do you think that the vetting to get into heaven is anything like the vetting for a cabinet position?
hmmmm, i wonder.

you really think republicans are going to bring up mark rich, after 8yrs of Fredo and us attorney purges, and torture and obsfucation from the attorney general on all matters relevant to law enforcement?

I suppose they could, but i honestly don't think they have the standing to complaing about something as trivial as a presidential pardon, when the Justice department has been turned into an political enforcer of the Bush-Rove.

Ezra, where do you get the notion that he was "the workhorse behind Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich"? I think it's been well-established, by Mark Kleiman amongst others, that Holder was only tangentially involved.

Nixing your top choice for such an important job because there might be a fallacious right-wing talking point attack already waiting in the wings is the worst kind of liberal surrender.

Sorry, it was Jonathan Zasloff

The bigger issue is that Holder has been working pretty closely with the Obama campaign for some time now, including heading up the VP search, a very political position --- how is that supposed to contribute to depolitizing the Justice Department, Obama's announced goal? ,

Calling him "the workhorse" behind that pardon is grossly exaggerating his role. He gave a three word off-hand bit of advice at the 11th hour after all was pretty much done.

What's more, even though he had but a small role, he publically regretted it.

He has excellent and germane experience, a fat resume and wonderfully clear, open and correct views on things like torture and civil liberties. Let's not tar a good man's entire career over one small misstep.

I have to strongly disagree, as the idea that "appearances matter in this town" really means "Democratic appearances matter in this town."

I say put Holder, Spitzer, Edwards, and all the other "fallen" Dems in the places where they will do the best job.

Remember, the GOP is led by Newt, McCain, Guiliani, formerly Hyde, etc. We Dems have to start right now to kill the "what will the GOP/press say?" crap. Who cares what they say, we are in charge, and will be even moreso if we start smacking this stuff down.

and FWIW, Holder has other things in his past that aren't that savory (Chiquita Banana plea deal), but that is fine. Not ideal, but fine.

Republicans will have no problem attacking the choice, and your average voter will be rather confused as to why Obama made it.

No, your average voter will not even be able to tell you the Attorney General's name. Holder's involvement in a pardon that nobody remembers is WELL off the radar screen of the average voter, I promise you.

It is important to remember that we, blog readers/writers, political junkies, etc., are vastly more tuned in to the minutia of politics than 99% of voters. (Yes, the selection of an AG qualifies as minutia, relative to the average voter.)

As a result, Democrats fret over the "optics" of every little thing, even things that almost everybody is completely oblivious to. This is one way that Republicans are smarter, are used to be anyway: they pay attention to the optics of big things and ignore the optics of little things because they know the latter will never ever matter even one little bit.

I assume they determined he had little, despite appearances, to do with the actual pardon. The entirety of his recommendation was an informal phone call with the White House Counsel, saying he was "neutral, leaning towards favorable" on the pardon. As Holder explained at great length in subsequent testimonies investigating the pardon, he had not intended the remark to be understood as a blessing from the Justice Department of the pardon. The White House Counsel knew quite well that the Justice Department didn't hadn't reviewed the materials relating to the Rich pardon. Jack Quinn (Rich's lawyer), and the White House were likely just using Eric Holder for political cover, knowing his informal neutrality and non-opposition would be justification enough for the dismissal.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/08/se.11.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/14/se.05.html

The lesson to be learned from the Marc Rich scandal relating to Eric Holder is not that he's tainted by the monied interests and cronyism in DC or unwilling to root out corruption, but that he was so easily fooled by influence peddling, and blind to the weight of his (even informal) discussion with the White House.

Also, I think it is safe to say that Janet Reno's opinion on just about anything should be roundly ignored. What a disgrace she was.

Who cares if he made an error 8 years ago, the question is can he do the job now. If he was deliberately out to make sure Rich got pardoned, that would be another matter, but I've seen zero evidence to support that claim.

I hear that Hillary Clinton was married to the president who pardoned Marc Rich... can anyone confirm this? Pretty damning if true, eh! Definitely a disqualification for any cabinet position.

My take: he's got lots of relevant experience; he's a firm progressive; he won't bend/break the law; he will be firm with the department's ethics; he's trusted by Obama, but not a political crony; he's a minority (which sends a good signal to citizens who think the DoJ was a white guys center of privilege and various forms of discrimination); I can't think of anyone better/more qualified.

That's enough for me.

I'm with Jeebus on this one.

Regular voters are suffering from PTSD after 8 years of Bu$hco larding up every nook & cranny of the federal government with shills, cronies, thieves and brainless morons.

As long as Obama's appointees have a triple digit IQ and are not actively f*cking the American public, people will be hunkered down watching American Idol and waiting for the recession to end.

You're on the same page as Dan Burton and Rich Lowry on Eric Holder. Nice company!

In the last week of Bush's term, he'll issue a bunch of unsavory pardons. Holder's confirmation will be up a week or so later. I wouldn't put it past the republicans to turn on a dime and complain about Mark Rich, but I don't think it will go very far.

I think we should be more concerned about his ties with Chiquita. He represented them in a criminal case in Colombia (they hired paramilitaries to intimidate workers) and believe he was recently representing them in the civil case. Disconcerting to say the least.

This post seems very lazy.

"Do our dirty work and you'll never work in this town again" isn't exactly the kind of message institutions are typically built on.

My God, can we please stop worrying about what the Republicans will do? We have majorities in both houses, and if some dumb ass from Podunk wants to hold up the guy's nomination because of A COMPLETELY LEGAL ACTION 8 years ago, then he's in for a world of legislative hurt. Let's kick ass! Take no prisoners! And the ones we have...let's get them out of Guantanamo and into a legal court!

Dear Ezra:

Obama could have nominated Mary Poppins for AG and the Republicans would still attack her. Doesn't matter who Obama gets - unless it's to bring back Fredo - the Republicans are gonna do whatever's in their power to block/delay/harass.

I think this is also an underlying concern about the type of people Obama's gonna get to fill his Cabinet and admin. The fact that a lot of them are going to be coming from a Clinton administration can cause some worry. But note: a thorough review of the Clinton years reveals that for all the BS the Far Right pulled, almost all of Clinton's people were competent and effective and scandal free (Cisneros is the exception, Espy was cleared in that trial, and do give Reno more credit than she's gotten). Just imagine who McCain would be getting in his Cabinet if he'd won: Bush leftovers and cronies who earned their wings in DeLay's or Ted Steven's offices.

Appearances certainly matter in this town, but it's not clear that facts matter in this post, since the assertion that Holder was the "workhorse" behind the Rich pardon is false, although widely repeated by certain right-wing types. The Justice Department pardon review process had shut down, the final pardons were handled by the White House, including the Rich pardon. And the notion that this is a problem for Holder, but HRC is fine for State, just shows how much of a hit job this attack is.

Someone explain why a purportedtly left-of-center publication is paying someone to repeat right wing bullshit?

No, your average voter will not even be able to tell you the Attorney General's name. Holder's involvement in a pardon that nobody remembers is WELL off the radar screen of the average voter, I promise you.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

This is small potatoes that will amount to nothing more than a little tut-tutting amongst the pundits on the Sunday talk shows. And that's certainly the price to pay if he's the guy you want.

Moreover, would Republicans really want this fight? Bush is going to be handing out his own pardons in less than two months. At worst, all this does is give GWB a little cover over his repugnant pardons. Big whup.

The republicans can't/won't fight it, but it sullies the Obama cabinet, since the fact is Holder was associated with the pardon for money scandal, and with other unsavory things. Again, why would Obama do this? Answer: he is succumbing to pressure from people who have knowledge of his secrets -- probably the Clintons.

A sullied cabinet! Heavens to Betsy, whatever will we tell the children?

I have to say, of all the things that keep me up nights worried about the conduct of our elected and appointed officials, from chunks of cash in the freezer to boffing subordinates, informally recommending a sleazy pardon has to be close to the bottom of the list.

Holder, obviously, was just doing his job, but appearances matter in this town. Republicans will have no problem attacking the choice

You're dead wrong on this, Ezra. As Gabriel noted, Holder was tangentially involved.

Yes, Dear God, let the Republicans in the Senate further marginalize themselves by attacking an eminently qualified African-American who was once appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan.

You missed the boat on this one, Ezra.

Screw Rich and screw the Republicans? Stupid, but who cares? But Holder represented scum like Chaquita? Some progressive. Not a good choice.

You overlook the fact that Holder is fairly well respected among reps and dems in DC and has apologized for his role in the Rich pardon several times.

I think the GOP will put up the illusion of opposition to save face, but ultimately confirm him.

The real question Republicans should be asking themselves is how comfortable are they with the idea of Supreme Court Justice Holder.

"I think we should be more concerned about his ties with Chiquita. He represented them in a criminal case in Colombia (they hired paramilitaries to intimidate workers) and believe he was recently representing them in the civil case. Disconcerting to say the least."

So, basically, you are saying that Obama can't appoint any lawyer as AG who did his job competently, upheld his sworn oath to the federal and state constitutions, and fulfilled his professional obligations.

I guess anyone who represented Guantanamo detainees can't be AG. Or any criminal defense attorney for that matter.

Personally, I would prefer to have an AG who is so dedicated to the principles of our justice system that he was willing to represent unsavory clients.

As usual, Ezra is edging into Broderism. What will he be saying in 10 years?

Does anyone seriously think the Republicans would try (or succeed) in filibustering this appointment? Get real.

The Principles of our government? No, he found a way to bypass procedure in his shepherding through of the Marc Rich pardon I know less about the pardon, not even sought by the perps, of the FLN bombers, but he was in that one up to his neck, too. Smart guy, gets things done. But principled? no.

On the other hand, per Ezra's absolution of Bill Ayers, Holder hasn't stated that he WILL line his pockets by facilitating shady pardons in the future, so what's the problem?

jessica simpson and ken paves lace wig wavy hair extensions