Obama's "Team of Rivals"

There's a lot of pundit talk about whether President-elect Obama (sounds pretty good, eh?) will include any Republicans in his Cabinet. Personally, I think he'd be stupid to do so--why would you want to include anyone who still wants to affiliate him/herself with a massively discredited political entity that stands for nothing if not partisanship before country? Most who take the line that Obama will do so anyway make much of his apparent liking for Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals, which covers Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet.
Lincoln stunned insiders when he chose his most hardened political foes (if not outright enemies) for prominent positions in his Administration. But here's the thing: all of them were from his own party--they were still all Republicans (when they were the good guys)! He did not give any offices to Stephen Douglas, or John Bell, or Horatio Seymour, or anybody who wasn't a Republican already. The modern equivalent would be for Obama to give Cabinet positions to Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Tom Vilsack, not Chuck Hagel or Paul O'Neill (although in O'Neill's case, he seems to have gone off that reservation), or even Colin Powell, despite his endorsement.
It is certainly possible Powell might be tabbed, given his supposedly centrist/moderate attitudes, but remember, this is the guy who lied his a$$ off to the UN for Smirky's war. That alone should disqualify him from holding any federal office ever again. Ever. He might be a good candidate to be a witness for the prosecution in the war crimes trials, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. Powell's a disgrace to his uniform. Chuck Hagel's only--and I mean only--stance that has him even under consideration for anything but scorn from a Democratic President is that he became a vocal opponent of Smirky's war, but only after he had decided to retire, and after a long career of enabling Republican crimes. Thanks, but no thanks, Chuck.
I hope Obama's claims of wanting unity mean that he wants to convince Republican voters of his overall concern for their well-being, which I believe is quite sincere. I hope his claims of wanting bipartisanship means that he wants to convince Republicans that if they stand in the way of Democratic platform-derived legislation, they are thwarting the will of the country unpatriotically, and for their own good they should support those bills if they want to remain employed. We already know what Republican policies have done; there is no reason we should ask for their input in crafting anything.
The Republicans have earned their downfall; let them bask in its fetid glow . . .