Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
From Wiki -
"Since 2001, Holder has worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.[3] In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a paramilitary group that has been designated a terrorist group by the United States government.[8][9] In the agreement, Chiquita's officials pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $25 million.[9] Holder represents Chiquita in the civil action which grew out of this criminal case.[9]
In late 2007, Holder joined Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a senior legal advisor. He served on Obama's vice presidential selection committee.[1]
In June 2008, Holder was considered to be a leading candidate for Attorney General under an Obama Administration.[10]
On November 18, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama selected Eric Holder as his attorney general. If his nomination is approved by the U.S. Senate, he will be the first African-American to head the Justice Department. Holder's ascension to the Cabinet will follow the paths of General Colin Powell, who served as Secretary of State in the administration of George W. Bush, and Condoleezza Rice, Powell's successor at State under President Bush, as prominent African-American members of a presidential cabinet."
Eric Holder, defender of corporate terrorism.
That's just fucking great.
Next thing you know, he'll nominate Tomás de Torquemada to the Supreme Court.
I can't see punishing Martin to get at Reid/Schumer. Chambliss is the lowest of the low. He compared triple Vietnam amputee Max Cleland to bin Laden. I'm fine with direct contributions to Martin.
Yes, I hear you.
But, there are some who claim that even voting at all just supports a corrupt system and you should never vote. I have read highly educated men and women make a good case for not voting at all.
I think that one need do whatever leaves them with a clear conscience. After all, one vote in this steamy swamp of horror is not going to ever mean much. (can't even get an honest count in my state)
Even if your candidate wins (I was happy with the last cycle), most often he will greatly disappoint you as all have done for me for decades.
So vote Nader. Vote Green. Vote commie. Whatever.
Just don't vote Republican!
@bayswimmer, to be fair, since Bill Clinton has been the only Democrat to hold the Presidency since the 70's, any Dems that have experience in the Executive branch will have ties to the Clintons.
There might be a few survivors of the Carter administration, but most of them eventually had ties to Clinton, too.
Glenn misses the point. It's not really a question of whether there's been bipartisanship or paralyzing gridlock in the Congress. The American people believe the latter, because the stark ideological divide has created the perception of extreme partisanship. And, as the cliche' goes, perception is everything. If Obama expects to have broad public support for his programs, he'll have to make the people believe that he has done everything humanly possible to create an atmosphere in which consensus can be achieved. Otherwise, when he needs a public outcry against the Republican ideologues, who are sure to do everything possible to ensure his failure, he won't have it. With broad public support, Obama and the Congress will at least have a shot at getting enough semi-moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats to vote with him on large issues such as the economy, health care, energy independence and the environment. Forgiving Lieberman, who certainly doesn't deserve it, is a very public part of the strategy and essential to its success. I'm amazed that Democrats can do something so intelligent.
has cut off comments on its blog.
Of course you're right about this issue, Glen. The whole system runs largely on compromises and acquiescence--always has, probably always will.
But the "partisan rancor" narrative has become pretty powerful in the media and in our politics, "bipartisanship" is the buzzword, part of the supposed "mandate", so Obama's got to nod to it, make a show of it a little, especially at the outset. The jury's still out (or more accurately, hasn't been officially seated yet) but I think there's something to be said for the practice choosing one's battles--and I suspect (could be wrong, who knows) that in the long run, Obama will choose them wisely more often than not.
I don't know, I never bought that Obama was somehow idealogically pure--and so I'm not overly disappointed/surprised by his Lieberman stance or possible bringing in of Hillary. He's progressively inclined on most issues, but tempermentally conservative and consensus-building, perhaps to a fault. Still, the two big reasons I'm super glad he's elected are the two things a president can absolutely control: 1) a more multilateral foreign policy and 2) supreme court. Those things are 100% the Prez' call, not the congress, not even the secretary of state. A third reason is that he seems to think big and mostly just seems to THINK a lot, and maybe some of his formidable intellectual curiosity can rub off on the way we do business in congress and elsewhere.
Still, I have no illusions about our legislative process or our clubby and largely unimaginative legislators of both parties. Harry Reid, in particular, strikes me as a notably meek and mediocre figure. They'll stick with the status quo unless and until enough people raise hell about it--and perhaps, still even then.
With broad public support, Obama and the Congress will at least have a shot at getting enough semi-moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats to vote with him on large issues such as the economy, health care, energy independence and the environment.
I don't completely follow. Obama already has broad public support. His enemies will spend the next 4 years chipping away at it, and it will slowly dwindle, pretty much no matter what he does (though he can do many things to either exacerbate or mitigate that process). Furthermore, unless the Democrats somehow achieve the impossible they won't have 60 votes in the senate, so compromise with the disciplined, and as it dwindles ever-rightward-drifting, GOP minority is going to be necessary pretty much all the time, whether or not Lieberman is chair of Homeland Security.
As for support for specific Senators, neither Reid nor Lieberman are very popular at home right now. How is hitching the Obama wagon to those horses going to help in any way?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
