Today's political rumor is that Hillary Clinton is on the Obama team's short list for Secretary of State, along with Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle. Some are wondering why rumors are flowing out of the formerly leak-proof Obama organization. Here's a space to talk about the Hillary Clinton rumor, the leakage, or anything else.

Yes, the application for a job with the Obama administration seems unnecessarily intrusive, but let's remember what happens when the executive branch doesn't screen candidates adequately. The Bush administration's hiring of federal air marshals should leave us wondering whether anyone asked about the character of air marshal job applicants.

[A]n examination of police reports, court records, government reports, memos and e-mails shows that 18 air marshals have been charged with felonies, including at least three who were hired despite prior criminal records or being fired from law enforcement jobs. A fourth air marshal was hired while under FBI investigation. Another stayed on the job despite alarming a flight attendant with his behavior.

[more ...]

Some Obama advisors are proposing a bipartisan commission to study the Bush administration's rendition and interrogation tactics. This balanced report by Mark Benjamin describes a tension between Obama advisors who advocate a criminal investigation and those who believe prompt criminal prosecutions would be ugly, ineffective, and problematic for Democrats who may have been briefed about the administration's actions.

Digby is skeptical that Obama will greenlight an investigatory commission, particularly if President Bush thwarts the possibility of criminal prosecutions by exercising his pardon power. According to Benjamin:

[more ...]

Six people convicted in 1985 of a Nebraska murder have been exonerated by DNA testing that implicates the man police originally viewed as a suspect. The day after the murder, Bruce Smith had scratches on his face. A blood test by the Oklahoma City crime lab seemed to rule out Smith as a suspect. The lab made a mistake. Recent DNA testing places Smith at the scene of the crime and rules out the six wrongly convicted defendants.

The Nebraska Attorney General doesn't want to accuse the police investigators of malice, but they clearly worked to shape the evidence to match their theory of the crime.

[S]ome "unorthodox" interrogation and prosecution interview tactics used on the six have since been discredited, such as helping witnesses construct testimony by showing them tapes of the crime scene, or interrupting videotaped interviews to help refresh a witness's memory.

[more ...]

It appears I am not alone in my concern about John Brennan. Now, according to HuffPo, Russ Feingold is a "concern troll" too:

"For eight years, the current Administration has shown contempt for the rule of law, including in intelligence-related matters, while repeatedly refusing to work cooperatively with Congress. . . . New leadership is needed to move our intelligence policies in the right direction," Feingold's statement concludes.

Feingold -- perhaps the Senate's most indefatigable civil libertarian -- has been a stalwart opponent of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, as well as extensive searches of Americans' laptops and other property at airports by the TSA. It would be practically impossible to read his statement as anything but a reaction to a Wall Street Journal report earlier this week that claimed Obama is "unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

This is a silly parlor game of course but I like Poblano's post about it so I will discuss it here:

If America had woken up last Tuesday morning and magically found Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot in lieu of Barack Obama, might she have won by 11 points? Perhaps. She certainly proved herself to be an exceptionally compelling candidate, even if her execution and staffing decisions were sometimes wanting. But what would Clinton's numbers have looked like if she had actually endured ... you know ... a campaign?

More . . .

I'll be working the rest of the day. Here's an open thread for you. Please try to focus on news and policy.

A timely new ACS Issue Brief urges the federal government to ensure that records from the Bush administration and future administrations, including e-mails, are preserved for public examination, an issue that was in the news this week as a federal court ruled that a lawsuit on that issue could go forward.

More...

The Washington Post examines how President-Elect Barack Obama may overhaul the Justice Department in an attempt to restore confidence. First, the problem, created by the Bush Administration:

The infusion of politics into the Justice Department and an abdication of responsibility by its leaders have dealt a severe blow," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the panel's ranking Republican, wrote in an opinion piece last month. "Great damage has been done to the credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department."

Next, the possible solutions and reading the tea leaves on what Obama may do: [More...]

Chicago Dyke writes:

Do paid professional journalists have any obligation at all to review the blogosphere, as they produce writing on various topics that are “new to them,” but well-discussed here in the blogosphere? . . . Do any of us deserve credit, or notice, or a chance to respond when our work is…let’s call it “mirrored” in the SCLM?

I think not for the most part. Finding the originator of an idea is an impossible task. That said, bloggers should really try and credit originators as best they can. This reminds me of the time a blogger at daily kos credited Michael Tomasky for the idea of "the Common Good" when it was Congressman Jim McDermott, in an interview FOR DAILY KOS, a good year before Tomasky wrote his derivative piece - who came up with the Common Good theme. Seems to me it is hard to get upset with the Media when the blogs themselves are quick to denigrate and ignore work produced at their own blogs.

Speaking for me only

Ruy Texeira looks at the exit polls:

First, a few words on how well the Democrats did with the white working class (WWC). They lost these voters by 18 points, a significant improvement over 2004 when they lost them by 23 points, but somewhat worse than I thought they'd do based on preelection polls. In my paper with Alan Abramowitz, The Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass Upper Middle Class, we allowed as how Democrats needed to get the WWC deficit into the 10-12 point range to be assured of a solid victory. As it turned out, they were able to achieve a solid victory even with a higher deficit than 10-12 points. This is because the simulations we were working with made pretty conservate assumptions about white college graduate support for Democrats and about minority turnout and support for Democrats. As it turned out, minority turnout and support were through the roof and white college graduates also exceeded our conservative assumptions. So an 18 point WWC deficit was in the end adequate for a solid victory, rather than a squeaker as I thought. And a 10-12 point deficit would have translated into a true landslide.

[More . . .]

Tony Rezko lost his motion for a new trial Wednesday. His sentencing has been continued because he is singing for his supper and giving up information others (No, not Obama, don't even bother trying to go there in comments, Obama is not the subject or relevant to this post.)

Rezko's motion for new trial is here (pdf). The Judge's 34 page ruling is here (pdf).

Chicago Ald. Edward Vrdolyak, aka "Fast Eddie", pleaded guilty last week and Springfield Republican political fundraiser William Cellini was indicted. [More...]

So you're thrilled that change is coming to Washington and want to be part of it. You're willing to give up your present job -- even take a cut in pay -- just to get a top level job with the Obama Administration.

You may want to think twice. The New York Times reports that Obama's 7 page questionnaire is the most extensive and intrusive ever. You can view the 63 question form here (pdf). How many did you get through before you said, "Okaaay, that's it for me?" and put it out of your mind? [More...]