So far, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has produced the expected reactions from political commentators.

On the right, Sotomayor is being positioned as a liberal activist and an identity-politics hack who indulges leftist policy preferences rather than ruling fairly. On the left, Sotomayor is being praised and her critics positioned as desperate obstructionists who are already stooping low to try to stop the nomination.

We know this dance don’t we? Didn’t we do the same predictable steps with Samuel Alito, except the dancers stood on opposite sides of the floor? So let’s slow down for a moment and try to look at whether Sonia Sotomayor is qualified – not just whether or not her rulings will benefit our political goals.

For background, CNN provides a good career history complete with controversial decisions and statements while Powerline prints colleague opinions on Sotomayor from the Almanac on the Federal Judiciary (Powerline adds predictable editorializing before the excerpt but the excerpt itself is informative).

Based on the basic information we have available, Sotomayor has the requisite judicial experience (she’s no Harriet Miers) and seems to be a highly intelligent, tough jurist who pushes lawyers hard and dislikes weak arguments. All good things. But when it comes to critiquing Sotomayor, I think we should look deeper. Here’s what I wrote about the Alito nomination and I think it applies here too:

I think the proper way to question this and every nominee is by delving deep into their judicial philosophy. What methods does he use to arrive at his decisions? What role should the original intent of an Article or Amendment play in decision making? What role should precedent play and when is it acceptable to overturn precedent?

…

Will Alito rule consistently, based on rigorous intellectual discipline or will he twist logic to fit desired outcomes? In my mind, that’s the real question. And that’s how I would decide if he should be confirmed.

I don’t really care about the motivations behind a nomination. Of course a liberal president will choose a liberal judge (like our former conservative president chose conservative judges). And, as far as I’m concerned, trying to measure what role identity politics played in this nomination is a dead-end street. We have to judge the nominee on her qualifications and what she will bring to the highest court.

My general philosophy on judicial nominees is this: I’m wary of judges, whether liberal or conservative, who use their position to try to remake the nation as they see fit. That’s the basic criteria/prejudice I’ll use in critiquing Sotomayor. But first I’ll need to learn a lot more and not simply rely on the sound bites and small collection of important cases currently filling the coverage of her nomination.

The Obama Administration has announced the Car Czar is out and an automobile task force is in. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers will oversee a new panel charged with overseeing the government bailout of GM and Chrysler.

This move comes a day before the two car companies are scheduled to submit restructuring plans to the government. Presumably, this task force will be involved in approving the plans and monitoring the companies’ progress.

Whether the task force is a better idea than a car czar all depends on how Geithner and Summers prioritize their new responsibility. With the hundreds of billions in government money spiraling through the economy, the money wrapped up in the auto bailout may not get the administration’s full attention. Then again, a single czar is easy to marginalize and, if Obama couldn’t find the right person for the job, a multi-official task force seems the better option.

The failure of GM and Chrysler would significantly add to the nation’s growing unemployment rate. For this reason alone, I suspect the new task force to take their responsibility seriously and do what they can to make sure the billions in bailout money is not squandered. The question is: can such squandering be avoided, no matter the diligence of government overseers? Even with the massive loans, there is no guarantee GM and Chrysler can survive. Time will tell if we’ve used taxpayer wisely or if we’ve thrown good money after bad.

Senator Judd Gregg’s sudden withdrawal as the Commerce Secretary nominee raises some disturbing questions. If, as reports indicate, he was soured by the stimulus bill, we have to ask whether President Obama has killed his hopes for bipartisanship before his presidency is even a month old.

By allowing the Democrats, particularly the House Democrats, to all but brush aside Republican concerns, has Obama ruined his chance to work across the aisle? Losing a cabinet nominee over the issue proves the hard feelings about the stimulus package are no small matter. Even if Gregg quit for a variety of reasons, the fact he chose to mention the stimulus has to be concerning for all of us who’ve hoped for a less partisan Washington.

For better or worse, Obama and the Democrats decided their version of the stimulus was too important to delay until a bipartisan bill could be reached. Maybe they’re right. Maybe this was an “act now or die” moment and the Republicans were putting the future of the nation at risk with their obstinacy. But, right or wrong, it looks like Obama will have to work hard on the next few big issues to give his dream of unity a fighting chance. Cut out the Republicans again and it’s going to be a long four years.

Tom Daschle has asked President Barack Obama to withdraw his name from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is the second Obama nominee today to withdraw from consideration. Earlier, Nancy Killefer stepped away from the nomination to be Obama’s chief performance officer.

Both nominees had issues with unpaid taxes. Not a good day for the Obama team.

More as the story develops.

When the important matters of our day are all but forgotten, I think the Clintons will still be remembered, if not accurately, then at least as meaningful figures of their time. Inside that couple is a Shakespearean play. Too bad all we have so far is Primary Colors.

As you all know, today marked Hillary Clinton’s official ascension to Secretary of State. That makes the Clintons the only American couple in history in which both husband and wife became one of the world’s most powerful people. That’s no small feat.

What I hope this marks is the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of the era when powerful, capable women served as hidden advisors to their powerful husbands. Obviously, women have served on their own merits in government for awhile now and I don’t mean to minimize their achievements. But there is still the expectation in our culture that powerful men will not have equally powerful wives. Hillary Clinton has fought that expectation and, despite her shortcomings, I admire her for her tenacity in the face of a culture that still sees her more as Bill’s wife than her own person.

Hillary Clinton lost her party’s presidential nomination and could have easily taken that as the ultimate sign that she would never rise above the position of senator. Instead, she did what few said was possible — she made nice with Barack Obama and secured for herself the most powerful position in the cabinet. She’s not the first (or even the second) woman to serve as Secretary of State and she still has to prove herself capable, but, thanks to her, fewer couples will feel compelled to make the either/or choice. Both husband and wife can aspire and achieve great heights. That seems obvious, but it’s a surprisingly new cultural phenomenon.

O.k., enough with the flowers and rainbows. Let’s look at why there’s reason to be skeptical about Barack Obama and his team. Politico lays out seven worries about Obama’s presidency. I summarize those concerns and comment below:

1. Teams of geniuses don’t always produce genius results.
Of course, teams of fools aren’t known for their great results either.

2. An urge for bipartisanship might create a herd instinct.
That’s why we don’t need bipartisanship but rather independence from partisanship. Congress is often at its worst when members aren’t disagreeing. Let the arguments flow. Just don’t make them based on petty political maneuvering or shortsighted ideological games. Easy to say, I know …

3. We’re broke.
And we’re going to get more broke. There’s no stopping it. The trick is to make sure money is spent wisely and that policies are put in place to allow for a quick return to fiscal responsibility once the economy is out of the weeds. I hope a re-inspired Republican minority and the growing contingent of Blue Dog Democrats can keep the more profligate congressmen and women from leading us into financial ruin.

4. Obama ain’t done nothing yet.
Obama has the style of a leader and the sense to surround himself with tough, smart advisors. But style won’t get us through our first crisis. As hopeful as most of us are about Obama’s prospects, many of us will remain apprehensive until Obama proves he can be competent and decisive in a moment of crisis.

5. He talks post-partisanship but he hasn’t walked the walk yet.
Just like #4, this is a holdover from all the concerns about Obama pre-election. He has a liberal record. But he promises something more inclusive. His cabinet choices were a good start. I’m hopeful his presidency will not be a series of kowtows to liberal special interest groups.

6. Everyone is winging it.
Yep. The current economic situation is unprecedented and no one knows for sure what will and what won’t work. Hopefully we have the best people in place to do the job. But there will be wrong turns.

7. The watchdogs are weak.
Serious investigative journalism has suffered under budget cuts at newspapers and under television’s predilection to embrace the easy story du jour rather than doing the hard work of digging into the details. The media, in all its incarnations, must watch Obama like a hawk. I’m hopeful tenacious bloggers can fill some of the role abdicated by professional journalism. But I do worry Obama will not be subjected to the level of scrutiny all presidents deserve.

In one of the more, forgive me, torturous staffing processes, it looks like Barack Obama has finally settled on the last major appointment he had left to make, that of CIA director. Given that the Bush administration has done so much long-term, institutional damage to our intelligence superstructure, basic tenets of human rights and the rule of law, and the really nearly impossible to overstate damage done to the very idea of America itself, and almost all of that has fallen under the scope of the CIA at one point or another, bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, and other leading voices in the fight for not buying into the false choice of security over freedom, have been keeping a very close, very wary eye on what Obama was going to do here.

Remember that Obama’s first floated choice for CIA Director, John Brennan, had to withdraw his name from consideration due to a mostly blogosphere-induced backlash against his previous advocacy of Bush positions on wiretapping, torture, and the like. While it remains unclear how complicit Brennan actually was in any of that (probably not very, in truth), those of us hoping for a clear indication of new direction were happy to see him go.

But that left Obama in a difficult bind. For CIA director, you kind of need somebody who has been working at a high level in the intelligence community. But, given that that would have been under Bush’s tenure, that also would be someone who almost certainly, on some level, had a hand in the aforementioned abuses.

Obama appears to have squared this circle by bypassing it entirely, nominating instead a man with not one iota of intelligence experience–former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.

NBC News has confirmed that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA.

Panetta was a surprise pick for the post, with no experience in the intelligence world. An Obama transition official and another Democrat disclosed his nomination on a condition of anonymity since it was not yet public.

Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime congressman from California.

If you have to make a quick trip to wikipedia, I don’t blame you.

However, despite the fact that he has no intelligence background, I find myself a bit optimistic about his appointment.

For one, it indicates that Obama is very serious about changing direction–he was responsive to the Brennan criticism, and in response he has gone out of his way to choose an outsider. A way, way outsider. As Andrew Sullivan notes, Panetta is clearly “significantly, detached from the torture regime and its apparatus in a way that anyone involved in the CIA in the last eight years would not be.” And as Glenn Greenwald adds, “it does seem clear that the Obama team was serious about avoiding anyone who had any connection at all to the Bush torture, surveillance and detention programs.”

For another, Panetta does have some thoughts on the germane issues of the post. Atrios uncovers a March op-ed by Panetta (and here’s a related one in the Washington Monthly) in which he more or less unequivocally condemns torture, wiretapping, and in general using fear as a justification for legality. It’s a thin record, to be sure, but at least it’s in the right direction.

And finally, what I think is thus far being missed, is the decision to choose not a spook, but a manager for the post. Panetta’s history is that of a human resources guy, a liason problem-solver. To that end, the smartest early take I’ve read yet on his appointment comes from Marc Ambinder. Panetta is there to clean house and, like much of what Obama does, to provide competent, pragmatic, and not-particular-ideologically driven leadership. In other words, like Obama himself, the hope seems to be that Panetta is being appointed to be the adult in the room at Langley, with the considerable added benefit of not having any particular baggage or loyalties himself.

Since nobody knows much about Panetta (at least not of the bloggers I read) and this is an entirely new role for him, it remains to be seen if he’ll prove effective or not; we can really only make generalized guesses. But as somebody who’s been watching this one decision closely, I’m cautiously optimistic.

This isn’t going to make gay rights activists happy.

Barack Obama has selected evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Once again, Obama seems more interested in reaching out rather than reaching inwards towards his base.

While Warren is not of the fire-and-brimstone mold, he did play a prominent role in the success of California’s Proposition 8. Obama’s choice of Warren signals that the president-elect is not likely to enter the White House with a progressive gay rights agenda. He was apparently honest when, throughout the campaign, he said he did not support gay marriage.

But I’m surprised he’d look to a conservative such as Warren for this important moment. I guess Rev. Jeremiah Wright was busy that day.

Other prominent guests at Obama’s inauguration will not cause as much controversy. Aretha Franklin, Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma will all perform.

Later today, President-elect Obama will announce his nomination of fellow Harvard grad, Hyde Park neighbor, and basketball enthusiast Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education, according to numerous press reports. 

Superintendent of Chicago’s public schools for the past seven years, Duncan has been a reformer, supporting merit pay for teachers and charter schools, for example, while also earning respect from teachers’ unions.  As The Chicago Tribune notes:

Since Mayor Richard Daley plucked Duncan from obscurity to head the country’s third-largest school district in 2001, Duncan has gained a reputation as a reformer who isn’t afraid to rankle the teachers union or punish underperforming schools. His decisions to pay students for good grades, back an unrealized plan for a gay-friendly high school and consider boarding schools often polarized the community while bolstering his renegade image.

“He has the brains, courage, creativity and temperament for the job,” said former Chicago schools chief Paul Vallas, who hired Duncan as his deputy chief of staff in 1998. “And he’s very close to the president[-elect], which is an important thing, too.”

Close, indeed.  Duncan, who played basketball at Harvard and professionally in Australia for a while, has been a frequent player in Obama”s pick-up ball games.  

By choosing Duncan, Obama is making an adroit play down the middle with a seasoned professional he can trust who has sought to work with all sides in the often rough battles over education:

Obama’s choice has been anticipated, and argued about, by education groups anxious to see what Obama will do to fix the country’s ailing schools. Obama managed throughout his campaign to avoid taking sides in the contentious debate between reform advocates and teachers’ unions over the direction of education and the fate of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind accountability law. 

The selection of Duncan may satisfy both factions. Reform advocates wanted a big-city school superintendent who, like Duncan, has sought accountability for schools and teachers. And teachers’ unions, an influential segment of the party base, wanted an advocate for their members; they have said they believe Duncan is willing to work with them. 

The choice of Duncan has won bi-partisan praise, as well.  President Bush’s Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, told the Chicago Sun-Times a few days ago, ”He’s a terrific school leader. I consider him a fellow reformer and someone who cares deeply about students. He’d be a great choice.”

After all the lead up, Barack Obama has officially announced Hillary Clinton as his choice to be Secretary of State. Said Obama of Clinton:

She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. … She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world’s leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.

This is Obama’s riskiest pick, not because Clinton isn’t acceptably qualified but because of the baggage she carries. We’ll see if No Drama Obama can manage the sometimes vaudevillian act that is the Clintons and their allies.

Meanwhile, Obama has also officially announced he will be keeping on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defenses and will appoint James Jones as National Security Adviser, Eric Holder as Attorney General and Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. He also announced his longtime foreign policy advisor Susan Rice as his appointment for UN Ambassador, a role Obama plans to upgrade to be a Cabinet position.

Obama is certainly moving quickly to get his team in place. And it’s a pretty solid team at that.

This had been the rumor for awhile. Now, it’s apparently close to being official. Robert Gates will stay on as Defense Secretary in Barack Obama’s administration. Reports are Gates will stay for at least a year.

Well, Obama promised to have some Republicans in his administration. This certainly counts. And it’s a good move because it ensures Obama will have the advice of someone intimate with our nation’s two current wars and it keeps in place a man who’s proven to be a pragmatic and successful leader of the Defense Department.

I’m sure others will disagree, but I like this choice.

William Greider of The Nation wonders if Barack Obama’s recent appointments indicate he won’t be the progressive savior many of the left hoped he’d be.

Obama’s choices have begun to define him. His victory, it appears, was a triumph for the cautious center-right politics that has described the Democratic party for several decades. Those of us who expected more were duped, not so much by Obama but by our own wishful thinking.

Greider focuses his worry on Obama’s support for the recent financial bailouts and specifically on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s role in the Citigroup bailout. Greider’s complaint?

Wasting more public money on insolvent mastodons is the least of it. The real scandal is it doesn’t work. It can’t work because the black hole is too large even for Washington to fill. Government should take over the failing institutions or force them into bankruptcy, break them up and sell them off or mercifully relieve everyone, including the taxpayers.

I think it’s too soon to judge whether or not the bailouts are working. And Obama’s appointments fill me with a lot more confidence than would a slew of economic ideologues. What we have to remember is that we are in the very, very early stages of this financial crisis. We are not in a depression and we do not need radical maneuvers. We need a smart, coordinated approach. That seems to be the direction Obama is planning to head.

Obviously, just throwing money at the problem without stipulations on how that money is used is not the best solution. There have been some mistakes made in the initial release of funds. But, at this juncture, I still prefer trying to fix the system we have rather than blowing up the whole thing. Capitalism does not work without credit. Getting the markets flowing is more important than ideology.

According to current reports, this could be Barack Obama’s national security/foreign affairs team:

Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano

National Security Advisor: Gen. Jim Jones, a retired 4-star Marine Corps general who actually supported John McCain but is considered pragmatic and very well-qualified.

Director of National Intelligence: Retired Adm. Dennis Blair who’s worked with the CIA and is well versed in clandestine military operations.

And let us not forget Joe Biden will also be hanging around.

Needless to say, this line-up is not pleasing various members of the left. But it should please anyone who wants to get away from ideological foreign policy and focus on reality-based, sensible pursuits of our interests and security. While I’m unconvinced that Clinton is the best choice for State, Obama’s potential team leaves me with few complaints at this juncture.

If there is a significant concern, it’s whether everyone will be able to work together without letting egos get in the way. But a certain level of discord is acceptable. Even welcome. I’d much rather be led by men and women who are willing to argue for their ideas than men and women who are comfortable existing in the kind of groupthink atmosphere the Bush administration seemed to promote.

Word has leaked that Barack Obama has selected New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary. Wall Street liked the news. The Dow rose nearly 500 points after news broke of Geithner’s forthcoming appointment.

Geithner seems in line with many of Obama’s other selections: experienced, intelligent and respected by colleagues. Geithner served in the Treasury Department under the last three presidential administrations before moving to the New York Federal Reserve. He has worked closely with current Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as well as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He also played a sizable role in the recent financial bailout plans.

Obama certainly isn’t wasting any time getting his most important cabinet members in place. That’s good. We’ll have plenty of time to consider these men and women before they come up for confirmation.

As previously reported, Barack Obama has chosen Tom Daschle to head Health and Human Services and serve as the point-man on health care reform. So, is he up to the task?

Well, he’ll definitely come prepared with some ideas. In fact, he’s written a book on the issue. And, he’s written numerous articles advancing his ideas, including this one for the Huffington Post earlier in the year.

One of Daschle’s reform ideas is to cut through the rat’s nest of bureaucracy by establishing a Federal Health Board which he says would:

[R]esemble our current Federal Reserve Board for the banking industry. Just as the Federal Reserve ensures certain standards, transparency and performance for our banking industry, the Fed Health would ensure harmonization across public programs of health-care protocols, benefits, and transparency. Ultimately, the Fed Health would offer a public framework within which a private health-care system could operate more effectively and efficiently.

I don’t know enough about the full scope of Daschle’s ideas to pass judgment at this point. But I do like that he seems to understand the problem isn’t just a supply issue, but a cost one as well — and it’s going to take a lot more than just throwing heaps of money at the current system. I’m not sure about this Federal Health Board but I’m completely in favor of untangling the often incomprehensible bureaucracy that’s been created by decades of local, state and national laws.

Presumably, Obama tapped Daschle for this post because the President-elect intends to rely on the former Senator’s expertise and advice on health care. Obama talked big during the election about reform. But actual, workable reform is going to take a lot more than a commitment to expanding health care. It’s going to take some serious thinking and hard work. We’ll see if Daschle is up to the task, but he certainly seems to be well-versed in the issue.

The will-she-or-won’t-she questions surrounding Hillary Clinton and the State Department took yet another turn this morning. Seems like Bill Clinton is willing to make some concessions to help his wife land the job:

Clinton has agreed to release the names of several major donors to his charitable foundation and will submit future foundation activities and paid speeches to a strict ethics review, said Democrats knowledgeable about the discussions.

They also said that Clinton would step away from day-to-day responsibility for his foundation while his wife serves and would alert the State Department any new sources of income and to his speechmaking. The Democrats spoke only on grounds of anonymity because of the private nature of the Cabinet-selection process.

If true, this development would seem to indicate Hillary Clinton wants the job, despite rumors to the contrary.

This has all devolved quickly into political theater, which is what you get whenever the Clintons are involved. I’m no longer even sure if Senator Clinton’s qualifications have anything to do with the possible State job. Is this just payback for her being a tireless Barack Obama booster and making sure her supporters didn’t bolt to John McCain? Is this just a way for Obama to kick Bill Clinton off the world stage (and a way for Hillary to finally get back at Bill by overtaking him in importance on the world stage)? Does this have anything to do with “change” or is this Chicago-style politics being played on the national stage?

In my mind, Senator Clinton’s qualifications for Secretary of State are quite average. Yes, she has traveled the globe and can leverage existing relationships with world leaders, but we have no proof that she’s exceptionally gifted in foreign policy or a particularly skilled diplomat. It’s like picking up a track star to play football. Sure, we know he can run, but can he catch too?

It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

The air-tight campaign of Barack Obama has turned into the leak-a-minute transition of president-Elect Obama. Floating names is obviously important but, if things don’t work out, it can make Obama’s team look sloppy. Is that what’s about to happen with the whole Hillary Clinton at State scenario? Apparently, she may not be interested.

Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t certain she would accept the Secretary of State post even if Barack Obama offers it to her, several people close to the former first lady say.

Press reports that portray Clinton as willing to accept the job – once the Obama transition team vets Bill Clinton’s philanthropic and business ventures – are inaccurate, one Clinton insider told Politico.

“A lot of the speculation and reporting is out ahead of the facts here,” said the person, who requested anonymity. “She is still weighing this, independent of President Clinton’s work.”

Politically, I can see why Clinton would turn down the invitation to join Obama’s cabinet. Despite all her talk during the campaign of being ready on day one, she’s not exactly a foreign policy maven. Her passion is domestic issues and she’d likely be of greater service from her position in the Senate. Plus, Secretary of State is a thankless job, particularly in the current mess that is international affairs. Does she want to risk damaging her image if things don’t go well on the world stage the next four years?

Whatever the outcome, I think it’s clear by this leak that Clinton wants to make this appear to be her decision, not something Obama lured her in to and not something her husband can facilitate or complicate by his oversized presence. Clinton’s not going to do anything at this point that’s not good for Clinton. If she ends up in Obama’s cabinet, you better believe it will appear to be as a favor to Obama (and duty to country). I don’t see it happening any other way.

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised to curtail the power of lobbyists if he was elected president. Now, he’s apparently tyring to live up to that promise:

President-elect Barack Obama will bar lobbyists from helping to pay the costs of his transition to power or working for it in any area in which they have represented clients in the last year, his transition team said Tuesday.

Obama’s people would also like to bar lobbyists from paying for the inauguration events, but they have not made a final decision on that matter.

The revolving doorway between government positions and lobbying firms moves fast and both parties have a long history of shuttling their industry experts between the public and private sectors. It’ll be interesting to see if Obama can live up to his promise and/or whether the decision will create any transition complications.

Nevertheless, I’m glad to hear Obama is making this move. Reforming government requires reforming the level of access and influence granted lobbyists and the companies they represent. Everyone and every organization has a right to petition the government. But they do not have a right to place people next to the ear of the President. Hopefully this decision by Obama is the first step in making some real changes.

Hey, this is Danielle Ivory from the American News Project, with our first report on the Obama transition.

Here’s a first look at Jay Inslee, who appears on the shortlists for Prez-Elect Obama’s Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Energy..

The AP has put together a list of names of those being considered for cabinet positions within the Barack Obama administration. There are too many names to list and go into here. But take a peek. It’s an interesting selection of Obama loyalists, Democratic retreads and outside-the-box considerations.

The one I’d like to see the most? Robert Gates kept on as Defense Secretary.