I don't know if this is a new era in political journalism or if it's because our expectations of Obama's appointments is the next coming of the Dream Team, but I've never seen before the intense scrutiny of EVERY appointment from a president elect. Is it because we think this president will care of how we feel about his choices? Or maybe it's me who is paying too much attention to the increasingly professional "blogosphere".
I think it's the implicit acknowledgement that so many things are so screwed up and that Obama's attention will naturally be drawn to the top level tasks like the economy and foreign policy, thus making his appointees the ones who will reform or fix a huge number of problems that under normal times would rise to the level of Presidential concern.
Eh - I'm not sure this is a big deal. A lawyer's job is to represent the interests of the clients he's hired to represent. Just because a lawyer defends a murderer doesn't mean he supports murder. If the anti-RIAA side had hired him, he'd have been a hero to them and hated by the RIAA. I don't think it gives any indication of any justice department policy, because he will no longer be representing the RIAA> The Sanjay Gupta thing is interesting. I've heard mixed opinion on it. The strongest argument I've heard in favor of it is that the Surgeon General's primary role is to be a visible face and be on TV a lot, so it would make sense to pick someone comfortable with that who also has the health policy background.
Gupta has extensive experience with the media. Remember, his main task as SG will be to sell Obama’s healthcare plan to America. Having a well known face and the background he’s had with CNN for 7 or 8 years will help with that.
LOL. It has come to this, berating a Surgeon General pick because he once disagreed with Michael Moore. That's actually rather hilarious when you think about it.
Nobody is forcing lawyers to work in an unethical manner for unethical clients. That was a choice, and it reflects something meritous of skepticism. Not that I am surprised - FISA pretty much killed the puny part of me that thought Obama might be something better than just a politician.
It's not disagreement, he was blatantly lying. He looked like a fool compared to Michael freekin' Moore. That's not hilarious - it's sad.
I find him grating and pedantic. And the Surgeon General is not just a media figurehead. The SG is also in charge of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service, who respond to disasters and outbreaks... essentially, the disease equivalent of FEMA. Being a neurosurgeon is better than having one of W's horse buddies, but it would be better to have an epidemiologist in the position and it would be better to have someone who has managerial experience because like so many things, the current administration has diminished the office and it will take a good manager to right the ship and build morale back up... Incidentally, the PHS and CDC are one of the jewels of your government that this administration has ruined by the insistence on adhering to far right ideology over science and reality.
Not sure what you're talking about. The only 'fact' that Gupta got wrong was the discrepancy over whether Moore said Cubans pay $25 or $251. Other than that, every other dispute is either a matter of each party using different 'official' stats or talking around each other with parallel arguments. Even taking Moore's own responses at face value, it's hard to conclude Gupta was 'blatantly lying.'
