that Obama is working his master plan to win the good graces of all Washington by keeping his liberal tendencies below the surface somewhat. Once firmly a crowd fav he can break out his more progressive ideas, and his inertia and crowd pleasing status will make today's ridiculed librul ideas suddenly palatable to the masses.

Yeah, that's it.

He's keeping his powder dry.

As Pelosi and Reid are doing.

Where's all that powder?

They must have Himalayan sized mountains of it by now.

By all means, wait to judge Obama based on his decisions and policies, not who he appoints to administer them.

The Senate must confirm most of these appointments. The senators who must confirm them must thus judge them before they take office (not that I expect anything other than rubber-stamping to occur here). Thus I think it quite legitimate to form opinions on them before they take office.

Obama's appointments are indeed a big disappointment. He talks about bringing in new expertise and fresh opinions, all while introducing these retreads. Surely in a nation of 300 million we can find someone not tainted by the Washington establishment? And especially irritating is the cant about how Obama is reaching out across the aisle. Heck, he's already to the right of the aisle (see these AP stories: "Rove: Obama security team represents continuity" - http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/12/02/D94QJ6UG0_rove_transition/index.html; or "Obama AG pick defended Guantanamo policy", which Glenn alluded to - http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/12/02/D94QF6202_obama_attorney_general/index.html) Where are the representatives of the real Left in this government? I don't see any. If Obama is reaching out, why not to them too?

And finally: I find BooMan's comments the ultimate irony, and the perfect example of what is rotten in our political system. Kucinich to the Kiddie Table? And yet, all these "adults" were wrong about Iraq, and Kucinich was right! Dessert is the very least he deserves!

This might be piling on, but the commentary on Huffington written by Thomas Schaffer that my name links to was equally nauseating in its double-standard of gushing over Obama while criticizing skeptics for airing concerns.

"...a few critics from the left are now demanding progressive purity from President-elect Obama that is not in keeping with his clearly stated campaign promise to bring all Americans together, and to put governance and competence ahead of ideology. In that sense they are working against the aims of his presidency."

....

"Under the surface gloss of the left wing criticism of Obama there is, I suspect, something else: the critic's psychological need to feel indispensable, not to mention superior to those of us who like, trust and will follow President-elect Obama because he strikes our gut as likable, trustworthy and deserving of loyalty based on the self-evident merits of his outstanding character. It's just not in their genes to ever be so "ordinary" as to become team players, even when their side has just won. They would rather be in permanent opposition than ever be accused of -- horrors! -- being mainstream."

......

"When President-elect Obama said that he will try to do what works, regardless of the ideological label or where a good idea comes from, he was telling the truth. Most Americans know how lucky we are to have this remarkable, pragmatic, subtle, thoughtful man for our President-elect. Most of us also know how lucky we are that our next president -- unlike our current White House occupant -- is more interested in being a good president than in proving his "side" right about everything. And most of us also know that the stakes are sky high and that now is a time to stand with our new President-elect, come hell or high water or, perhaps, because of the hell and high water we're already neck deep in."

I did want to make one comment about the expectation that the AG would be a sleazeball. Its one thing to assume that about most appointments--and I did--but those such as AG have often been used by Democratic presidents to demonstrate a level of non-partisanship and committment to the rule of law, at least for the purposes of prestige and legacy. These have often been career prosecutors or judges (which of course does not automatically make them saints, far from it) who have not had the opportunities to bathe in the insider muck of dc. Janet Reno, whatever you may say about her run, was seemingly one of these.

Say what you want about those who have unrealistically high expectations for Obama, in the appointment of AG, they would have had a good reason to expect a better pick. Democratic administrations have typically chosen civil servants and career judges who've done very little defense work--at least in the recent period. Ramsey Clark comes to mind, there are some others I'm less sure about going back to the Johnson and Kennedy eras.

In any case, I did have a higher expectation of the AG appointment. Given the state of our foreign policy, I also thought he'd go a different way with the SoS. This is one case where I'm actually surprised and somewhat disappointed.

This is vintage Washington. 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. [snip] The Washington establishment has ruined everything it's touched over the last decade.

Glenn, an excellent post. I agree with all of your points, but your use of the word "decade" confuses me. Are you implying that Washington only became a sleazy den of corruption in 1998? What about the Savings and Loan scandals and Iran-Contra in the 1980s, Vietnam and Watergate in the 1970s, decades of McCarthyism and J. Edgar Hoover abuses before that, American colonial wars in the Philippines, etc, etc, ad nauseum?

Perhaps you are implying that the Clinton decade was a refreshing island of propriety for DC, but that isn't consistent with your other comments about the Rich pardon (and your obvious concern about Hillary Clinton returning to the White House). I would think it would be more accurate to admit that Washington DC has, by any meaningful standard, ALWAYS been a den of corruption, abuse, and legal impunity. That would put people's expectations of "change" from Obama in a more realistic light.

I suspect you meant to signify that the Bush abuses were quantitatively and qualitatively worse than any that immediately preceded them. On habeas corpus and human rights, that may be true (though Democratic protesters in Daley's Chicago, Civil Rights marchers in 1950s Mississippi, and Japanese-American WWII interns may argue that point). But in the context of power-brokering and insider-influence (presumably the topic of your post), it isn't obvious to me that the W. Bush years have been worse than the Reagan, Clinton, or Nixon years. Via lobbyists, the mechanisms of influence peddling have changed, but has it actually increased or decreased? Frankly, was there ever an authentic spirit of selfless, disinterested governance in Washington, at least in the modern era?

I wonder if there was something specific you had in mind when you reserved the brunt of your anger for DC's last decade.