Another Clintonista Joins the Club

President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition. Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal “vetting” review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted, the source said. The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments.

blog.newsweek.com...

Here we go again. The change is underwhelming. I remember this guy from the well publicized Elian Gonzales case in Miami. Holder sent FBI agents into the home with Guns drawn to grab the boy and send him back to Cuba.

The vetting process should be interesting.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by jibeho]

I have a brilliant idea.

Does anyone know if Janet Reno is looking for a new job? Perhaps she could be deputy AG under Holder. Wouldn't anyone want a former boss to work under you? Hey Janet. Get me a cup of coffee and a jelly filled donut.

His role in the controversial Marc Rich pardon can't be overlooked.

How do you pardon a billionaire who owed 58 million dollars in back taxes, is convicted, then gives up his US citizenship to avoid punishment?

Maybe his selection will give us some answers on this travesty?

Originally posted by jibeho Here we go again. The change is underwhelming.

Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas? Was that, then a good thing? I like that pic of Rummy with Saddam...really puts it all in context.

Considering that so many of the Bush-babies are under indictment, or soon to be, or ought to be, that really narrows down the employment pool.

The Obamites are calling "starboard!!"...live with it.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas?

Yep. So what? Bush43 didn't make 'change' the capstone of his campaign. Obama promised 'out with the old' and 'change'. Instead - it's the same old politics and same old politicians that ... supposedly ... he promised to be rid of.

Change = lobbyists and Clintonistas

Obama ran on 'change'.
He is NOT giving it.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas? Was that, then a good thing?

I don't recall Bush campaigning on "Change" and hope. I expected solid leadership from Bush...and got it. Does anyone really expect "Change" from Obama?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I am not totally opposed to using some staffers from past admins. It is normal for any pres. elect to do so. The problem I have with Obama is the excess. The number is currently 30 plus former Clinton staffers and counting. This is coming from a man who was preaching change in DC.

Obama is already getting his marching orders from CAP.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas? Was that, then a good thing?

I don't recall Bush campaigning on "Change" and hope. I expected solid leadership from Bush...and got it. Does anyone really expect "Change" from Obama?

You must be one of the lucky few who are actually better off after 8 years of Bush, and for that I congratulate you. I'd say, though, that Obama is touting change from Bush, anyway, and I'd have to allow that for most of the world that is a welcome change, indeed.

The guy does have over 20years experience in the Justice Department. There aren't alot of folks floating around out there with that kind of resume. Of course why give a rats-ass about qualifications? It doesn't matter who Obama picks. The same people will be out with pitchforks and torches. You all know who you are.

I'v seen two legitimate complaints about this guy. Holding government officials accountable is hardly "pitchforks and torches".

What a great choice!

He served five years under Reagan, too.

FoxNews Politics

By the way, Obama has thousands of people to hire and appoint. 30, 40 or even 500 Clinton people is not even close a majority. But I'm glad we have you guys to keep track of every single one!

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

And if Obama had a bunch of no-name "Washington Outsiders" the same exact people complaining about the hiring of the "Washington Insiders" would be spending a disproportionate amount of time complaining about his cabinet choices being horrible because they lacked the experience of "Washington Insiders" necessary to make good decisions.

Just like in the campaigns where they were trying to knock him down for his lack of "Washington Insider" experience. Which is only a complete flip-flop from their boosting of Bush's lack of "Washington Insider" experience as a good thing from back in 2000...but, hey, who's paying attention to that? Its not about consistency of ideology, its about finding something, anything, to latch onto as a reason to accept the new President Elect...as those who complained about Bush were told to do back in 2000, by the very same people who, now, refuse to accept it.

Its called hypocricy, and politics is full of it...on both sides...I would say stop whining about it and deal with it...but then I myself would be a hypocrite.

reply to post by jibeho


Let me ask you a question:

If this guy is from the Clinton era, how is that not change from the current administration?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas?

Yep. So what? Bush43 didn't make 'change' the capstone of his campaign. Obama promised 'out with the old' and 'change'. Instead - it's the same old politics and same old politicians that ... supposedly ... he promised to be rid of.

Change = lobbyists and Clintonistas

Obama ran on 'change'.
He is NOT giving it.

at least we will have a president that will be able to speak in complete sentences without it being written on a piece of paper in front of him. a functional speaker, yeah...no change there, right?

reply to post by jimmyx


Is he a good speaker or just good with the teleprompter?
www.youtube.com...

He's not changing anything.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by MetatronCubensis]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas? Was that, then a good thing?

I don't recall Bush campaigning on "Change" and hope. I expected solid leadership from Bush...and got it. Does anyone really expect "Change" from Obama?

You must be one of the lucky few who are actually better off after 8 years of Bush, and for that I congratulate you. I'd say, though, that Obama is touting change from Bush, anyway, and I'd have to allow that for most of the world that is a welcome change, indeed.

I see you're one of the ignorant many still blaming all of the ills of the past 8 years on the Bush Administration instead of properly distributing the blame where it is due, like involvement of certain members of a Democratic mmajority of Congress in the last 2 of those 8 years.

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis Is he a good speaker or just good with the teleprompter?

Frankly, I don't care if he throws up before public speaking, and has to use American Sign Language for his fireside chats. You want eloquent, watch 'West Wing'.

The US, and the world, is overdue for some genuine leadership. Sure, there's Obama koolaid, but I'd give him a chance to exercise the mandate he was democratically given. And the man can orate...

You know, there comes a time everybody has to put their partisanship aside and remember they are one people.

reply to post by RRconservative


Yeah, change from the current people in office. That seems to be exactly what he is doing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What a great choice!

He served five years under Reagan, too.

FoxNews Politics

By the way, Obama has thousands of people to hire and appoint. 30, 40 or even 500 Clinton people is not even close a majority. But I'm glad we have you guys to keep track of every single one!

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Yeah, keep up the smug attitude, BH. We'll see how long it lasts. The last laugh is coming and it won't be the Obama supporters who will be happy.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Weren't Rummy and Cheney and the crew left-over Reaganistas?

So is Eric Holder! Republican Ronald Reagan appointed Holder as a District of Columbia Superior Court judge. He had to quit that position to take a job with the Clintons.

It's quite an honor to be considered for Obama's administration.

Obama is Hiring: Job Change you can Believe In

As for those coveted White House spots, Obama will need to hire about 448 staffers, everything from a Records Management Analyst, Director of Fact Checking, Ethics Advisors to Gift Analysts. Plus there's the head of 16 executive departments, including the chief technology officer, and thousands of other appointments.

Originally posted by RRconservative
I don't recall Bush campaigning on "Change"

"Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, 'Vote for me. I'm an agent of change.' In 2004, I said, 'I'm not interested in change --I want to continue as president.' Every candidate has got to say 'change.' That's what the American people expect." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2008

Bushisms