AP:
Washington attorney Eric Holder is President-elect Barack Obama’s top choice to be the next attorney general and aides have gone so far as to ask senators whether he would be confirmed, an Obama official and people close to the matter said Tuesday….
An Obama official and two Democrats in touch with the transition team confirmed that Holder is Obama’s top choice but the Obama official said the decision has not been finalized.
Hey, I’m winning!
And look for this Google search to get a lot more popular in the next day or so.
Please share widely!
Not familiar with the last days of Clinton minutia, but this doesn’t exactly sound promising:
<
p>http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/o…
<
p>Are we about to see a repeat of Clinton’s misfiring to appoint an AG back in ’93? At least it won’t be over SS taxes for nannies this time.
they know all about Rich, and they will not nominate Holder unless they have pretty much guaranteed confirmation.
At least it’s not Lani Guinier
Lani Guinier was totally railroaded. Her writings were willfully misrepresented by extreme right-wingers like the odious Clint Bolick, and Clinton shamefully caved instead of standing up for her like he should have. It was one of Clinton’s sorrier moments.
<
p>< /rant >
Although if you want to talk about her qualifications, just for the record, I find some of her ideas to be silly, impractical, and unworkable; some of them outright dangerous.
<
p>Furthermore, she’s a class warrior, unsuited in both temperament and experience to be the highest law enforcement official in the nation, better suited to academia where she can theorize away about fractional ballots and cumulative voting.
<
p>Admittedly, she got manhandled. Just like Robert Bork.
<
p>Eric Holder, despite his political leanings, is MUCH better suited for AG. He knows the hallways and the coatrooms at Justice, and has big law firm experience (i.e., the real world.) I just hope he follows and enforces the law rather than making it up as he goes along.
that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone refer to a career at a large, corporate law firm as “real world experience”.
I think Eric Holder’s a good choice for AG-if you look at his whole record, you see someone with senior experience in the Justice Department, experience as a judge, and experience as a negotiator and litigator in a large law firm. If there’s a theme to his legal work, it’s public integrity. He was a prosecutor in the Abscam case, and as US Attorney for DC, prosecuted Dan Rostenkowski. I don’t know about other BMGrs, but I would be happy to have an AG who knows the ins and outs of public integrity issues-there’s a whole lot of accountability that would be lovely to see.
<
p> I’m a bit puzzled by the hand-wringing over whether the Holder nomination means the Obama administration will be a re-run of the Clinton administration. Eric Holder became involved in the Obama campaign well over a year ago, when Hilary Clinton was still the presumed nominee and front-runner. He, with Caroline Kennedy, was Obama’s VP committee earlier this summer. He’s hardly a Clintonista, at least in current terms. He did work as a high-level political appointment in the Justice Department with Janet Reno during Bill Clinton’s two terms, but I think that’s what you would hope highly qualified Democrats would do: public service. I didn’t always agree with Bill Clinton’s brand of politics, but he did have some pretty capable people in his political appointments. And the country surely was in better shape during Clinton’s terms than it is now.
It looks like no one will earn points for SOS, Hillary wasn’t picked, and you are beating borky 4 to 3, as s/he was the only other person to pick Holder; borky has Holder as a #2 pick.
<
p>
I’m still clinging to the hope that Obama won’t be dumb enough to offer SOS to Hillary, and Hillary wouldn’t be dumb enough to actually accept it and end a promising Senate career.
<
p>SOS needs to be somebody with extensive diplomatic experience. While I’ll grant that First Ladies are often called upon to make nice with foreign leaders when they visit the White House, it’s not generally a negotiating position. Hillary may have had some leeway in that regard, but I imagine most of the real negotiating still fell to her husband, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright.
<
p>Extensive diplomatic experience and a proven track record, particularly when it comes to picking up the pieces of the last eight years and the shredding our international reputation has taken. Somebody like Bill Richardson.
I’m not saying you have to agree that Hillary is the best pick or even a top tier pick. And I’m certainly not saying that you must always agree with Obama. But Obama has earned a lot of trust from me in the way he operates; he was criticized by supporters throughout the campaign for being too soft on Hillary, not distancing himself quick enough from Wright, for being McCain and Palin’s punching bag and not attacking enough.
<
p>But you know what? He had a plan, he was disciplined in his execution, he won, and he proved a lot of our criticisms and fears to be unfounded. He will, for sure, make mistakes – but from me he gets a substantial dose of benefit of the doubt on things I might not immediately agree with. What I’m saying is that, in light of Obama’s track record of formerly “questionable” tactics and strategies that eventually proved correct and even savvy , the fact that Obama has confidence that as confidence that Hillary is the right choice should alleviate some degree of doubt as to her efficacy as SOS.
<
p>And as far as Hillary’s promising Senate career. I agree that she has much to lose by leaving the Senate. But at age 61, how much longer will she want to be in the Senate? Every election is a six-year contract and there is very little potential for upward mobility in the Senate itself. She loses her Senate position, but gains more flexibility in her future. SOS is a job that doesn’t require campaigning and fund-raising an, has more opportunity to leave at a time and date that she chooses. And it’s not like this type of job will always be available should she want to leave the Senate down the road; it might be her only opportunity at a different government job then the one she already has.
<
p>There might be better options for Barack, Hillary, and the country, but even if it isn’t one of the best decisions, I don’t think it could be called “dumb”, IMHO.
I’ll agree that Obama showed us all a lot about campaigning, and in the later phase of the campaign he earned a good deal of trust in his actions due to the way the earlier phases worked out.
<
p>But this is a whole new ballgame. And I’m not about to agree that Obama is beyond criticism. There is no Eleventh Commandment for Democrats.
<
p>Prior to November 4th, what was good for Obama was good for the nation. That’s not necessarily the case anymore. Campaigning in a certain way for political reasons is all to the good, and to be expected. But governing in certain ways for political reasons when it’s not the best course of action?
<
p>Picking Hillary looks good, but I stand by my earlier criticisms. If there is a stand-out option that, quality-wise, blows Hillary out of the water – an option like Bill Richardson – then picking Hillary is a dumb move.
And I would never say he is above criticism, I’m just saying that he and his judgement shouldn’t be underestimated because of his track record of surprising those, even supporters, who have underestimated him and his decisions.
<
p>Criticize away! Criticism and dissent are cornerstones of responsive government.
<
p>