Brief evaluations of possible Attorney General nominee Eric Holder's record have shown him to be pro-civil liberties, anti-torture and anti-extraordinary rendition. Conservatives have brought up two fairly lame objections: The first faults Holder for the pardoning of Marc Rich, as though it was his decision, while the second is the claim that, because Holder previously worked in Washington under the Clintons he doesn't represent "change." Of course, if Obama was filling cabinet and White House positions with friendly, inexperienced incompetents the objection would be that he was engaging in cronyism and that isn't change either.
At any rate, Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones weighs in with a more substantive critique of Holder, namely that he failed to distinguish himself as U.S. Attorney by fighting municipal corruption in the District:
Previous US attorneys in the District, who were white and Republican, had spent an inordinate amount of time and resources trying to put Marion Barry behind bars. Those decisions earned them little outright hostility from city residents, so Holder's appointment and approach came as welcome change. Even so, members of the DC Council and other public servants working to clean up the city government complained that Holder had gone a little too far the other way. They thought he was depriving the city of some of the much-needed sunshine that can come with a public trial. Holder's reluctance to pull the trigger on many of the investigations generated by law enforcement in DC ensured that many of those responsible for the city's dysfunction continued to flourish. (As the former city auditor told me at the time, "No one ever makes the bad guys pay back the money. If you don't mind a little embarrassment in DC, you can steal to your heart's content.")
Some, like Jeralyn at TalkLeft, have expressed concerns over whether he can display the necessary independence to be an effective AG. These folks may interpret Holder's behavior in DC as evidence he won't rock the boat in the White House either, even if necessary. But I'm inclined to give Holder the benefit of the doubt, both because he took the right positions on the right issues back when doing so was practically considered treason, and because of his expressed views on the position of AG, both of which Glenn Greenwald highlighted earlier this week.
--A. Serwer
