Unfair Double Standard for Obama Officials

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:28 here. Part of what Jeff is pointing out is the lack of equivalence here: Killefer's relatively small tax error led to her withdrawal and to no real support from Obama, while Daschle remained out there with Obama's full support until withdrawing at least in part because of reports that he had pushed Obama to hire Leo Hindery, who provided him with the car and driver he didn't pay taxes on, and who helped him earn millions of dollars in the short time since he left the Senate. Daschle's problems are clearly on a much larger scale than Killefer's, yet Daschle had Obama's full support while Killefer did not.

Totally agree. And just to pile it on Daschle, Killefer paid the tax once she became aware of the liability in 2005 - not waiting until 3 days before a confirmation hearing. No moral equivalence in my opinion EXCEPT that the issue was tax.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP. $298 is not material. It is a technical error, but in a millionaire's tax payments it could easily be an unintentional error. It's almost certainly less than she makes in a single hour at McKinsey.

[Anonymous]

Scuttlebutt around the office is that she had other skeletons in her closet.

[Anonymous]

Plus Daschle was a HUGE early supporter of Obama's. It's not at all surprising that Obama would go out on a limb to support him. By the time Killefer's issues came up, O simply couldn't support another tax cheat. If she had been male the same thing would have happened.

[Anonymous]

Killefer's problems were known a month ago and got a big yawn. I too thought the tax issue was an excuse to bow out. Why? I have no idea. Maybe she got cold feet about the job, maybe she does have other issues, no matter. I DID think however that she recognized the inequity of the media treatment and pulled out when she did to screw Daschle over. But then I have a suspicious mind anyway.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the "change" you all voted for! Be careful what you wish for....

[Anonymous]

This is all a Republican strategy to exploit the slightest weakness in Obama's administration to undermine it's ability to make the serious changes the majority of voters want: universal health care, environmental protection, end to the war in Iraq, less macho posturing and more talking to nations that threaten us, for a start. No new administration starts out without some false starts. But there's no point in Democrats jumping on the Republican's bandwagon -- it serves their purposes and we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

My concern about Obama is that he may be too quick to compromise with Republicans, instead of using the majority he has to pass important legislation that Republicans hate.

This tax stuff is a minor distraction. Don't lose sight of the big picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all a Republican strategy to exploit the slightest weakness in Obama's administration to undermine it's ability to make the serious changes the majority of voters want: universal health care, environmental protection, end to the war in Iraq, less macho posturing and more talking to nations that threaten us, for a start. No new administration starts out without some false starts. But there's no point in Democrats jumping on the Republican's bandwagon -- it serves their purposes and we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

My concern about Obama is that he may be too quick to compromise with Republicans, instead of using the majority he has to pass important legislation that Republicans hate.

This tax stuff is a minor distraction. Don't lose sight of the big picture.

I actually disagree with this, and I'm about as ardent a Democrat as you can find. Obama himself acknowledged repeatedly that he "screwed up" in making these appointments. (Though I think only Daschle and Geithner had serious issues.) I don't know if Obama meant he screwed up in making the appointments at all, or in thinking that the media would ignore the hypocrisy involved. I think the former, because he said he can't be in the business of appearing to promote a double standard regarding taxes.

Obama campaigned on the premise that he would change the way Washington works. Tom Daschle is a flagrant example of the kinds of excess that Americans find it difficult to tolerate in an economic climate such as this one. He monetized his Senate seat in an extraordinary way and he was right to step aside. So you can blame Republicans if you like, but only one Republican Senator, Jim De Mint, had said he would not vote for Daschle. It was in fact a New York Times editorial that caused Daschle to withdraw, according to most accounts. And the Times is hardly an instrument of the Republican Party.