Holder supposedly used the Rich pardon to promote his own interests. If true, that does directly impinge on his fitness for the office of AG.

I agree completely on the last. I haven't seen anything on the first.

indefinitely in a Gitmo jail cell.

No.

Under it.

Does it uphold Obama's marketing as Change We Can Believe In™? Assuming one actually did believe in it, no.

As for this...

Expecting reform before that takes place is actually pretty silly.

...the argument itself is silly. Right now we are watching as the self-proclaimed reformer creates his reform administration out of, well, a bunch of retreads from a former administration whose claim of ethical superiority turned out to be pure satire.

Well, yes, anjin-san. When you run as a reform candidate, people actually expect you to reform. It's a cruel world.

Well, let's see what happens when he actually takes office. Expecting reform before that takes place is actually pretty silly.

If Obama's intention as an executive has a strong thrust towards reform, I expect his senior staff will act on it, regardless of their resumes, or they will find themselves looking for new jobs.

If 18 months from now, there is no sign that Obama was ever serious about reform, people will have something to bitch about. Until then they are either bitching because they enjoy it, or because they can't think of anything interesting to say.

"If" Holder had opposed the pardon and, say, resigned on principle, he would now be regarded as a man of true integrity, not the butt-snorkeling shaper and trimmer that he is now.

Btw, wasn't an AG just recently hounded from office because of his unprincipled willingness to please his political masters? Would Alberto have kept his job if he had "learned his lessons"?

And if Obama had picked a bunch of unknowns, you could whine about him putting rookies in charge of the government in a time of financial crisis, war, terrorist threats and so on.

Well, yes, anjin-san. When you run as a reform candidate, people actually expect you to reform. It's a cruel world.

And if Obama had picked a bunch of unknowns, you could whine about him putting rookies in charge of the government in a time of financial crisis, war, terrorist threats and so on.

Really?
Well, let's keep playing that game.
Postulate that following a Mccain victory at the polls, he proceeded to pile on the Bush appointees.

What's your reaction now?

(Amused stare)

Yeah, I thought so. Next?

Holder enabled it; no evidence he encouraged it.

I'm not sure we can be quite so generous.
Mind usually I don't have much use for Richard Cohen... but check this out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102403.html

Rich was a commodities trader who amassed both a fortune and some influential friends in the 1970s and '80s. Along with his partner, Pincus Green, he was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of tax evasion and related matters. Before he could be prosecuted, however, he fled to Switzerland. There he remained, avoiding extradition and eventually arranging to be represented by Jack Quinn, a Washington lawyer and Clinton's onetime White House counsel -- in other words, a certified power broker. Quinn did an end run around the Justice Department's pardon office and went straight to Holder and the White House. With a stroke of a pen, justice was not done.

Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled, but it was rare to pardon a fugitive -- someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial. The U.S. attorney's office in New York -- which, Holder had told the White House, would oppose any pardon -- was kept ignorant of what was going on. Afterward, it was furious.

...

But the pardon cannot be excepted. It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. The Rich pardon request had power written all over it -- the patronage of important Democratic fundraisers, for instance. Holder also said he was "really struck" by the backing of Rich by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the possibility of "foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon." This is an odd standard for American justice, but more than that, what was Holder thinking? That U.S.-Israeli relations would suffer? Holder does not sound naive. He sounds disingenuous.

Holder sounded just as disingenuous when he told a House committee that he did not "reflexively oppose" the pardon of a fugitive because "I had previously supported a successful pardon request for a fugitive, Preston King." King, a black civil rights activist, chose to be tried for draft evasion in 1961 rather than submit to what he considered racist treatment. After his conviction, he fled to Europe. The two cases are not in the least similar.

Clearly, Holder saw an opportunity to make points for himself with democrat financial backers. Clearly, with this appointment, those points paid off.

I note that Obama's cabinet is basically a variant on Clinton's cabinet. Clinton 2.0 if you will. Change you can believe in!

And if Obama had picked a bunch of unknowns, you could whine about him putting rookies in charge of the government in a time of financial crisis, war, terrorist threats and so on.

The whine is certainly a constant...

But it seems to me a question too, of who encouarged the action. That, clearly, was Holder.

Holder enabled it; no evidence he encouraged it.

During the waning days of the Clinton Administration the requests for pardon didn't go through the Office of Pardon Attorney as is usually the case. They went straight to Eric Holder.

I do think that's normally the case for 11th hour pardons. Basically, the OPA is there to handle petitions from ordinary criminals whereas the president and his team usually vet political and personal pardons.