on 
on 
on 
on 
on 
on 
on 
on 
The GOP is already complaining about Obama's choice for his Chief of Staff. So is the Left. Criticism from the polar opposites doesn't mean Obama made the right decision, but it does get me thinking.
Emanuel is, to put it bluntly, a hard ass. As I heard someone say on NPR this morning, he's known for using f-word as a comma when he's talking. He reportedly tried push weaker candidates running for re-election out of the way so stronger Democratic choices could run instead. He's tough, he's abrasive, he gets thing done.
The Nation's John Nichols calls the choice of Emanuel disappointing.
If Emanuel was in line for a key Cabinet position (Treasury, Commerce, Labor or Agriculture), or for the job of US Trade Representative, there would be every reason to fret. In fact, it might well be appropriate to openly and aggressively challenge the appointment of someone so at odds with Democratic values and policy goals to any of those posts.
But a White House chief of staff is not, traditionally, a policy maker or implementer. Rather, the chief of staff is the member of the president's inner circle who gets things done. A chief of staff who goes against the president's instincts or goals, or who cannot work with people who hold views different from his own, does not last long.
What Nichols is saying is that Emanuel isn't a progressive. That's true and it doesn't matter. He knows how to get things done. Washington isn't the Good Ship Lollipop and Obama needs a first mate who can steer, stay the course, and help him reach his destination.
His choice of Emanuel suggests Obama is more interested in getting things done than appointing people who embrace the liberal orthodoxy. If that's post-partisanship, give me more.
--Mb
