The Rundown - January 14, 2009; 8:00 AM ET

Special Classifieds Feature

Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more

The Rundown

8 a.m. ET: Last week, we wondered whether Barack Obama might have been a bit careless in making his Cabinet selections. And that was before yesterday, when Tim Geithner and Hillary Clinton both faced tough questions about past or potential future mistakes. So for all the big names and lengthy resumes that will populate his Cabinet and senior staff, did Obama make the right choices? Is his team unusually problematic, or are these issues just the typical byproduct that would result from putting any large group of Washington veterans through the wringer? Consider:

• Geithner has tax and nanny problems

• Clinton has potential "Bill problems" (anyone surprised?)

• Eric Holder has pardon problems

• Bill Richardson has FBI problems (they turned out to be fatal to his nomination)

• Ray LaHood may have earmark problems (though likely not serious ones)

• Leon Panetta had a Dianne Feinstein problem (that's since been cleared up)

• Rahm Emanuel has a Blagojevich problem (but Team Obama says it's not a problem, so never mind)

• Carol Browner has "Socialist" problems (what decade is this?)

At this point, some perspective is in order. So far, Richardson is the only nominee who had to withdraw. Clinton will be just fine, and Holder likely will be too. Emanuel's not going anywhere, nor is Browner, unless pictures emerge of her meeting with the Politburo. (If you've got those pictures, send them to The Rundown.) Tom Daschle practically made out with his Senate questioners.

So it's tough to conclude, really, that Obama and his team have been particularly sloppy. Richardson was clearly a mistake, and Geithner may turn out to be one, though it's far too early to make that judgement. (Still, a note to future architects of tax policy: Pay your taxes!) It may just be that Obama's Cabinet hiccups appear more glaring because coverage of his transition has otherwise been so generally welcoming and hopeful; bumps that have become more noticeable on a mostly smooth road.

By Ben Pershing | January 14, 2009; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »

COMMENTS

Please email us to report offensive comments.

Anbody remember Zoe Baird? Mitt's lawn crew? Now we've got the potential chief enforcer of the tax code ignoring FICA, Medicare Tax and Immigration Law plus pulling a Steve Martin (i.e. I forgot!) on federal income taxes.

He pays up the final balance after he's nominated for Treasury Secretary in November with interest, but no penalty. Would you or I get away with no penalty? Don't count on it.

Remember the real "Golden Rule". "He has the gold, makes the rule". Change we can believe in?

Posted by: NotBubba | January 14, 2009 10:42 AM

To: Notbubba (paid disinfo troll?)

Here's another assignment for you -- try to discredit the logic behind THIS:

SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF ANTI-TERRORISM MEASURES: "THE OBAMA EFFECT"?

PLEA TO OBAMA: CANCEL RISKY, RECKLESS 'SITTING DUCK' TRAIN STUNT

• What happened to Homeland Security warnings of "heightened risk" during Presidential transition?

• How about the late November FBI warning about possible Northeast train station attacks?

• "Amtrak Joe" Biden's longstanding warnings about security flaws along the Amtrak Northeast corridor -- why isn't he waving this whistle stop tour to a halt?

READ THIS LINK AND MAKE IT VIRAL.

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/plea-obama-cancel-risky-reckless-sitting-duck-train-stunt

OR (if link is corrupted):

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 14, 2009 10:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.