On the March 11 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy stated that if Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) decides to run for president, he might have cross-party appeal as a third-party candidate “if the Democrats do not nominate someone who was against the [Iraq] war from the start.” Duffy added that Hagel's appeal would be as “someone who is clearly against the war going back or going forward.” Hagel, however, voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius also did not mention Hagel's vote to authorize the Iraq war in his November 29, 2006, column, in which he stated that Hagel “can claim to have been right about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician, Republican or Democratic.” Ignatius, as Media Matters noted, wrote in his December 6, 2006, column that his “readers” were “right” to point out Hagel's vote.

From the March 11 broadcast of NBC News' Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Sixteen candidates. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska's thinking about running tomorrow. He's senator from Nebraska, the most supportive senator of George W. Bush, except he has broken with him on the war.

DUFFY: And that's what -- that would distinguish him, particularly in the Republican field. The Republican who has become opposed to the president on the war, particularly the surge, would create a whole new, you know, category on that side of the race, and even -- well, he would be able to have appeal across party lines, which may be what Chuck Hagel is thinking.

Try it for a while as a Republican and if it doesn't work necessarily as a nominee -- as a potential nominee, there's a possibility here -- if the Democrats do not nominate someone who was against the war from the start -- for a third-party candidate, for someone who is clearly against the war going back or going forward.