I'm trying to take Howard Wolfson's advice to the McCain Campaign gurus and take a "long vacation"-- a figurative one, this!-- from reading the papers and following the news.  The spirit has its demands, and there'll be time enough to start fighting January's battles-- even before January . . . 

 

     That said, I'll offer the incoming administration one piece of friendly advice, and well-intentioned too.  Sen. Chuck Hagel is a disgrace to his profession.  The recent glowing tribute to him that appeared in The New Yorker really tells us nothing new; rather it serves to handily remind us of all that is most disgraceful about him in one handy serving.  I'm not complaining about Hagel's intelligence, or even his positions per se.  It is the man's character that galls me-- the ambition that is not only shameless but downright shameful.

 

     It is simply offensive for any politician to so blatantly advertise-- nay, self-promote-- his "willingness" to accept offices that have not been offered (not even under the table, apparently) to him by anyone.  I can at least forgive a politician for making it formally clear that he or she might be willing to consider a nod as running-mate, provided that the language used is appropriately diplomatic.  But Chuck Hagel uses no such discretion-- he is nakedly blunt.  Moreover, he didn't just talk about being Veep-- he'd be willing to be Secretary of State too!  And, of course, it's not even just about his own party-- he was expressly pandering to Obama!!

 

     It's not the ideological "shift" that galls me:  if Robert Gates is invited to stay on at Defense I would have no objection, either to the invitation or the acceptance.   And that should go for other Republicans who are asked in good faith and who believe they can serve the country by faithfully administering an agency, or providing advice, with the assurance that Obama will will make his expectations clear and will abide by them.  Rather, it is that Chuck Hagel quite desperately wants to be a Big Shot, and is absolutely unreserved about the fact.

 

     Evidently he long ago decided his best chances would lie with Obama.  Again, within certain respectful perimeters it is fully appropriate for him to discuss divergences of opinion with his party's candidate.  In this case, however, I hardly feel it was kind of him to make them so open.  Hagel has not given McCain due credit for the Iraq Surge strategy, and he has caricatured McCain's foreign policy outlook by trying to convert his long-time colleague into some sort of fearful warmonger. 

 

     Like Dick Lugar, Hagel has apparently fallen ill with the Foggy Bottom-centric view that diplomacy, right or wrong, is the only legitimate avenue to take in securing America's interests.  As a Mid-Westerner, perhaps this sort of William Jennings Bryan-esque naivete is understandable, a sort of too-good-hearted folksiness that makes the mistake of thinking that everyone in the world  is gentle folk, too.  But at least the telegenic Luger has the decency not to make such a discreditable noise on his own behalf.  Hagel's wild self-salesmanship is a disgusting display; and moreover, it does little credit to the notion that he possesses the sort of "judgment" necessary for the job.  President-Elect Obama would better serve himself, and his country, by choosing the more careful, cerebral and experienced Sens. Kerry or Lugar to represent his administration at the State Department.  Ideology aside, either man would bring better qualities of discretion to the office than Hagel has displayed, and both men are apparently willing to treat the office as a career-capstone than as a springboard for an apparently bottomless ambition.

 

     As to what a disaster Bill Richardson would be in the office, well . . . .  that is just too much to consider.