In the last two days on the idiocy and hypocrisy of the "appointments don't matter" meme.

Sorry I don't have time for linky/excerpty goodness.

on Google yielded some hits. This one in particular from Public Affairs (Jeff Berkowitz) makes some interesting points and conclusions re Obama's reappointment of Fitzgerald to an unprecedented third term as US Attorney. Not sure where this will lead.

"Finalizing the circle, if U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is to indict and try Gov. Rod Blagojevich, that will require a President Obama to appoint Fitzgerald to what would seem to be an unprecedented third term as U. S. Attorney. Fitzgerald was first brought in to the N.D. of IL in 2001, from New York City, at the urging of President Bush by then maverick Republican U. S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation to Patrick), over the objections of local Republican and Democratic pols, who preferred prosecutions be handled by a local prosecutor. Outsider Patrick Fitzgerald has piled up significant, numerous public corruption convictions of state and local Republicans and Democrats.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, currently the senior and only Senator from Illinois, said recently that U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has done a great job and that he would like to sit down with Patrick Fitzgerald and find out what he wants to do in terms of future career plans, but that if Fitzgerald wants to continue as U. S. Attorney, Durbin would urge his friend and former senate colleague, President-Elect Obama, to re-appoint Patrick Fitzgerald. ...

What will Obama do about Patrick Fitzgerald? It is said that Mayor Daley, who has seen his patronage chief and others in his administration face indictments and convictions by Fitzgerald, would love to see Fitzgerald find another career, or at least find another locale from which to ply his trade. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass has argued that Obama is the product of the Daley machine. This reporter has differed with that assessment of Kass. We may be about to see a resolution of that debate. "

I wonder if there's a connect between Blago's presidential dreams being dashed and Obama's rise?

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?...

n/t

And saying that we should try to get concessions from Obama before announcing our support, even if its only tepid. But he was the Dem and that was good enough.

Look, I don't know if Obama will be "good" or "bad" now any more than I did then. The fact is that the process made it such that we couldn't even get simple questions *asked*. I recall being mocked back then, and even recently for trying to question the trustworthiness of the process. I guess I do take solace in the fact that its now hip and trendy to ask those questions.

And the people being silent before the election now speaking up as though they are all knowing is not lost on me. Either they weren't all knowing then or are part of the anti-Village Village.

Kos has gone over to Versailles, Bowers is still part of Paris.

Isn't that what the Bush administration taught us? I heard so many people argue that after Bush-Gore that they should give Bush a chance to prove himself because we needed "unity" (surprise), which was bad enough. Then 9/11 happened, which turned him into a criticism-free zone for the rest of this presidency, at least for the Village who even when they did criticism him it was usually completely inane criticism.