While there is much for the left (which would include me) to criticize in many of Obama's nominees, I cannot understand, and Glenn has not adequately explained, why he would give Obama a pass on Eric Holder.

Holder might be fine for some other position in an Administration full of self-righteous recycled influence-peddlers. But as Glenn himself suggests, the Attorney General is the one person who must be, like Caesar's wife, above reproach. He/she is supposed to represent the people (even Holder half says that), not kowtow to the President's whims or to insider influence-trading. As Glenn fully acknowledges, Holder has demonstrated in the Rich pardon (and elsewhere, I might add) that he is constitutionally incapable of independence, an independence that would be ever more difficult when answering to a President he admires.

It's about time we had an attorney general who is more like Elliot Richardson and less like Alberto Gonzales. In Holder, we will get another Gonzo. I think Obama's banking on that, to the detriment of the citizens he serves. Shame on Obama, and shame on the left for taking it lying down.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

Wall Street Journal:

http://www.careerjournal.com/article/SB122790763963865173.html

NOVEMBER 28, 2008, 11:48 P.M. ET
Seeking a Presidential Pardon? Try Praising the Right to Bear Arms
Five Forgiven by Bush Share a Trait: They Really Missed Their Weapons

By AMIR EFRATI

[...] On the surface, the list of the 14 people pardoned by the president this week shows few common denominators in terms of time served, geographic location or even type of crime, except that the felonies were non-violent. But a closer look at some of the newly pardoned shows many of them are church-going, blue-collar workers from rural areas (and ardent Bush supporters) who had little trouble finding jobs after their convictions. There is another common thread: the important role firearms once played in their lives.

[...] The state of Illinois allowed Richard Culpepper to keep his shotguns after he was convicted in 1987 of lying to the government in order to receive unemployment checks. But in 2002, when he bought an English Pointer hunting dog and tried to buy a new gun, he says he was rejected and the state revoked his privilege.

So, the 52-year-old retired locomotive engineer from Mahomet, Ill., says he applied for a pardon by explaining the situation and attaching photos of Cartman, the dog.

[...] Many felons can win back some rights from their states after they complete their punishment. But the right to possess guns can be restored only by the president [...]

- - Wall Street Journal

There is a common thread running through Obama's appointments. The people he has chosen tend to be competent, hard-working, and experienced in government. With the notable exception of Larry Summers, they all "play well with others" which is important to no-drama Obama. This congeniality factor, though, has its drawbacks. Few of his appointees will likely think outside the box. Few will propose bold, imaginative solutions to the country's staggering problems at a time where this is what is called for. But just as importantly, they are extremely unlikely to change the corrupt ways of doing the nation's business. They are not the types of individuals who take professional risks to promote fundamental change in our hugely dysfunctional political culture. It will business as usual, I'm afraid, with powerful corporations and lobbying groups determining policies in the end. I may be wrong and this may play out differently. But there are troubling signs that his trademark caution has caused Obama to go with the safe and predictable choices, and in this way undermine his own mandate for change.

Someone objectively read this article by Mr. Hitchens and tell me where he's wrong when it comes to The Clinton's... see the link.

http://www.slate.com/id/2205323/

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?

It's at least heartening that 'team Obama' is hearing some of this. Obama has countered that he himself is bringing the change, not those he chooses to work for him. Change isn't in their job description, he implies. Change is strictly his domain. "That's MY job", he has said, in defense of his selection of nearly 100% Washington insiders.

And it may work for him--if he actually does bring The Change himself, and all his workers are nothing more than "change multipliers" or "change managers". Maybe change can truly be a top-down phenomenon in his administration. Just as Bush was "The Decider", perhaps Obama will indeed be "The Changer". Obama's statement from the podium of "The Office of the President-Elect of the United States of America" (official seal included) is a benchmark he has laid down--and should be held to--as time groans onward.

In a way, the Holder revelations seem very similar to John Brennan's, who removed himself from consideration for another key post. Brennan claims to have had little role in the decision-making that went into our illegal torture policies, rendition, etc., just as Holder claimed to have little direct connection to the Rich pardon. My guess is that the Rich affair isn't nearly as damaging to Holder as the many sins Brennan committed were to him, at least in the eyes of the left-o-sphere. But the sins are similar in kind, if not degree.