The hypocrisy belongs to you ObamaFanBoyz who smeared Clinton for the Rich pardon and now accept Obama's new Attorney General.

actually, i don't think there is any hypocrisy. i just think adam should have left out the last sentence, or at least have worded it differently.

it is perfectly reasonable for holder to believe generally in the merits of harsh drug laws, and more particularly in strict enforcement of those harsh laws, and in the merits of pardoning an individual offender. no hypocrisy necessary.

now, i think holder is completely wrong to believe in harsh drug laws and strict enforcement. convictions for small amounts ruin lives that wouldn't have been ruined. long sentneces do little but break up families and end hope. but he is not a hypocrite; he's mistaken about the efficacy and effects of the laws.

If Bush hands out some morally questionable pardons before turning out the Oval office lights (and I think we all expect that he will)...does that undercut any campaign Senate Republicans might be mounting against Holder?

As I posted in the comments over on Ezra's blog, the NYT story, like Richard Cohen's column and apparently this post, provide compelling support for the saying that "a little information is a dangerous thing."

The NYT story and Cohen's column, and by extension this post, along with much of the mainstream coverage, takes as its starting point the "facts" as outlined in the House Government Oversight Committee's report on the pardon, taking those "facts" at face-value, unexamined. That is, taking a report written by hyperpartisan whack-job Rep. Dan Burton (i.e., the man who shot a watermelon in his back yard to demonstrate how Vince Foster was assassinated) without questioning them. That is, taking a partisan hit-job meant to harm a honorable Democrat at face value, unquestioned, and relying on that hit-job to pronounce him unsuited to serve in a Democratic administration.

There may well have been something questionable about the Rich pardon, but whatever it was, it didn't happen at Main Justice. The pardon was handled in the White House counsel's office, not DOJ. The White House was well aware that the New York prosecutors opposed the pardon. They nevertheless decided to exercise the pardon power, whether for foreign relations reasons, because of an appeal by the prime minister of Israel, or unseemly donations from Rich's ex-wife. That is the president's prerogative under the constitution. There are no limits on the pardon power. The president does not need approval from DOJ or anywhere else. Everyone in DC knows, or should know, that Holder's incidental comment regarding how to weigh the support of the prime minister of a staunch ally played no role in the final decision-making, and was simply seized on after the fact by a White House trying to justify its unseemly mess. Holder was a post-hoc fall guy. The notion that Holder's decades of service to this country should be overlooked and he should be forever smeared because, post hoc, a 45 second phone call was seized on as a rationalization is small-minded and ignores the entire context.

It would be different if Rich went through the normal DOJ pardon process with Holder, supervising that process as DAG, and that process reached the conclusion and recommendation that he be issued a pardon based on all the facts. In that case, it would be a legitimate subject of cricitism, at least on substantive grounds. But as it is, DOJ, including Holder, was out of the loop and had little information on the pardon request. No one at DOJ knew about the donations. There was no DOJ process developing the facts (nor is one required by the Constitution). All they knew was that Rich was a fugitive who was procescuted on a theory subject to debate, and who had strong support from the leader of a staunch ally. It is not DOJ's role to weigh the foreign policy benefits of the pardon. The objections of the prosecutors to pardoning a fugitive were well-known. Beyond that, it was the president's prerogative.

The basic fact that the pardon was handled in the WH and not DOJ, and there is nothing improper about this fact alone, is entirely ignored here. There are no constitutional requirements that pardons "go through the normal channels." The president's pardon powers are absolute. If you have a problem with that, amend the Constitution. If you have a problem with how they are exercised, criticize the president who issued the pardon. Don't repeat baseless slurs from partisan attacks without understanding either the facts or the law.

Holder is fixer of the worst type. He does not represent real change, he is deep in the old line of corrupt politics.
I and 1,000's of others want Obama to return all donations to us, if Holder is kept as the AG nominee.
Speak out, and stop the corrupt, fixer Eric Holder from sitting in the AG office, it would be a disaster for America.
He revolved into Covington and Burlington(DC), who is so deep into pulling strings in D C, influence peddler world, as Charles Ruff did so in the Klinton Blow job mess, to undermine all civil courts in America.(lies are not good under oath, ask Marc Rich's attorney Scooter Libby, the convict, most curiously, who himself got nailed as a serial liar to the FBI--for which he was indicted, when he stood trial)
Recall, Klinton was debarred.
This is a slap in the face to America, to real change, and it will doom the Obama Presidency if he does not withdrawl the Holder Nomination and pronto.
Unfortunatly, the pardon mess is only the tip of the iceberg, the Senate will not confirm Holder, Obama better change course fast, or his Administration is going to start off in deep troubles.

There are no constitutional requirements that pardons "go through the normal channels." The president's pardon powers are absolute.

Nobody doubts Clinton's POWER to do it. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a pardon of a wealthy sleazeball fugitive that was granted while nothing was done for the thousands of more deserving pardon candidates, because said scuzzball had better connections.

I have no problem with criticizing Clinton for issuing the pardon. But it was a WH issue, not a DOJ one.