I think that everyone pretty much "gets" the arguments being made to support Obama's choice of mostly center-right types for his cabinet. I.e. keep your enemies inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, don't rock the centrist establishment boat too much and instead use it to get to the left, etc.

The real questions are one, whether this is actually Obama's intention, two, whether it can work, three, whether it's necessary, four, whether it's the best way to do this, and five, whether Obama will follow through with it, if it is his intention. All great unknowns right now. Thus the worries and criticisms. All necessary and valid, and in no way obstructive of progressive goals.

Most of posters here are BONE STUPID and I am aware of what I posted. Glenn Greenwald isn't bone stupid, he is working for Joan Walsh.

-- something stinks

I see. So now you're not only saying that most of the posters here are BONE STUPID because we disagreed with your birth certificate conspiracy theory, but you're also saying that Glenn Greenwald posted that he disagrees with your birth certificate conspiracy theory not because he's BONE STUPID but only because, as you believe, he "works for Joan Walsh"? So are you calling Glenn Greenwald a liar instead of BONE STUPID?

My read is that this is probably a move to reintroduce the Brennan nomination -- or someone else who might be deemed controversial to some commentators on the left.

Making Hayden the alternative frames the issue in a way that is probably designed to make whoever the next pick is, more palatable. I'm doubtful the maneuver will actually work -- the Obama team needs to find a high quality replacement who isn't tainted by the current administration and its scandals.

~

You know a bloodhound sleeps with one big ear to the ground.

If Jebbie, or anyone walks bye with a cookie in the pants pocket,

Good Snoopy will know the difference. A cookie weight= a P-38.

Snoopy will beg for a crumb.

A P- 38 is a tiny can opener.

A P- 38 cleans dirty toe nails.

Or opens peanut butter. Jam.

A P- 38 weighs what? O. Silly.

Open 2- cans of fruit cocktail.

Pour contents on pound cake.

O, Ya' had to have been there?

Burn, burn, and then one comes,

Aye you dumb, and say nothing?

You no good? You so darn foolish?

O, dreams no bring me a pretty face.

My waking, and my pain grows great.

But, no can unman, or beat the truth.

No Mind. Have a cup of jasmine-thyme.

No hot tea will hurt the moods of idiocy.

Good sage/thyme, a fool/idiot, and funny.

Good day, sleep in peace. Watch the moon.

I have a theory about what is going on here and which vindicates Obama's rule-of-law principles:

If I were Barack Obama, and I believed (as I think Obama truly believes) that the administration's use of warrantless wiretaps, rendition, and so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques, etc. were against our core American rule-of-law principles and Constitution, then I would have a very good reason to keep the current Defense Secretary and CIA Director in place:

As President, I can order them to disclose to Congress and to the public.

Who among us thinks that Hayden would come to Congress as a former CIA (and NSA) Director and be open and truthful, without obfuscating and hiding behind claims of executive privilege and other flimsy barriers? Who thinks there wouldn't be a fight about subpoenas? Who thinks there wouldn't be a fight in committee getting him to say anything of substance? Who thinks that Bush, Cheney, David Addington, and others aren't already prepared with an arsenal of legal arguments to slow down or stop full disclosure of the what the Bush administration did, well after they leave office?

With Obama as Hayden's boss, Hayden can claim such privileges and immunities *only* as far as Obama himself would like.

I think this is an ingenious plan. You keep the worst offender on board so that you can learn from him the full extent of his offenses, and also so that you can order him to tell everyone about those offenses. Then you clean house.

edit feature

I'm stupid

BeBopO not BoBopO

Little Bo Peep

and such

Glenn asked:

Since when did "qualifications" become the all-powerful trump card when it comes to political leaders -- even more than one's political beliefs, principles and ideology? As I wrote before, it's a complete myth, a manipulative trick, to claim that "competence" and "ideology" have nothing to do with one another.

As I've said before, here, this "ideology v. competence" meme comes from the very top down.

Barack Obama on 11/25/08:

“I think what the American people want more than anything is just common-sense smart government,” Mr. Obama said. “They don’t want ideology. They don’t want bickering. They don’t want sniping. They want action, and they want effectiveness.”

Go ahead and call him out on it, Glenn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/25cnd-transition.html?hp or click sig

Today's video makes me think of you.

Parsnips and cabbage

Lillies and fields

Pedinska's toes

and such

Dear

Fill in the blank

"I'm TOP TROLL on THIS scene"

Ah, somefolks are catching on to the true meaning of Fairey's Obama poster. I always saw it with the word OBEY under his puss.

I've been willing to give Obama a pass on some of this... like Gates at Defense. The FISA vote was nearly a deal breaker for me during the primaries, but I sucked it up, feeling there were no other viable alternatives. But Hayden is completely unacceptable to anyone who opposes torture and secret, unlawful domestic spying. Obama is taking a lot for granted, electorally. He needed the enthusiastic support of the progressive wing of the Democrats to win, and he's going to need it to govern. Good will and pragmatism only goes so far. Hayden is far beyond that point for me.

Stinky startin' off

With dear so and so...