- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn cites all of two reasons to still support Holder's nomination:
[1] ... the likelihood that Holder will reverse the extreme Justice Department abuses of the last eight years is relatively high
[2] ... it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected
Can there be a more flimsy justification to continue to support this nomination? Pathetic! Is there not anybody in all of U.S. qualified enough and not infected? If Bush can say he was sorry, Glenn, you can too.
Glenn also wrote:
"Obama has repeatedly said that his appointees are there to implement and carry out his agenda."
Alright, does this mean we will have another "decider" in the WH and the rest of the cabinet are just minions to be sent out to do his bidding? If there is any truth to "personnel is policy" we have nothing to hope for from Obama but just bones from time to time. Can anyone name one, just one, real progressive Obama has named to his cabinet? Think of the kind of people Reagan appointed, like Watts for Interior etc.
Obama promised new kind of politics. He promised change. He promised an end to trickle-down economics. He promised meaningful regulations. He promised to close down Gitmo and end torture. He promised thoughtful diplomacy and put an end to bluster. In each of the areas Obama has chosen people that are opposed to these promises. His economics team is full of Clintonites dedicated to unfettered free-market capitalism. His national security team is a dream-team for neo-cons. Now, is one to believe that Obama is going to set progressive policies in place and the cabinet secretaries are just going to obediently implement the decider's decisions? How naive are the progressives?
