The Cabinet is empty. She screams: `Too many cockroaches craw out of the pantry.

Where is a superb human with simple honesty and plain sophistication? What irony!

America is big muscled. Muzzled. Strong fat cats with big belly jiggle thee tummies?

O, watch them plutocrats, so full of fat greed's bellies, lies, and betray thee citizenry.

Plodding along are the suffering masses. Just wondering:`Why? Simplicity and virtue?

O, maybe we are inured, numb, and have become accustomed? Sick sentimentality?

and if Obama appoints Hayden i will become Glenns Ghostwriter!

How the heck are good, decent liberals supposed to keep up with an ever-changing self-criticality?

By using their brains, as always. What kind of question is this?

When do we stop agitating and demanding progress and just follow?

Never. This is why it's hard for me to tell if you're snarking.

Everyone worked hard to get Obama elected ... why? So we can all work even harder to keep him honest?

Yes.

What sort of dismal, cynical vision is that?

It's called reality and its restoration, warts and all. Deal with it.

Obama doesn't want us to be the change we want to see anymore. He wants us to see the change we wanted him to be. (If he hasn't already said that, I'm sure he will.)

I have no idea what this means, nor am I sure that I care.

Look, you want a bottom line? Here's the bottom line. Being president is hard. We elected Obama because he's up to the job. How can he possibly do the job with all these people trying to get him to do different things?

By being a grownup, that's how. He knew what he was getting into, and if he doesn't like the criticism, tough, because it's never going to end. Nor should it. But I suspect that he's a lot tougher than you appear to give him credit for.

Let's let the people who try to get him to do different things for a living handle that. They're the experts. It's what they get paid for.

Um, no. You sure you're not a "reformed" Bushie?

If this is snark, ha ha. If it isn't, ha ha. If you're trolling, ha ha.

The main reason for letting potential appointments leak out before they're announced isn't just that someone couldn't keep his mouth shut --- though I'm sure that happens --- or someone inside is offended by a choice and wants to stop it, though I imagine that happens too. These are trial balloons. They want to see how appointees will be received. Consider it part of the vetting process. This process worked with John Brennan. Brennan clearly expected the CIA job, but Obama can rightly claim he never gave it to him. Better to hear it from lefty bloggers than from Senators on C-SPAN.

So consider this an objection to Hayden. Yes, Obama, we'll yell.

Hayden received personal criticism for his role in the controversy when he spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 23, 2006, to defend the practice of warrantless surveillance. During the question and answer period following his speech, Hayden appeared to deny that a "probable cause" standard is contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--which limits the government's ability to conduct searches and, by extension, surveillance.

Knight Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay prefaced a question by noting that "the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures." Hayden responded: "No, actually--the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.... That's what it says." When Landay continued, "But does it not say probable--" Hayden said: "No. The amendment says...unreasonable search and seizure."

In fact, the amendment refers to both "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "probable cause."

Later, responding to Landay's question, Hayden stated:

Just to be very clear--and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me--and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one--what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe--I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

Writing up the exchange, the online magazine Editor & Publisher (January 23, 2006) wrote that Hayden "appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder's Washington office--despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_V._Hayden

Let's say there was a law professor--constitutional specialist even--who suddenly, out of the blue, became president. What are the odds he'd appoint a guy who had displayed such ignorance about the 4th amendment?

You sure you're not a "reformed" Bushie?

If this is snark, ha ha. If it isn't, ha ha. If you're trolling, ha ha. -- kovie

Why, why....Kovie! Amity is an UPSTANDING AMERICAN of the highest moral character!! A veritable GIANT among commenters. A font of RECTITUDE!

And she/he has been at this shtick for months. Do you never read the other commenters?

Apologies if others have already made this point, but the Godfather analogy is self-refuting.

First, there is the problem of traitors (Fredo, Paulie Gatto, Tessio). Yes, you pick people you trust, but you always have to watch out for those with their own agendas. Which is likewise a problem in the real world, as a number of the real-life counterparts to the fictional Don (Masseria, Maranzano, Anastasia, Giancana) found out, sometimes at the last possible moment. Just because you think you control them doesn't mean you always do.

Second, some supporters don't do what you want for other reasons. Sonny (who was a bad Don, rest in peace) was never satisfied with Tom Hagen as a wartime consigliere. Neither was Michael. Once again, humans are imperfect vessels for others' will.

And while I like the movie enough to be able to quote it as authority for all sorts of propositions (and have read the book repeatedly too), this idea of the Great Leader whose will is irresistible is a little creepy. And, to his credit, not what Obama himself has said.