“It’s not a conspiracy that hopeful presidential nominees attempt to attract and work with the party across the aisle on mutual-interest issues or that they use the same people to do so” — I don’t suggest it’s a conspiracy, in fact, I even mentioned William Cohen. What I am suggesting is that Obama who claims to be a transformative figure is virtually the same, tactic-wise as Hillary.

“Obama isn’t transforming anything, other than your brain into a machine whose sustenance is his bullshit.”

“…but he’s a crook and a fraud.”

Unprofessional blogging and journalism at its near worst.

As for this, it was simply a callous literary device to depict the mindlessness with which Obama supporters follow his empty rhetoric, the crook and fraud comments were summing up the previous point that he has hijacked Clintonian strategy and pawned it off as his own = crook and fraud.

While you choose to criticize my journalistic talents, perhaps the “comments” you leave should be “better lettered”, as you put it.

It’s unclear what the argument is here and much of it demonstrates a mis-understanding of just how campaigns are run and how working government is supposed to work. It’s not a conspiracy that hopeful presidential nominees attempt to attract and work with the party across the aisle on mutual-interest issues or that they use the same people to do so (This is called opposition negotiating or working the aisle or, more idealistically, consensus or coalition building. Front room and back room deals like this are made in your ward and in restaurants in D.C. Get over it Mr. Beck) - It is critical to the workings of government that they figure out how to build, if not a coalition on certain issues, than a consensus to move forward on controversial and mutual interest issues. This is how government works. If Mr. Beck’s rhetoric were true, we would still be arguing about inter-state highways. Ask your local Alderman or your state Senator. In addition, to declare or assume that both parties SHOULD not work together because they ARE opposition parties is inherently tribal and dangerous civic thinking. Although, it does tempt and woo public and media attention, (turn on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, right about…now). This could be Mr. Beck’s underlying motive.
Yes, I agree with Mr. Beck that our current administration cannot nor should not have been trusted with foreign affairs and that we should be wary of working with those who, over 7 years, have damaged US credibility, economy, and liberty; however, Chuck Hagel (like many independently minded and moderate Republicans) is not exactly Bush Co and we should be careful that our wariness does not spill into I-Refuse-To-Consider-You divisiveness. Hilary and Obama are not stupid -they know a right wing Cabinet member would be unacceptable to both their voters (Mr. Beck is not exactly a rogue journalist making people see the light here) as well as their party elders. This is from the exact Times Online article Mr. Beck linked,

“Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war…”

Hagel may be a friend of McCain, but he opposed the war during an unpopular time to do so. Not exactly rank and file here.
Mr. Obama is not “cheating” on me with the GOP; he is essentially interviewing for the highest office; however distasteful that may be to soldiers of the far right and left. Anyone who has ever interviewed for a job or had job with consequence can understand the maxim “I know how to work with others…” It’s also unclear to me why journalists, bloggers, and journalist-bloggers follow the lead of campaign advisers and pundits by directly attacking a candidate-

“Obama isn’t transforming anything, other than your brain into a machine whose sustenance is his bullshit.”

“…but he’s a crook and a fraud.”

Unprofessional blogging and journalism at its near worst, and, at its best, Mr. Beck, you are undermining your entire perspective and point, which, better researched, experienced, and lettered, could be an interesting dialogue on when its beneficial and when its not for Presidents and Presidential nominees to choose Cabinet members from the other party.

“He’s a less offensive version of Mitt Romney (he’s even part of a fanatical, racist church, also not unlike Romney).”

I don’t think it is fair or accurate to describe Mormonism or the Trinity United Church of Christ as fanatical or racist. Even if there are criticisms that can be made of those institutions I don’t think that this is the right basis on which to criticize either Obama or Romney members.

“he’s a crook…”

Care to back that up? I think this kind of rhetoric is harmful.

Why the hate, child?