I agree it's absolutely appropriate to evaluate and be critical of his appointments.

As the stuff I wrote about John Brennan and Holder himself attests, I obviously agree with this point. I also wrote today: "it's constructive to express views on his high-level appointments."

I just think the one thing that can be done prematurely is to draw too much meaning from them: what does it say about what Obama intends to do as President? I don't think that can be known yet (though I, like many people, obviously have my suspicions).

It might be worth noting that Janet Reno was, I believe, the third choice of B. Clinton. I wouldn't mind some serious debate in the Senate over Holder. If they don't find any impropriety in his professional career, maybe he has an illegal alien as a housekeeper....

'Washington has been corrupt and imperialistic for quite some time. But the extreme combination of and power abuses are the hallmark of the Bush administration'.

Yeah - but what's about our 'hero' Andrew? (Jackson) - Bush might get first prize for historically worst President but about 'limitless ineptitude' I would vote for Jackson.

What strikes me with all of this, is that the endemic corruption in our "elite" class is not confined to government. It's also highly evident in corporations and the business world, although it takes some time to realize it.

After working for years at one of the biggest internet companies (and Silicon Valley is supposed to be a meritocracy) I couldn't help but notice the same clubby insider game at the highest levels. A string of "heavy hitters" with long resumes rotate through the top jobs (VP, SVP, COO, CEO, etc.), earning millions, and destroying entire parts of the company in their wake. They don't get fired, they lay people off. When they leave, they get a similar job somewhere else. They have a distinct (upper class) style of dress, they went to school at Harvard or Stanford, they have long resumes with other high-level positions. Their track records are consistently poor. Yet they have the top jobs and the top pay and are never held to account.

What will happen when they run out of companies to destroy? Oh yeah... that's what "bailouts" are for.

Or, to put it in a way football fans would understand:

If a general manager of a football team was hired on promises to implement the West Coast offense, wouldn't fans be alarmed if he then hired a head coach who was a proponent of the wish-bone offense?

Maybe the GM never had any intentions of establishing the West Coast offense in the first place. Or maybe the GM is trying to please everyone. Either way as a fan I'd smell a rat.

I'd like to think that I'm as smart as a football fan (because I am one!). I don't think it is premature to criticize Obama for his establishment-pleasing appointments, as he did run on an anti-establishment message. Like the hypothetical GM, I think Obama is going to find out midway through the season that his choices aren't working out.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/12/02/why-nbc-news-shouldve-known-better

by Jeff Bercovici
Why NBC News Should've Known Better
Dec 2 2008 10:42AM EST

[...] In January 2000, Salon ***

http://salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs
"Prime-time propaganda" By Daniel Forbes, Jan. 13, 2000

*** broke the news that the Office of National Drug Control Policy, under McCaffrey's leadership, was quietly paying television networks to weave explicit anti-drug messages into some of their most popular shows. (It was a little more complicated than that -- rather than giving the networks cash, ONDCP was giving them back airtime it had already purchased at a discount, allowing them to resell it at a higher rate. But that was the gist.)

After a period of defending/minimizing its actions, ONDCP dropped the controversial program a year later. ***

http://salon.com/news/feature/2001/06/30/ondcp
"The quiet death of prime-time propaganda" By Daniel Forbes, June 30, 2001

*** [...] McCaffrey [...] possesses a high-handed certainty in the pureness of his own motives and an arrogant willingness to decide for himself what the rest of the world does and doesn't need to know. His actions as drug czar show that he's comfortable shaping a single message to suit multiple agendas without disclosing that fact to the message's recipients. [...]

- - Jeff Bercovici at Condé Nast Portfolio

I had the good fortune to read the NYT article after reading Mr. Greenwald's blog entry. There are some misleading points in the blog article that should be made more clear. First, in the dinner conversation with Rich's PR agent, the NYT article clearly states that Holder didn't know it was Rich who needed the help. When asked what someone (not Rich specifically) in that situation should do, Holder recommends getting a good lawyer who knows the system. Sounds like pretty plain vanilla, dinner conversation advice to me, not the blatant influence peddling that Mr. Greenwald indicates. Second, the article also states that much later, Holder was probably played by Jack Quinn, who gave the impression that he had indeed gone through the normal channels. At worst, Holder allowed himself to be duped by Quinn. Regardless, Holder himself isn't allowing Rich to cut in line in any case; he's simply replying with his opinions to Quinn, not to government officials on Rich's behalf. The handful of contacts over the course of two years between Holder and Quinn listed in the article do indeed sound "peripheral" to me. They certainly don't indicate any "intense" interest on Holder's part as Mr. Greenwald states. In fact, the NYT article specifically states that Holder used the word neutral in his recommendation because he didn't really know that much about the case. Finally, the main reason we know so much about this pardon is because of the obsession of Republicans for investigating everything Clinton, and the hearings they conducted after the pardons which, of course, ended without finding any wrongdoing. So is this where we are headed again with Obama? Investigate any and every little thing? This is the perfect way to get that ball rolling; misrepresent a minor incident and blow it up into some grave error.