"This is the filthy, venal sleaze on which both political parties feed. It's what fuels how the Beltway operates. It's the leading cause of why it functions as a corrupt, dysfunctional, bloated, incestuous royal court. That's what Washington is. For that reason, it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected -- or more accurately: who haven't infected themselves -- at one point or another with this disease."

Where's Richard Hofstadter when you need him?

and OS really IS going to save us all

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-cabinet-choices-are-shut-fuck-up.html

but I doubt it. I'll just STFU and wait for OS to demonstarate his man-of-steel-like determination to implement Change by using a bunch of right-wing Washington retreads.

And Glenn, parhaps it's me, but I can't parse the timeline in this sentence.

Quinn was Legal Counsel to Al Gore -- who, during most of Holder's work on the Rich case, looked like he'd be the next President --and, thereafter, Quinn became Clinton's White House counsel.

Hadn't Quinn previously (not thereafter) been Clinton's White House counsel?

I've been frustrated by the rush in some quarters to criticize every Obama pick (and even some picks that were only rumored). But I completely agree that it works both ways. I can look at these picks and say, at most, that they appear to be competent individuals who could be effective at carrying out Obama's agenda. But until we see what that agenda is, the best one can be is cautiously optimistic. And while I am more than cautiously optimistic that the Obama administration will be a vast improvement over Bush, it is still far too early to declare that a New Day has dawned in any fundamental way.

I find it very sad that the majority seem more nonplussed by the Rich pardon (I suppose it offers a chance to dredge up Clinton again)than his involvement in the Chiquita horror show.

Mr Greenwald, you write that Holder pardoned Rich to curry favour with Quinn and play the beltway game. The NYT suggests another factor (from today's article by Lichtblau and Johnson):

Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.

Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan’s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that “persuasive” and would be “neutral leaning toward” favorable.

I understand that Glenn despises Bill Clinton and all associated with him and is generally ready to believe any vile story floated about either Bill or Hillary without question, but shouldn't a piece like this have at least a modicum of balance to it? Did the Clinton administration make any sort of explanation of the Rich pardon that might counter the charges of blatant influence peddling?

In fact, they did. Now Glenn might not buy that explanation, but shouldn't he at least raise it and dismiss it?

Bill Clinton made it clear that his main reason for issuing this pardon was to allow the many many civil suits against Rich to go forward. As long as the criminal action was ongoing (which it would be forever since Rich refused to return to the country) the civil actions could not even begin. There were many entities in this country that were eager to sue Rich for many millions of dollars. As a result of Clinton's pardon, those suits were able to go forward.

Now, the fact that a Deputy Attorney General received an average of one phone call or email every two and a half months from from some powerful and well connected lawyers certainly is damning evidence of something, but I don't know what. Sadly, Mother Theressa and Jesus Christ are both dead, so Obama was forced to name a mere human as his Attorney General. How ever will the nation survive?

It's been a shock and somewhat depressing to see just how much of the beautiful "change" rhetoric was just that - rhetoric.

Which brings us back to one of Glenn's eduring themes - the incompetance of the mainstream media.

It seems that not one journalist thought to ask Mr Obama "how, sir, precisely will you implement this change?"

or

"What are you going to do?"

or

"Who will you choose to help you accomplish this change?"

None the less we should remain cautiously optimistic.

The United States has just suffered a terrible eight years with an overconfident incompetent in charge. It is hard to imagine any intelligent man or women will be as bad as Bush - surely the odds are well against that!

... that this column appears on a front page that touts a blog from the editor entitled "Obama's diverse, impressive national security team."

~

Holding breath for too long makes people turn real blue.

And maybe it's just my opine, I'll not hold my foul breath.

If readers and concerned citizen's just sits?

We People will stop inhales. We can exhale.

Who's a foolish? Well. Hope to remain alive.

Who deliberately wants to prematurely die?

Breath. Then we remain alive. No, o just sit!

To just complain and only sit,

a better humanity will croak.

So, remember to go breathe.

Someone said: `Hope is Life.

Hope. It brings eternal youth.

I don't understand your classification of the Rich pardon as a paradigm of Village sleaze. The act of pardoning is a merciful act above all. It is of a completely different nature from ordinary political deal making which is designed to benefit a few at the likely expense or in preference to others. While Mr. Rich certainly benefited in preference to others, doesn't the nature of the underlying behavior matter? And while Mr. Rich may have been a ruthless business man, does it not matter that he was pursued in a criminal prosecution for acts which normally would be pursued as a civil matter?

Again, it was a merciful act, cf. Karl Rove: "I'm going to f$^k him like he's never been f$!ked before."