> Gee, u mean that Obama has nominated somebody who
>
> " is one of the very, very few prominent national
> politicians from either party who has been brave enough to question and
> dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy. What
> plausible Democratic candidate for this job has been willing publicly to
> point out that the US and Israel are separate countries and American
> interests should trump Israeli interests when they conflict, or to advocate
> for direct negotiations with Hamas, or to candidly point out that America's
> Middle East wars are fought for
> oil<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/six-years-ago-chuck-hagel-told-truth-about-iraq>,
> or to condemn the power of the pro-Israel lobby within both parties, or to
> harshly point out the stupidity of attacking Iran rather than cowardly
> mouth the "all-options-on-the-table" platitude?"
>
> What have the left Obama haters have to say about that ?
What does hate or love have to do with it? Like the scorpion in Aesop's fable, Obama is doing what you would expect: discharging his responsibilities as President of an imperial power. Liberals are embittered because their expectations were different. If Hagel is named Defence Secretary, he'll similarly be compelled to adhere to the prevailing set of "destructive bipartisan orthodoxies" until America's strategic interests, rather than any maverick views which he may hold, dictate otherwise.
The continuity of US foreign policy under Obama, particularly with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict, is a pretty clear illustration of the subordination of the individual to systemic imperatives, even at the very highest level. Obama assumed office with some sympathy for the Palestinians and the intention to impose a peace settlement on the Israelis before he was was forced to beat a humiliating retreat.
Perhaps his second term will be different, but that will depend less on the good intentions and understanding of Obama or Hegel than on a revised consensus within the US foreign policy and military establishment, shared by a congressional majority, about the US's strategic Mideast needs in light of such factors as the Arab Spring, US economic constraints, shale gas exploitation, and Iran's nuclear weapons program.