Fun Quiz!  Try to guess whether this was written by (a) a Serious, impartial journalist, or (b) some wacky wingnut:

Chuck Hagel’s rocky and inauspicious path to leadership of the Pentagon could haunt him if he doesn’t watch his step. [...]

The task for Hagel, 66, going forward is to swiftly move past the protracted nomination battle, prove himself a strong and capable Pentagon chief, and repair relationships on Capitol Hill, said Fran Townsend, a former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush. [...]

His shaky performance at his confirmation hearing and the subsequent fierce political wrangling over his selection and on unrelated matters did not help his case. [...]

Bad feelings about Hagel stem, in part, from his 2007 comments that the “Jewish lobby intimidated lawmakers.”  Republicans who are already uncomfortable with Obama’s policies toward Israel are uneasy about a defense secretary holding such views.

See how the author is hardly even trying to inoculate the inflammatory bits by attributing them to some “Republican strategist”?  She just puts it right out there, in her own voice, that Hagel was a shaky character who courted controversy and did nebulous bad stuff to hurt his own case.

The best bits are found in the tantalizing wingnut linkbait regarding some vague, undefined (but obviously controversial!):

• Obama administration “policies toward Israel” (ed: um, which policies?, Obama handing out free USAID popsicles to Kibbutzers, or it is his policy of drone-killing the first-born child of every conservative Israeli PM?), and, even better,

• Hagel holding some scary-sounding “VIEWS” (!!) about (presumably) sainted well-meaning Jewish lobbyists who intimidate lawmakers (ed: what, with this harmless kvetching you have problem?  maybe it’s all that “guilt-laying” you accuse us of?  it’s a shanda the way you hurt your mother in this way!)

I also like the part where the author selectively picks out those scary “2007 comments” as the most important part of the reason why his nomination sparked “bad feelings.”  Hey, I know you’re constitutionally incapable of ever giving Republicans a Sad, but at least try to find a way to obliquely suggest that naked political opportunism was at least a significant factor driving the opposition (irrespective of whoeverthefuck was sitting in the hot seat).

Always remember, it’s the Democrats’ fault if they aren’t able to wave their +2 Staff of Calming and successfully lull Republicans into such a trance that they temporarily forget to run around rabid and bite someone’s nuts off.  After all, those negligent Democrats should maintain better control over their adorably wacky Republican beasts.

Also too, Daddy Obama needs to take the reins, snap the riding crop and exercise LEADERSHIP, dammit!

(via)