Delawarean Named to Obama Administration

Filed in National by on November 22, 2008

Wilmington’s Dan Pfeiffer has been named to Deputy Communications Director for the Obama Administration. Congratulations Dan!

But what will get the Socially Bigotted bloggers upset is that Ellen Moran, executive director of Emily’s List, has been named Communications Director. Emily’s List is “dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.”

As Paul Krugman wrote:

Seriously, isn’t it amazing just how impressive the people being named to key positions in the Obama administration seem? Bye-bye hacks and cronies, hello people who actually know what they’re doing. For a bunch of people who were written off as a permanent minority four years ago, the Democrats look remarkably like the natural governing party these days, with a deep bench of talent.

And Hube is pissed about the Holder pick. Oh, this is starting to get good.

Tags:

About the Author ()

A Dad, a husband and a data guru

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dana says:

    You might not want to celebrate the nomination of Eric Holder yet. It looks like he was very involved in both the Marc Rich and FALN pardons.

    It seems that every incoming president loses a cabinet nominee; Eric Holder might be the one Barack Obama loses.

  2. nemski says:

    Thanks Dana, I’m even more excited now.

  3. jason330 says:

    Dana,

    Obama is going to take away your guns and bring back the “fairness doctrine” which means you will be forced to listen to one hour of Noam Chomsky for every hour of Hannity.

    …Now that Dana has fainted thinking about those right wing boogey man fantasies, everyone else can discuss the nominations.

  4. pandora says:

    Wasn’t Karl Rove begging Obama to hurry up and name his economic team? Seems everyone is now looking past Bush to Obama.

    And, let’s face it, Dana, if Obama was silent you’d be accusing him of a lack of leadership.

  5. Dana says:

    No, pandora, I’d assume that he was doing his homework to get ready for the big job. He isn’t president yet, so I don’t think it’s his responsibility to do anything other than to prepare for becoming president.

  6. Dana says:

    One would think that an attorney general nominee who was involved in the Marc Rich and FALN pardons would worry y’all. Who was Marc Rich other than a billionaire crook who bought a pardon? Why were convicted Puerto Rican terrorists pardoned prior to the then-First Lady’s senatorial campaign in New York?

    Zoë Baird and Kimba Wood had their nominations for AG destroyed over illegal immigrant nannies; you’d think that violating his own department’s rules to grease the skids for a billionaire’s pardon would actually reflect on Mr Holder’s job performance. Why wouldn’t this bother you?

  7. anonone says:

    Dana,

    Guess what? He isn’t the guy that pardoned Richard Nixon. Or Casper Weinberger. Or Elliot Abrahms. Or the other Iran-Contra criminals. Or commuted Scooter Libby. I am sure that you were screaming bloody murder about those, right?

    I’ll say it again: You repubs have crime and pardoning an art form.

  8. jason330 says:

    Pandora,

    I agree with Thomas Friedman who wants to get a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and swear in Barack Obama right now. With the same haste L.B.J. was sworn in aboard Air Force One.

  9. Dana says:

    Well, anonone, since you feel that way, one would think that you’d be particularly incensed about the Holder nomination.

    And I’ll say it again: liberals have hypocrisy perfected as an art form.

  10. Dana says:

    Jason wants to suspend the Constitution:

    I agree with Thomas Friedman who wants to get a Supreme Court justice and a Bible, and swear in Barack Obama right now. With the same haste L.B.J. was sworn in aboard Air Force One.

    Well, Jason, it seems that the 20th Amendment specifies that the current president’s term ends on January 20, 2009, not the month in which his successor was elected. Don’t you believe in the Constitution?

    And if President Bush decided to step aside graciously, and resign, the new president would be Dick Cheney! 🙂

    And if Dick Cheney decided to follow suit, the new president would be Nancy Pelosi! Barack Obama is virtually nowhere in the current line of succession.

    President Johnson was sworn in quickly because President Kennedy was dead; it’s not like there was some coup d’etat involved.

    By the way, Paul Krugman’s article is laughable in it’s lack of historical research. He complained about the “interregnum” between the election and President Roosevelt’s inauguration — and interregnum most commonly means the interval of time between the end of a sovereign’s reign and the accession of a successor, terms normally referring to royalty — but President Roosevelt wasn’t inaugurated until March 4, 1933, when President Hoover’s term ended. That long period has already been addressed, with the passage of the 20th Amendment.

  11. Geezer says:

    Good luck with your latest conservative talking point, Dana.

    Now use some common sense: Obama has 58 votes in the Senate. If any of his nominees will go down, it won’t be Holder. Not even Republicans are stupid enough to filibuster the first African American attorney general — or perhaps I should say that, given their propensity to put PR over actual principles, that’s a fight they won’t pick because it will make them look like even bigger assholes than they are.

    By the way, your complaint about use of the word interregnum is even dumber than most of your points. First of all, nobody misunderstands what he means — you’re trying to pick nits, which is unwise for a writer who rather consistently uses the words “its” and “it’s” incorrectly. Second, many liberals consider this administration’s insistence on unlimited presidential power a step toward royalty. We have already reached the point where the laws that apply to the rest of us do not apply to the executive branch.

    Really, you need a life.

  12. anonone says:

    Dana,

    You’re right. I am not happy about the Holder nomination. Not for the pardons, but for for the signal that the crimes against humanity committed by BuschCo may not be prosecuted.

    Tyler Nixon discussed some of these issues here: http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/11/big-shock-obama-to-choose-statist.html

    By the way, Clinton and other Democratic Presidents have never pardoned any criminal co-conspirators the way repubs have and do.

  13. cassandra_m says:

    I think that we should wait to decide on the hypocracy olympics until after BushCo announces his Pardon List, which is very likely to put Clinton’s to shame. At which time, anybody trying to use Holder’s last minute involvement in Clinton’s pardon schemes is just going to be furthering the Republicans Are Crooks narrative.

    Just saying — your guy still has a whole bunch of days to screw over his party even more.

  14. anonone says:

    Just saying — your guy still has a whole bunch of days to screw over his party even more.

    And our country, too, sadly.

  15. Dana says:

    The Geezer wrote:

    Now use some common sense: Obama has 58 votes in the Senate. If any of his nominees will go down, it won’t be Holder. Not even Republicans are stupid enough to filibuster the first African American attorney general

    Perhaps if you looked at how many Democratic votes there were in the Senate when Zoë Baird and Kimba Wood saw their nominations to be the first female attorney general go down the tubes for actions that did not relate to their previous positions. Neither one ever came to a vote, because of the protests.

    Perhaps you are saying that because Mr Holder is black, he deserves a free pass on his previous actions; if so, that’s one hell of an addendum to Affirmative Action!

  16. Dana says:

    Cassandra (perhaps she’d prefer the Greek Κασσάνδρα) predicted (and you don’t know how long I’ve been waiting to use that line! 🙂 :

    I think that we should wait to decide on the hypocracy olympics until after BushCo announces his Pardon List, which is very likely to put Clinton’s to shame.

    If Mr Holder’s nomination fails, it is far more likely to be withdrawn before January 20th than it is to be voted down in the Senate; that’s simply the way these things usually work.

    President Bush’s pardons list may well be uncontroversial, because you’d have to have people who were facing actual criminal indictment — and there really aren’t any in his administration who are. Since Lewis Libby has already been spared jail time, my guess is that he’ll be passed over for a pardon.

    There are a couple of Border Patrol agents who were convicted for shooting an illegal trying to cross the border who might get pardoned.

  17. FSP says:

    I actually think it will benefit the Obama crew to have at least one contentious confirmation. It gives them a chance to flex their muscles.

  18. Geezer says:

    I didn’t say he deserved it, I said he’d get it — from Republicans.

    Please explain how the political correctness, “gotcha” journalism of the early ’90s is going to affect the chances of someone who did something that offends nobody outside of your now-meaningless right-wing noise chamber?

  19. Geezer says:

    As is so often the case, you also are wrong about pardons applying only to people already indicted. Perhaps the name “Nixon” rings a bell?

  20. Susan Regis Collins says:

    I’d like to see my boy, John Edwards, for A.G.

    RE: Bush & pardons….the least pardoning and the most killingTexas governor shouldn’t pardon anyone.