned by the North Vietnamese for five and a half years. He has, he sometimes says, "more scars than Frankenstein." Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, was an Army grunt in Vietnam who won two Purple Hearts and still has shrapnel in his chest. Both men have seen the face of war up close. But on the question of the Iraq war, they are almost mirror opposites.

Hagel is "obsessed" with the war in Iraq, says his brother Tom, who served with him in Vietnam. "You can't have a conversation with him without this coming up." During Christmas, Hagel looked "markedly older and grayer than when I saw him this summer down at the beach," says Tom. In an interview with NEWSWEEK last week, Hagel teared up when he began talking about a Purple Heart ceremony he had attended in August in Lincoln, Neb. "You're sitting there thinking, Was this a waste?" said Hagel, who voted for the original congressional resolution backing the war despite raising serious doubts about whether the invasion made sense. He added, somewhat uncomfortably, that at times he wonders whether he has done enough to try to stop the war.

Hagel is not pushing for "Out Now." But he is almost angrily dismissive of the idea of sending an additional 10,000 to 20,000 troops to Iraq. "Are we going to pacify Baghdad?" he asks. "Are we going to break the militia's stronghold? Are we going to use these troops to propel or force a settlement between the Shias and the Sunnis? What's the objective of it? I will guarantee that there's going to be a lot more American casualties. And there's going to be a lot more animosity by the Iraqis." The idea that the Iraqis will respond only to more troops, he says, is "complete folly, unless you're going to kill all the Iraqis"....

Hagel and McCain are likely to be increasingly prominent spokesmen for their opposing views on Iraq. McCain is almost surely running for the Republican nomination for president, and Hagel has often been mentioned as a candidate, though he says he has yet to decide if he is running. Both men will be heard from early and often as the debate on Iraq moves to Capitol Hill this winter....

The president seems determined to defy his detractors, not to mention popular opinion. This week Bush is expected to announce a "New Way Forward" on Iraq that will call for more troops to try to bring order and political stability to Baghdad...To Bush's many critics, like Hagel, the new Iraq strategy adds up to a waste of more American lives. To Bush's smaller and dwindling band of supporters, like McCain, failure in Iraq is unthinkable. And if duty requires more sacrifice, then so be it....

The differences between Hagel and McCain transcend their war experiences. Hagel is the classic citizen-soldier, in a tradition that goes back to George Washington and to ancient times. The ideal is the Roman general Cincinnatus, who left his prosperous farm to rescue the Roman republic—but then returned to domestic life when the fighting was done....

Hagel has a long, sad face, one side of which was seared by the flash of an exploding enemy mine almost four decades ago. But he is almost gleeful when he talks about the coming debate on Iraq. He thinks Congress will awaken from its passivity and begin questioning how Bush is spending blood and treasure on Iraq. "The administration is going to be forced to come up and explain, 'Where is the money going?' " says Hagel.

He rejects the notion that the newly Democratic-controlled Congress will shy away from cutting off at least some of the funding for the war. (The somewhat cynical view on Capitol Hill is that the Democrats will let Bush have the money—and also the responsibility for a failed policy.) He foresees Congress's agreeing to pay for existing force levels—but not to send more troops. The White House, he says, can no longer bully Republican members into submission. "The Republican Party has to go through an election next year, the president doesn't," says Hagel. "There are a lot of Republicans in this conference that are very scared."

McCain, needless to say, is not one of them. He plans to push back...Both McCain and Hagel are clearly girding for battle. For these two men, the fighting is never really over.

The entire article is worth a read. Although Hagel doesn't get a cool nickname like McCain (the "American samurai"), a man couldn't buy this of sort of press, especially its likening him to George Washington and a near-mythic hero of the Roman Republic. If suddenly finding himself Senator Cincinnatus isn't enough ego-stroking to push Hagel into the presidential race, he might live up to that legend after all.

Sweetening the pot, though, is Alter's column, which Hagel's Political Action Committee has jumped on - sending it via e-mail to supporters and splashing it across its webpage - in what seems a strong indicator that Hagel will be running for President. Here's the gist of McCain vs. Hagel for President:

Let's try an elementary thought experiment for Republican Primary voters....

One Republican — we'll call him "Candidate A" — has among the highest support levels for President George W. Bush's conservative agenda in the Senate. He championed the president's 2001 tax cut, which many Republicans believe is the litmus test of today's GOP. After initially voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, he became an early and outspoken critic of the Iraq policy, a view now endorsed not just by the American public and Democrats but by Republicans as well.

Republican "Candidate B" has the inverse position. He opposed Bush's big tax cuts, one of only two Republicans in the Senate to do so (the other being Lincoln Chafee). And on Iraq he is one of the main advocates of the "surge," a plan to "win" the war with a modest influx of troops, though even many military experts say the idea won't work.

You would think that Candidate A would be a strong favorite for the nomination and Candidate B destined for political oblivion. But no. Candidate A, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, is seen as damaged goods, with little chance to be nominated. Candidate B, Arizona Sen. John McCain, is now the front runner.

The explanation is the GOP tradition of primogeniture. Since the 1950s, Republicans, unlike Democrats, have given the nomination to their firstborn son — the guy whose "turn" it is. That's McCain....

Hagel, by contrast, seems lost. After John Kerry favorably mentioned Hagel's skepticism about the Iraq war in one of his 2004 debates with Bush, he became persona non grata in his party. As recently as six months ago, any Republican lawmaker who didn't back the president on the war was in deep trouble.

But that was then. Supporting Bush on Iraq today is a liability, not an asset...Six months from now, any Republican who opposed the tax cuts but champions Bush's disastrous Iraq policy is going to have some explaining to do in early debates. When Rush Limbaugh says after the midterms that he is sick and tired of "carrying water" for Bush, Chuck Hagel is not going to be run out of the party for refusing to carry water.

For ordinary Republicans, tax cuts are an article of faith. Backing a president in a failed war is not. And Hagel's doubts about the war have more weight because of his heroic combat experience in Vietnam. In a GOP debate, McCain would not be able to use his military experience as a trump card on Hagel. But Hagel and the others would score heavily on McCain for opposing the tax cuts — even though McCain was brave and right to have done so.

The most stunning thing about the Republican campaign so far is the vacuum on the right. While McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (a moderate Republican until five minutes ago) battle over the centrists in the party, the conservative base that actually determines the nomination remains forlorn....

[G]overnors, who normally make the strongest presidential candidates, seem a little irrelevant this time around. They aren't likely to sound as credible as senators on the nuances of Pakistani politics or the readiness of the Third Infantry Division. There's more conventional wisdom that's in danger of cracking, too. Pooh-bahs in both parties have convinced the candidates that they have to raise $100 million this year to be competitive. This is nonsense in the Internet age, peddled by consultants who need that booty for their own pockets...In presidential politics, money is an effect — it follows quickly the momentum that's generated in the rough and tumble of the "free media" campaign.

Chuck Hagel might not run. But if he does, Candidate A would be formidable. It's the issues, stupid.

There's definitely some truth to Alter's reading of the Republican field. Giuliani doesn't have a prayer for the nomination and McCain's gamble on the Iraq war - where the stakes are soldiers' lives - could just as easily be the death of his campaign as it could have its intended effect of locking-up his presumed front-runner status. Other than that, the field is wide open, and Hagel would bring some intriguing possibilities to the race.

No doubt about it, Hagel's experience on both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, not to mention his service in Vietnam, would be incredible assets on the campaign trail. And, addressing Hagel's lack of financial resources, money does have a way of following hype in presidential politics, with the latter quickly taking care of the former but the former not necessarily translating into the latter.

The one hiccup for Hagel by this equation is that he might have to actively combat the ill will of Republicans who only know him (and resent him) for his outspokeness against Bush's Iraq policy. That takes more money than a lowly governor starting from scratch with the general public...although free media like this and the continued deterioration of the situation in Iraq could go a long way in leveling the playing field or even putting Hagel at an advantage.

Of course, Alter fails to take into account the fact that Hagel's being the most ardent supporter of the Bush Agenda (including Bush's tax cuts) in the U.S. Senate is not much of an asset when Bush has an approval rating of about 30%. Imagining this is all a symptom of the Iraq war is utter nonsense, even if such would be ideal for Hagel's purposes because it's one of the few issues on which he's staked an independent identity.

On Iraq, Hagel can make a consistent and powerful emotional appeal even if his voting record does somewhat strain its intellectual credibility. That still leaves eight years of Bush's unpopular and failed agenda for which Hagel can be held liable in the general election. But, in true referendum style, that's going to be the case for whomever the Republicans nominate - including McCain, who's most sheltered from Bush's full agenda as a 2000 challenger even as he's become the most exposed on Bush's Iraq policy.

It's hard to say whether Hagel is a legitimate contender in his own right or whether he's just convenient for illustrating McCain's weaknesses. The problem for Hagel is much the same as that faced by former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey in 1992. Although a very intriguing candidate on paper - a perfect "Candidate A" for political columnists to wax philosophically about and to dream up hypothetical campaigns - there's a political reality that isn't so neat and easy . . . or, at least, hasn't been in the past.

Hagel, like Kerrey before him, offers some great repackaging of a tired product that seems like it should be easy to market. But, there's "New Coke" quality to this sort of thought exercise - this "seems like" - whereby a great idea on paper that appeals to an elite class who are trying their best to figure out what appeals to the masses should immediately be distrusted.

One day, though, hype and political chatter might be enough to pave the way for victory. With the rise of blogs, the culture of celebrity, and so many forms of instantaneous communication, who knows, it might just be today. If so, Hagel certainly has a shot in 2008 and - to be honest - I think he'd be a fool not to take it.

Go to full text...