Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Newsweek quotes unnamed sources who say that President-elect Barack Obama has decided, pending final vetting, to nominate Eric Holder to be Attorney General. The sources also told Newsweek that Holder would accept the position when it is formally offered.
Holder is a former Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration. He is 57 years old and a graduate of Columbia University Law School. He has a long career at the Department of Justice, first holding a non-political position there as an attorney in the public integrity section from 1976 to 1988.
In 1988, he was named to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by Ronald Reagan, where he served until 1993, when he resigned to accept an appointment by Bill Clinton to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Then, in 1997, he was named to replace Jamie Gorelick as Deputy to then-Attorney General Janet Reno. Holder than also served as Acting Attorney General during the first few months of the current administration during the confirmation process for John Ashcroft.
If confirmed, Holder would be the first African-American to lead the Justice Department; he was already the first African-American to be U.S. Attorney for DC and to be Deputy Attorney General.
There are a couple of issues that may be brought up during his confirmation process if nominated. The first is his support in the waning days of the Clinton administration for the highly controversial pardoning of Marc Rich. In a 2001 Washington Post article, Holder expressed regret for having given the okay to that pardon.
Holder had given an opinion of "neutral, leaning towards favorable" on the pardon request for Rich, which was then cited by President Clinton in justifying his pardon of the exiled financier on tax evasion and corruption convictions. Holder said at the time that he gave the matter very little consideration and wished he had done due diligence:
"If I had focused on this in a way that I could have, should have, the recommendation I would have given him would have been, 'Don't do this, Mr. President.'"
Ironically, that Post article said 7 years ago that this misstep would likely prevent Holder from getting the AG's post in the next Democratic administration and even quoted Holder, then being bombarded with criticism during Congressional hearings, as saying, ""I'm done. Public life's over for me. I had a moment in time. That moment has passed." It appears that prediction may have been premature.
The second issue that may cause some controversy is a brief that Holder joined along with other former DOJ officials supporting the Washington D.C. gun ban during a Supreme Court case over the policy earlier this year. Given the controversy over Obama's position on gun control during the campaign, that could cause some headaches during the early days of the new administration. But with Democrats in charge of the Senate, that likely would not be enough to derail his confirmation.
Politics
Comments
It will be interesting to see what the Republicans say about Holder and the Rich affair after Bush has issued his last set of pardons. I suspect taking the moral high ground will be a little tougher for them once that happens.
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2008 10:34 AM
So much for Obama being for "change". He's just appointing insiders to positions - and appointing Hillary as SecState would just make his claim of being for change ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as McCain picking Palin when he was supposedly "experienced".
I'm finding Obama's transition plan disappointing.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | November 19, 2008 10:56 AM
Holden is on record as being solidly (I am tempted to say "passionately") against many of the more anti-Constitutional measures undertaken by the DOJ and the Bush Administration, including Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, and torture. If the fact that the guy used to work in government is so discouraging as to overcome the fact that his actual positions are as much of a repudiation of the last 8 years as you can get, then I don't think there's much that would make you happy.
Maybe Obama should appoint Sarah Palin to something, since she has no federal level experience at all and apparently that's what "change" means.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | November 19, 2008 11:01 AM
Way too early to be disappointed (or otherwise). It's been two weeks since the election -- two weeks! -- and another two months to go before Obama becomes the president.
You also can't fairly dismiss the transition as not being "change" just because Obama will lean on Clintonites to staff up his administration. It should not come as any surprise that this is happening, since it's the only Democratic administration since Carter that had anyone with the requisite executive experience Obama can to draw upon. By and large, the problem with Clinton was not the appointments he made (yes, there were some that didn't work out, but I have read plenty of praise over the years for the quality of the overall staff) but with Clinton's own shenanigans at the White House.
I will reserve judgment until I see what sort of ethics Obama instills in his team and the directives they work under. So far he seems to be selecting people based on quality and competence first as opposed to ideological purity. That *is* change compared with the last eight years.
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2008 11:09 AM
Maybe Obama should appoint Sarah Palin to something, since she has no federal level experience at all and apparently that's what "change" means.
Maybe Ambassador to Hawaii -- you know, to give her experience of one of those strange, exotic places Barack Obama loves to visit on vacation and a slightly warmer place from where to watch for Vladimir Putin rearing his head.
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2008 11:14 AM
Jeff Hebert said:
It's not just about being different from Bush - it was about being different politics entirely. Obama pressuring Reid to let Lieberman stay is something that made me happy, and if Chuck Hagel gets an appointment, *that* will be change. Appointing Washington insiders to Cabinet posts is just more of the same though.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | November 19, 2008 11:26 AM
Alberto Gonzales was a Washington outsider, as were several other Bush appointees he brought with him from Texas, and we all know how that worked out.
It just impractical to suddenly bring in a whole cabinet of Washington outsiders -- the learning curve would be way too steep, especially at a time when swift action is necessary on just about all fronts. Remember Obama has also placed more stringent rules on hiring lobbyists into the administration (they can't work in the same area of government they lobbied for at least a year) which places already restricts the pool of candidates he can hire from day one.
Perhaps you can criticize Obama for making statements for "change" he knew he would not be able to implement as soon as he got into office, but I still think it's way too early to start ragging on his "change" message until we see how he runs his administration. Right now he's just finding the right tools to work with, and it's not as though there are an infinite number of parts to chose from.
(BTW: By what definition is Chuck Hagel a Washington outsider?)
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2008 12:09 PM
Braxton Thomason:
Should he find someone with no experience working in the federal government to be AG? Someone with no experience in federal law? Maybe someone without a law degree? I don't really understand what you were expecting; AG is a really important position that requires action on a lot of very esoteric legal knowledge. Who do you think would be ideal?
Posted by: Dan L. | November 19, 2008 1:31 PM
"So much for Obama being for "change"."
I've developed a sort of policy that anyone who repeats this stock phrase is more likely than not wasting everyone's time by only pretending to provide sensible analysis. Also people that use terms like "washington insiders": another content and thought free term for insultingly stereotyping a whole bunch of very different people that have wildly different levels of capability, corruption, and dedication to what they're doing.
The question is "change" from what? Holden is by all accounts really well respected and competent: even by some conservatives who once worked with him, like Orin Kerr. He didn't just work under Clinton: he worked in federal law under Reagan and Carter too.
And he doesn't seem like a political hack first, government official second. So that in and of itself really IS a big change from the Bush administration. Not to mention the huge sea change in policy, which, lest people forget, was the core message of "change" not "I promise not to appoint experienced Clinton officials."
Posted by: Bad | November 19, 2008 2:24 PM
Dan L. said:
It's not just about this specific pick - I was disappointed in the Biden pick as VP. Someone ideal for AG (and any position) would be someone who isn't already beholden to other politicians for favors/political capital. The difference in Hagel is that he has very little to lose by doing the right thing instead of doing the politically expedient thing.
As for "Bad" essentially calling me a concern troll: it's not the case. I agree with Ed about Obama - I didn't vote for him, but I certainly was rooting for him over McCain/Palin. Take from that what you will.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | November 19, 2008 2:33 PM
I think the question, "Change to WHAT" is still pertinent.
I think it's quite possible that what the rest of the country voted for was "Change BACK...." to what it was in 1999.
Posted by: gwangung | November 19, 2008 3:16 PM
Obama is the chief executive, but he need competent people who can get done what he wants done. Regardless of their past baggage, people like Emanuel and Clinton know how the politics game works, and know how to accomplish things within it, and those are the folks Obama needs if he is actually going to have an effective agenda.
If you're an architect, who do you want building your house, a builder who has questionable architectural taste on their own but can unquestionably execute your design, or a neophyte who may have great aesthetic sense but doesn't know how to hammer a nail straight?
Posted by: Tulse | November 19, 2008 3:26 PM
The charge of appointing insiders is a little unfair, I feel. Anyone with appropriate experience could be perceived as an insider.
Posted by: SimonG | November 19, 2008 3:58 PM
SimonG - I don't think so (plenty of people with appropriate experience that I would approve of). What I'm looking for is appointees that aren't beholden to the political process. It's one of the things that I like about Obama himself. People like Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, or Al Gore - they have diverse political opinions, but have nothing to lose if, while in office, they do what is right instead of what is expedient. *That's* what I'm hoping for from Obama.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | November 19, 2008 4:14 PM
Yes, it is. And we do expect a change from what happened under Clinton too. Besides wanting change from the Bush policies on Iraq and civil liberties, people voted for a real change in the way the healthcare system works in this country, and they voted for a real change in our energy policies that have been in force here for decades. Both were prominent changes spelled out in the Obama campaign message and that's the kind of thing he will be judged on when it comes time to see if he delivered change or not.
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2008 4:15 PM
Braxton Thomason said:
What I take from that is that voting for a candidate you know cannot possibly win but is siphoning votes from a candidate you're supposedly "rooting for" is a different meaning of the word "rooting" than I've ever heard. In America, we call "rooting" voting!
P.S.: I'd say the same thing to the idiots who voted for Nader in 2000 (if I could restrain myself from strangling them.)
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 19, 2008 6:18 PM