On paper, Killefer brought impressive credentials to the two jobs Obama selected her for: deputy director for management at the
Office of Management and Budget, which requires Senate confirmation, and a new White House post, chief performance officer for the entire federal government, which does not require confirmation.
Killefer oversees McKinsey’s management consulting for government clients. During 1997-2000 in the Clinton administration, Killefer was assistant Treasury secretary for management. As such she was the chief financial officer and chief operating officer for the Treasury and its 160,000 employees and led a modernization of its largest component, the Internal Revenue Service
.
Feb 3 10:41 AM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
This woman who appears to be eminently qualified, resolved all of her IRS problems almost four years ago.
Now—Obama is asking Killefer to withdraw her nomination and appointment on a nickel dime issue and Daschle and Geithner get a walk? This is amazing. It really is, and top of that, this is wrong. They al rise and fall on the same tide—but not Killefer. Why, because she is a woman.
The nationwide liberal/progressive newspapers: Globe, NYT, Tribune are calling for President Obama to withdraw Daschle’s nomination. Daschle’s nomination is nothing but hypocrisy in its purest form. Daschle himself who raled about tax cheats when he was speaker.
What is going on with this administration? These are not misteps, they are falling down a very long flight of stairs,
<
p>A verse for Tom:
<
p>When you’re doing your taxes
Through rose colored glasses,
You figure you’ll never be caught.
for a discussion about Daschle. I should’ve known it was a topic the progressives would avoid, not so much for we neanderthals however.
A recommended diary on dKos has already delved into it.
<
p>http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…
<
p>http://www.thenation.com/blogs…
<
p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
The Nation‘s Katrina vanden Heuvel:
<
p>
for we us neanderthals
we (who)are neanderthals, subjective.
Now bring on the jokes.
No it is still “for us who are Neanderthals”. “us” is the object of the preposition “for” and “who” introduces a modifier of “us”. The presence or absence of a subsidiary clause does not affect the case of the substantive that it modifies.
<
p>Lots of people who should know better use the subjective after prepositions. It doesn’t belong there.
<
p>I realize I’m approaching dangerous territory.
You can’t stay on topic even in your own diary!
How horrible that one person would be discriminated against — better to take the Republican route and stick it to the whole gender (see Lily Leadbetter).
<
p>Some people need to get their hypocrisy detectors aligned.
Huh? The symbolism of the president of the United States enagaging in that kind of conduct is condoned, the rationale is that it is only one person?
For eight years, all manner of partisanship, accountability-free loathing and hatred of all but a small slice of America was okay. From 2001-09, the celebration of the basest impulses was okeydokie because a Republican was in the White House.
<
p>Suddenly it’s not okeydokie anymore. I wonder why.
I don’t think that Obama has thrown anyone down any stairs.
<
p>Possibly this indicates some sexism. Possibly not. It’s not the case that any job denied any woman anywhere is caused by sexism. Sexism is more easily demonstrated as a pattern.
<
p>Putting that aside, the post for which Nancy Killefer was destined really has to be filled by someone of unquestioned ethics. For other nominees, one might accept the “Oh they forgot” or the “Oh they overlooked it” explanation.*
When ten people say that, only a very naive person would believe all of them and only a very cynical person would believe none of them.