Time to be the framers instead of the framees.

I never advocated supporting Holder in order to frustrate Rove. I’m not advocating supporting Holder at all.

I’m just saying that you think you can “use” a known dirty trickster and Republican operative like Rove for your own ends without any blowback, and I don’t think that’s the case. You’re arguing using the ‘post-partisan’ meme against Obama to twist his arm? Well, that’s what Rove will do, only of course he won’t be post anything.

And MAYBE you get a cleaner choice. Or maybe you get a more Republican-friendly choice who sails through to an easy confirmation. You definitely get a Karl Rove with more juice again exerting leadership in a Republican party back in the game after collecting Holder’s scalp and Obama’s balls.

But whatever. I don’t care if Holder is out; I just don’t want Rove to be able to use the victory to help rebuild the Repubs and watch them frustrate every move Obama tries to make over the next four years.

You see, I still think the guy can do some good for the country. (I know — what a fucking moron I am!)

You are advocating being manipulated by Rove instead of manipulating him. Co-opt the fucker, say the case against Holder is bi-partisan, make the case bi-partisan and make Mr. Obama, the king of supposed post partisan/bi-partisan whatever recognize it as such and give us a cleaner choice than Holder. I am tired of being consumed by freaking Karl Rove; I favor turning the tables and using him for once.

And it accomplishes a righteous goal in the process; what is so bad about all that?

Again, I’m not suggesting you abandon your principled stand against Holder. My point is about Rove: he’s looking for a way to hurt non-Republicans and hobble in whatever way he can the incoming Administration. And even if you are one of the folks around here who already considers Obama the bastard offspring of Cheney and Hannibal Lecter (I’ve read commenters here use quasi-Nazi analogies with Obama, so I’m not exagerrating all the much, btw) that just poisons the well for possible future Dem prospects.

I have two choices; one admit that Rove is right about Holder and accept that maybe he will help to get Americans i could never reach educated about Holder or, two change my position simply because Rove happened to be curiously aligned with it

What the hell are you talking about? Those are NOT the only choices! No one’s advocating you change your position on Holder. You can work against him until the cows come home. It just seems insane to welcome the efforts of a man who is aiming ultimately at the Democratic party — not Holder. Holder’s just a pretext for Rove. You may get what you want from an alliance with Rove — who is poised to influence a Republican party desperate for leadership and direction, I might add — but this particular cure could be as bad as the disease.

You can blame fidgety Dems and talk as tough as you want. But I think you could think a bit more about your choice of tactics and ‘allies’.

Nell @64 – I have two choices; one admit that Rove is right about Holder and accept that maybe he will help to get Americans i could never reach educated about Holder or, two change my position simply because Rove happened to be curiously aligned with it. In my opinion, Holder is the problem; I refuse to be so obsessed with freaking Karl Rove as to back off of attacking Holder. If Rover helps get rid of Holder, then so be it. If democrats are all fidgety, too fucking bad. If they had gotten their heads out of the Obama sand and objected to the noxious Holder to start with, we likely would not be in this position. But noooo, we have to suffer through the Obama this and Obama deserves that BS. You could see this coming a long way off, and there have been many here who have been saying just that from the outset, even before Eric the Puke was nominated. The bottom line is what is best for the DOJ and America, and it damn sure isn’t Eric Holder. That concern is a whole lot more important than fixating on Rover.

I am extremely uneasy about Holder’s candidacy, but I don’t for a minute believe that Karl Rove will ask the same questions as I do, nor would I willingly do anything to encourage his efforts — much less ally myself with him publicly.

The thing nobody discusses is what the independents and centrists were looking for when they supported Obama en masse. The liberals put in the legwork, but the centrists provided the votes needed to win. This union of left and center is crucial for true “progressive” action in America. The relative satisfaction levels in these voters is going to determine future democratic electoral success. I think many view the promise to “end politics as usual” to be the most important thing Obama can do – until that happens no true change can ever occur.

In that context Holder is a cynical choice. It sends a message that rather than end politics as usual, Obama is endorsing the politics and most controversial decisions of the Clinton administration. This is purely a intra-party game between Obama and the DLC, but ultimately the American people are left in the lurch with a crappy AG who seems perfectly willing to push the envelope for his political master. The statement “Obama will be in charge, so it doesn’t really matter” is some seriously weak water for anyone who doesn’t worship the man.

What will centrists and independents think of Holder’s dirty laundry in the context of a cratering economy where the ultra-wealthy are viewed as getting favored treatment at the expense of taxpayers? Nothing good I fear. Which is why Rove is on the bandwagon. Win or lose, the Holder nomination is going to be a big negative for the democrats with persuadable independent voters. There is no real GOP downside on this.

Rove’s best scenario is to force the democrats into taking a position of unified defense. Then the GOP can point to Holder and say “See those so-called ‘change’ democrats want a change … right back to the Clinton years”. Even the alternative: Obama didn’t vet his choices well enough is a clear win. It’s a crappy situation to be in and completely avoidable with just a little less lazy cynicism on Obama’s part.

The GOP is going to get traction on this because there is a reasonable argument for opposition to Holder. Even worse they are going to be arguing the pro-progressive side of the debate while Obama is forced to argue in favor of the status quo. In a time when America views them as unable to put a coherent sentence together, this lets the GOP off the mat – which can only be described as a serious strategic blunder.

My advice: liberal democrats should stay true to your beliefs and never let up. America has never been more ready to embrace what the left has to offer. Seize the time! If you participate in promoting someone with obvious problems in the name of party unity, the democrats become no better than the republicans. THAT is Rove’s pony in this race imo – to make unaligned Americans question the democratic party’s commitment to their own stated ideals.

(BTW: Thanks to all of you for having a discussion that is off-limits on most other “progressive” blogs! Sorry for the huge post).