I'm glad you're honest enough to be appalled at Daschle (don't worry, I won't tell your friends). How about the other two? It seems Obama must be picking his cabinet members off an IRS delinquency list that was mistakingly left around the Oval Office. Someone might wanna check on that…… (I can't resist Jon

But I have to say, the sausage line at the end is pure classic. Now that's good writing!

One by one: I have little further to say about Rahm. You've made yourself clear: Only Bambi would have made an appropriate chief of staff. Fine. I get it. I disagree with it, but that's fine. To my mind, a chief of staff has to be the single most vigilant defender of the president's time and agenda. Clinton had an Arkansas buddy as his first CoS, and his first term was chaotic. Bush had a bureaucrat who got rolled by Cheney on a regular basis. Rahm seems like an ideal guy for this job, and I'm glad he's there.

As for William Lynn: My point is that, considering everything else that's going on in the country right now, this is an infinitessimally small issue. I plan to write about this a bit on Thursday, but Obama's biggest mistake here was not in hiring the guy who he and Gates thought they needed — it was in putting himself in this “no-lobbyist” box in the first place, starting in the campaign.

The question is, are the American people smart enough to have it explained to them that sometimes the most qualified guy for a particular job is somebody who's worked as a lobbyist? Obama, in the campaign, sought to equate “no lobbyists” with purity of intent, and he scored points that way, but it was stupid nevertheless. He undoubtedly knew a situation like this would come along quickly, but in the realm of public perception he made it impossible to hire an entire category of qualified people without attracting this kind of vitriol. (Never mind the stipulations Lynn was required to agree to — in writing — that he will recuse himself from any DoD actions that involve Raytheon or that might exploit his former lobbying activities.)

Your continued confusion of the stimulus package with “pork” escapes me. Yes, the Democrats are taking some liberties in labeling as “stimulus” a lot of spending priorites that have been neglected by the other party for years–so what? They won the election — they get to take the ball and run with it. “Pork” is generally considered to be the addition to a spending bill, outside the public's view, of projects that will benefit an individual Congressman or Senator's district or state. That's not what's going on here–at least not yet–and Obama continually says there will be “no earmarks” in the final legislation. We'll see about that, but as for now, all of the spending measures are right out in the open for everyone to see and debate. That's not “pork.”

Re: the campaign financing, I never supported Obama because I thought he was “pure” (though I think he was purer than most, if not all, of the alternatives). I support him because he's smart, he's savvy, he's inspiring, and because most of the time I agree with him.

Look, Steve, I'm a Democrat, a liberal, and (so far) an Obama champion. As such, I'm likely to find things such as William Lynn or the campaign-finance “pledge” kinda trivial–though I don't consider Tom Daschle's foibles trivial at all. I'm gonna be slower than Republicans, or Rush Limbaugh, or total cynics like you to pick on Obama. And I'm not gonna make arguments I don't believe in just because you're challenging me to be critical “when appropriate.” What you think is appropriate and what I do are probably always going to be very different things; that's the nature of political argument, and I obviously don't shrink from it.

To my mind, your standards for political and governing activity are both too high and too low. You seem to demand absolute purity and perfection from politicians (though you obviously expect the complete opposity), and as soon as someone does a single thing that violates your code of purity you toss him on the “they're all corrupt hypocrites” rubbish heap with everyone else who's betrayed you. Which is to say, everyone.

I believe it's important to hold politicians' feet to the fire both on issues and on ethics, but politics is like making sausage. And even the guy who makes the best sausage around is probably doing something disgusting in the process.

I'm glad you're honest enough to be appalled at Daschle (don't worry, I won't tell your friends). How about the other two? It seems Obama must be picking his cabinet members off an IRS delinquency list that was mistakingly left around the Oval Office. Someone might wanna check on that…… (I can't resist Jon

But I have to say, the sausage line at the end is pure classic. Now that's good writing!

One by one: I have little further to say about Rahm. You've made yourself clear: Only Bambi would have made an appropriate chief of staff. Fine. I get it. I disagree with it, but that's fine. To my mind, a chief of staff has to be the single most vigilant defender of the president's time and agenda. Clinton had an Arkansas buddy as his first CoS, and his first term was chaotic. Bush had a bureaucrat who got rolled by Cheney on a regular basis. Rahm seems like an ideal guy for this job, and I'm glad he's there.

As for William Lynn: My point is that, considering everything else that's going on in the country right now, this is an infinitessimally small issue. I plan to write about this a bit on Thursday, but Obama's biggest mistake here was not in hiring the guy who he and Gates thought they needed — it was in putting himself in this “no-lobbyist” box in the first place, starting in the campaign.

The question is, are the American people smart enough to have it explained to them that sometimes the most qualified guy for a particular job is somebody who's worked as a lobbyist? Obama, in the campaign, sought to equate “no lobbyists” with purity of intent, and he scored points that way, but it was stupid nevertheless. He undoubtedly knew a situation like this would come along quickly, but in the realm of public perception he made it impossible to hire an entire category of qualified people without attracting this kind of vitriol. (Never mind the stipulations Lynn was required to agree to — in writing — that he will recuse himself from any DoD actions that involve Raytheon or that might exploit his former lobbying activities.)

Your continued confusion of the stimulus package with “pork” escapes me. Yes, the Democrats are taking some liberties in labeling as “stimulus” a lot of spending priorites that have been neglected by the other party for years–so what? They won the election — they get to take the ball and run with it. “Pork” is generally considered to be the addition to a spending bill, outside the public's view, of projects that will benefit an individual Congressman or Senator's district or state. That's not what's going on here–at least not yet–and Obama continually says there will be “no earmarks” in the final legislation. We'll see about that, but as for now, all of the spending measures are right out in the open for everyone to see and debate. That's not “pork.”

Re: the campaign financing, I never supported Obama because I thought he was “pure” (though I think he was purer than most, if not all, of the alternatives). I support him because he's smart, he's savvy, he's inspiring, and because most of the time I agree with him.

Look, Steve, I'm a Democrat, a liberal, and (so far) an Obama champion. As such, I'm likely to find things such as William Lynn or the campaign-finance “pledge” kinda trivial–though I don't consider Tom Daschle's foibles trivial at all. I'm gonna be slower than Republicans, or Rush Limbaugh, or total cynics like you to pick on Obama. And I'm not gonna make arguments I don't believe in just because you're challenging me to be critical “when appropriate.” What you think is appropriate and what I do are probably always going to be very different things; that's the nature of political argument, and I obviously don't shrink from it.

To my mind, your standards for political and governing activity are both too high and too low. You seem to demand absolute purity and perfection from politicians (though you obviously expect the complete opposity), and as soon as someone does a single thing that violates your code of purity you toss him on the “they're all corrupt hypocrites” rubbish heap with everyone else who's betrayed you. Which is to say, everyone.

I believe it's important to hold politicians' feet to the fire both on issues and on ethics, but politics is like making sausage. And even the guy who makes the best sausage around is probably doing something disgusting in the process.

I'm glad you're honest enough to be appalled at Daschle (don't worry, I won't tell your friends). How about the other two? It seems Obama must be picking his cabinet members off an IRS delinquency list that was mistakingly left around the Oval Office. Someone might wanna check on that…… (I can't resist Jon

But I have to say, the sausage line at the end is pure classic. Now that's good writing!

One by one: I have little further to say about Rahm. You've made yourself clear: Only Bambi would have made an appropriate chief of staff. Fine. I get it. I disagree with it, but that's fine. To my mind, a chief of staff has to be the single most vigilant defender of the president's time and agenda. Clinton had an Arkansas buddy as his first CoS, and his first term was chaotic. Bush had a bureaucrat who got rolled by Cheney on a regular basis. Rahm seems like an ideal guy for this job, and I'm glad he's there.

As for William Lynn: My point is that, considering everything else that's going on in the country right now, this is an infinitessimally small issue. I plan to write about this a bit on Thursday, but Obama's biggest mistake here was not in hiring the guy who he and Gates thought they needed — it was in putting himself in this “no-lobbyist” box in the first place, starting in the campaign.

The question is, are the American people smart enough to have it explained to them that sometimes the most qualified guy for a particular job is somebody who's worked as a lobbyist? Obama, in the campaign, sought to equate “no lobbyists” with purity of intent, and he scored points that way, but it was stupid nevertheless. He undoubtedly knew a situation like this would come along quickly, but in the realm of public perception he made it impossible to hire an entire category of qualified people without attracting this kind of vitriol. (Never mind the stipulations Lynn was required to agree to — in writing — that he will recuse himself from any DoD actions that involve Raytheon or that might exploit his former lobbying activities.)

Your continued confusion of the stimulus package with “pork” escapes me. Yes, the Democrats are taking some liberties in labeling as “stimulus” a lot of spending priorites that have been neglected by the other party for years–so what? They won the election — they get to take the ball and run with it. “Pork” is generally considered to be the addition to a spending bill, outside the public's view, of projects that will benefit an individual Congressman or Senator's district or state. That's not what's going on here–at least not yet–and Obama continually says there will be “no earmarks” in the final legislation. We'll see about that, but as for now, all of the spending measures are right out in the open for everyone to see and debate. That's not “pork.”

Re: the campaign financing, I never supported Obama because I thought he was “pure” (though I think he was purer than most, if not all, of the alternatives). I support him because he's smart, he's savvy, he's inspiring, and because most of the time I agree with him.

Look, Steve, I'm a Democrat, a liberal, and (so far) an Obama champion. As such, I'm likely to find things such as William Lynn or the campaign-finance “pledge” kinda trivial–though I don't consider Tom Daschle's foibles trivial at all. I'm gonna be slower than Republicans, or Rush Limbaugh, or total cynics like you to pick on Obama. And I'm not gonna make arguments I don't believe in just because you're challenging me to be critical “when appropriate.” What you think is appropriate and what I do are probably always going to be very different things; that's the nature of political argument, and I obviously don't shrink from it.

To my mind, your standards for political and governing activity are both too high and too low. You seem to demand absolute purity and perfection from politicians (though you obviously expect the complete opposity), and as soon as someone does a single thing that violates your code of purity you toss him on the “they're all corrupt hypocrites” rubbish heap with everyone else who's betrayed you. Which is to say, everyone.

I believe it's important to hold politicians' feet to the fire both on issues and on ethics, but politics is like making sausage. And even the guy who makes the best sausage around is probably doing something disgusting in the process.

I didn't say Obama was “disqualified” as someone to bring a new tone. I said appointing Emanuel flies directly in the face of that. Plain and simple. And that's another hypocrite politician trait – their language says one thing, but their actions say another. Wasn't Bill Clinton a big 'family values' proponent? Right.

Perhaps the Republicans will be mailing dead fish to him and telling him to fuck off. But that'd be unacceptable wouldn't it?

Great logic there on the lobbyist – “since no one knows the guys name (it's William Lynn BTW) then it doesn't matter that he broke his high-and-mighty promise in less than 24 hours”. Ok, as long as no one knows the lobbyists names, then we'll just roll the welcome mat out to 'em. What a cop-out Jon and you know it. Hopefully you are just as understanding to your spouse or girlfriend when she lies and breaks promises to you. Again, this is not change anyone can believe in. Make promise, break promise. Perhaps he consulted with 'ole Dubya that day. Bottom line, you have no answer for this, but you don't see it for what it is. You just like the guy, so you'll turn the other cheek.

As for the current shit-sandwich (aka “Stimulus Bill”) out there, I, nor anyone else as you stated, has the answers. All I know is that Obama talked a lot about ending pork. He even admitted when challenged by McCain in the campaign that he was a huge earmark-offender by posting all his miserable boondoggle earmarks on his website. But when no so-called experts are sure of what may work in this environment, I guess he feels it's okay to let earmarks and tons of pork go through. “Maybe earmarks will get us out of the slump. Oh yeah, didn't I pledge to attack those?” Whatever.

And as far as the campaign money, wow Jon. I think you wrote something that says, in effect, Obama is not “pure”. Are you sure you don't want to retract that? MSNBC may not allow you to watch anymore

Look, I ain't saying the guys evil. But I challenge you to be critical of him when appropriate, and I'm not sure if you can. Perhaps you need to rub some icy-hot on your legs like the boys over at MSNBC need to do. You can only be numb and tingly for so long. Hell, the boys at Fox never did rub it on their legs after 8 years of Bush. I'm just saying open your eyes, get off the altar, and see him for what he is. A politician. And that's not a compliment.

Rahm Emanuel is a brilliant strategist, and to say Obama is disqualified as someone who can bring a “new tone” just because he chose a hard-ass like Rahm as chief of staff is a huge stretch — unless you're a Republican. Personally, I'm glad a guy like Rahm is around to play bad cop, and box some people around the ears a bit, if Obama's good-cop routine doesn't work.

As for public financing, if you can find me one single, solitary person on the planet — politician or otherwise — who is “pure” (or stupid) enough to turn down the opportunity to raise $700 million, just because six months earlier he had made a vague statement on a questionnaire that opponents could claim was a “promise”…well, then we can talk about hypocrisy.

And as for the last item on your agenda — ????????? Please write a disseration on how the financial system is going to recover without this bailout, even if it is a mess, and then we can talk.

And finally, I'm sorry, but it is completely unconstructive to make blanket dismissals like “they're all hypocrites” unless you are out there actively pushing for something better. Throwing bricks at everybody from the sidelines ain't gonna cut it. These are important times — and it's no time to stand against the whole system. You gotta stand FOR something–something realistic, something achieveable. What is it?

Hypocrisy – Claiming you are for a “new tone” in Washington and an end to “childish politics”, then selecting a person who is famous for mailing a dead fish to his political opponents and telling Republicans to “Fuck Off”. Nice. That's change we can believe in.

Oh yeah, remember how he pledged to take public campaign financing and then did the exact opposite. Change you can believe in Jon.

How about getting accolades for making a 'supposed' rule of not allowing lobbyists in your administration, then turning around THE VERY NEXT DAY and choosing a big-time lobbyist to be #2 at the Pentagon. Yeah, I know, Gates asked him to make an exception. The thing is, Obama’s the boss, he should have said “No”. Hypocrite. Go Obama!

I won't even get into his promise for no pork (then supporting this bailout mess). Maybe you don’t care about these things – I do. And they show that he’s just another politician. Say one thing, do something else.

Does it help you sleep well at night, having decided that everybody's a crook, everybody's corrupt, everybody has bad intentions? Disagree with someone's ideas all you want, and when someone actually screws up, call him on it. But, honestly, to blast Obama for “corruption” and “hypocrisy” at this point makes you look small.