Contra Hildebrand--an interesting squabble in the lefty blogsphere.

A few days ago, Steve Hildebrand offered up a kind of patronizing piece at the Huffington Post suggesting that the snipers on the Left back off criticizing Obama's cabinet posts:

This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left.

Naturally, this caused no little commotion. Glenn Greenwald has probably the most succinct and snappy retort:

Even in this New Era of Trans-Partisan Harmony, there's nothing wrong with citizens objecting to what political leaders do and trying to pressure them to move in directions that they perceive are better. That's actually called "democracy." As upsetting as that disharmony apparently is to some, it's actually far preferable than the alternative, where everyone lines up behind a leader and agrees to remain respectfully silent and trusting in his superior judgment. Between excessive citizen activism and excessive trust or passivity, the former is far preferable to the latter.

But I rather like Ezra Klein's take , quoting Mark Schmitt and his "theory of change" essay.

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It's how you deal with people with intractable demands -- put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee's mission your way.

This sounds right, and perfectly in line with appointing Hillary et al, to such posts.

Having said all that, I still draw the line at Michael Hayden for CIA director which is what is being floated in this US News & World Report article. The man should be in shackles, not in charge of the CIA.

Furthermore, Obama voted against confirming him for CIA director when his initial appointment came up, stating "as the architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight." [he was voting against Hayden] "to send a signal to this Administration that even in these circumstances President Bush is not above the law" and "in the hope that [Hayden] will be more humble before the great weight of responsibility that he has, not only to protect our lives, but to protect our democracy."

You can put some boobs on a committee. You can even appoint some close rivals at agency's whose policies you set, if they are not diametrically opposed to your values or your efforts. But you don't put the Fox in charge of the Hen House. Especially not after voting against said Fox. That's just asking for trouble, or, more specifically, sabotage.

Oh, and Hildebrand, Obama's approval rating is through the ceiling. If the left takes off some of that lustre in an effort to reel in some of the more dangerous appointments, I see no harm. Far worse will be a situation in which Obama's cabinet is over larded with left overs from one of the most regressive and reactionary administrations in this country's history.