As U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., Eric Holder sought to raise marijuana penalties and restore mandatory minimum penalties for drug crimes. From the Washington Times, December 5, 1996 (via Lexis.com):

Eric Holder yesterday said he will seek to make marijuana distribution in the District a felony and reinstate mandatory-minimum sentences for convicted drug dealers. Mr. Holder,...said the D.C. Council's vote a year ago to repeal mandatory minimums was "misguided," leading to a backlog in the court system. He also warned that the city is on the verge of an explosion in violence associated with the sale and use of marijuana.

[More....]

Jonathan Singer speaks for me here. But really, Liss does. Want "revenge?" Ignore the p-tz.*

I should make this an Open Thread.

* This word is likely to be changed. J is a very nice person and does not approve of name calling. By contrast, I am not, and enjoy name calling.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Eric Holder has always been a strong supporter of gun control. From his Weekly Briefing on March 20, 2000 (available on Lexis.com):

I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures.

First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold. Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.

Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.

More...

On June 13, 1997, at age 46, Eric Holder was confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno. His confirmation hearing lasted two hours, pretty smooth sailing. The transcript is here. Some snippets, in his own words:

On his objectives:

First, to work with the attorney general in making sure that federal law enforcement resources are used wisely to address the major crime problems confronting our nation -- drugs, violence, gangs, juvenile crime, and official and financial corruption.

More...

Uh oh:

Howard Dean says that he's "fine" with the Senate's decision not to kick Joe Lieberman off the Homeland Security committee and suggested that the Senate had acted in accordance with what Barack Obama wanted. In a phone interview with [Greg Sargent] just after the vote concluded, I asked Dean if he thought the Senate should keep Lieberman. He said that the Senate had acted "in the spirit of unification, which is what the President-elect wanted." "[Obama] called the shots, and that's fine," Dean said, in an apparent reference to the tone Obama has tried to set in Washington as he prepares to take power.

I guess we won't be hanging Harry Reid from a sour apple tree after all.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

My title is ironic and muted because J does not want me calling people charlatans in the titles. Poblano "breaks" the news that Zogby is a charlatan:

To my mind, this [Zogby] survey meets the definition of a "push poll", which the Random House Dictionary defines as "a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent."

Not Zogby!!! I am shocked.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Harry Reid announces it on teevee. Keeps his Homeland Security chairmanship.

I hope they extracted some promises from him for it. Now, I know this will pi** people off, but OBAMA called this shot. If he wanted him out, he would have been out.

For the record, I agree with not bothering with Lieberman, but they should have tried to extract concessions from him. Specifically a no filibuster pledge. No idea if they got it.

Ugh, watching Lieberman makes me sick. We need another concession, that he never ever speak on TV again.

Ezra Klein thinks so:

Presuming that Hillary Clinton will remain one of, if not the, central actors in Democratic life from the year 2000 to the year 2016 displays a certain poverty of imagination about the path of Democratic politics. With every passing day, her singular political position erodes. In 2004, she would have won the nomination in a walk. By 2008, there was a new politician who better tapped into that particular moment in the party's life. By 2016, there will be many politicians like that, most of whose names we don't know. It's very hard to imagine that eight years in the future, the party will want to move back to Clinton. Indeed, if Obama fails in governance and loses in 2012, there will be a new politician articulating a theory of relevance to that failure, and that moment. If he succeeds, then the party will look to a more logical successor -- not his predecessor.

This is very faulty analysis. I'll explain why on the flip.

It struck me as strange yesterday when the distinguished ex-judge Abner Mikva took it upon himself to discuss the Clinton at State issue and allow himself to be characterized as a "close Obama supporter." The Obama transition team slaps Mikva down today:

The transition communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, says Obama adviser Abner Mikva didn't speak for the campaign in a Times story that went online this evening, in which Mikva appeared to set an almost impossibly high bar for approving Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

. . . A Democrat who saw the [Mikva] quotes suggested Mikva's words were Obama's way of walking back the suggestion that Senator Clinton could serve as secretary of state. But Pfeiffer, asked if Mikva spoke for the campaign, responded, "no."

Everyone likes to see their name in the papers I guess. Even distinguished ex-jurists like Abner Mikva.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

I am sure most of you have seen the cover of the most recent Time magazine which portrays President-Elect Obama in a classic FDR photo. It seems everyone now agrees that Obama needs to learn lessons from FDR. Richard Cohen, while not getting his history exactly right (especially on Lincoln), writes:

In his recent "60 Minutes" interview, Obama paid homage to Roosevelt as well as Lincoln. The question, though, is not which president he most admires but which president he most resembles. If it is Lincoln, then we have a problem. Lincoln had one overriding goal and that was to reunite the Union. It was a massive undertaking, but he knew just how to do it: Find a commanding general who would fight and pour on the troops. This, he suggested, was going to be a bloody war that he would see through to the end.

That does not really tell us a lot about how FDR did it, imo. My very first post at Talk Left in the summer of 2006 was titled What Obama Needs To Learn From Richard Hofstadter, FDR and Lincoln. It is a piece I am very proud of and will quote at length on the flip:

While the story takes a different tone, my view is that this Times story confirms the Guardian story. The nuts, imo:

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton’s activities abroad.

(Emphasis supplied.) The key word is "formally." The offer is conditional and conditions on Bill Clinton's activities have been stated. This is shrewd from the Obama team. The story is if Hillary is not offered State, it is going to be Bill who vetoes it. I think it is also clear from the story he will not:

As we wait and wonder about the accuracy of reports that Hillary Clinton will accept the top job at the State Department, the news about John McCain is more definitive: he left his meeting with Barack Obama without an employment offer. Good thing he kept his day job.

Why the meeting? It's good press for both of them. Obama looks bipartisan, McCain gets a chance to repair his tarnished reputation by pledging to work with the president he helped elect. And this:

Even with the enlarged Democratic Senate majority and smiling Harry Reid attempting to herd them, Obama is gonna need some Republican help with his ambitious program there. And who better to work with than the ex-Republican presidential candidate untrusted and abandoned by so many of his own party's base?

Unfettered by enforced loyalty to a Republican president, McCain can go back to being a maverick. And why not? He'll soon be on his way to genteel retirement. He might as well have some mavericky fun along the way. If Obama is looking for Republican filibuster busters, McCain might be one of several options. [more ...]