Barack Obama apparently wants conservative Republicans to serve in his cabinet, possibly in some of the most important jobs:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

I would hope that even the most fanatical Obama supporter could acknowledge what a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea it would be for Obama to choose a conservative Republican as VP. Hagel and Lugar have voted to confirm every judge George W. Bush has appointed. Having someone like that a heartbeat away from the presidency is just an invitation to some conservative nutjob to take a shot at Obama.

Furthermore, Obama has been a long-term smoker and could easily get lung cancer or some other kind of cancer. No Republican should be his VP.

I also have real problems with the idea of Hagel or Lugar in an important cabinet job like secretary of state or defense. Basically that reinforces the false right-wing stereotype that Democrats cannot be trusted to handle security and foreign policy issues.

We have plenty of highly capable Democrats who would do a great job as secretary of state or defense.

If Obama needs to prove he’s bipartisan, he should pick some moderate Republican for a low-profile cabinet post. No hacks who’ve voted with Bush 90-plus percent of the time in the Senate, and no Republicans for the top-level cabinet positions.

Chris Bowers has more on this:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

I particularly agree with this part:

Obama sends out regular signals that he will govern in a very centrist fashion. Running Harry and Louise ads and appointing Bush Dog Jim Cooper as a spokesperson on health care make that obvious enough. His praise of Reagan and bragging that he is more bipartisan than the DLC also make that clear. He has no problem letting you know that he’s “not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil,” that he isn’t a “anti-military, 70s love-in.” He scolds unknown progressives for thinking that “every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy,” and reminded everyone that Social Security faces a crisis. Now, he is sending out signals that will be appoint Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar to incredibly powerful posts such as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

Here is the thing: what counter-indications had Obama given that he will govern as a progressive? I honestly can’t think of any[….]

Outside of telecom policy, his policy platforms are pretty much center-left wonkish boilerplate, and his rhetoric is straight down the middle. In short, I just don’t see Obama as a transformative progressive at all.

If I am missing something, I don’t know where to look for it. Chuck Hagel as Sec Def is just the latest indication that Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I’ll work hard to help elect him, but I also don’t intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President.