Re "Seeking Justice," editorial, Nov. 19
Despite Eric H. Holder Jr.'s impeccable credentials and the long-overdue historical significance of naming an African American as attorney general, The Times feels that Barack Obama should choose another candidate just so Obama can "go the extra mile" to distance himself from the travesty of President Bush's selection of Alberto R. Gonzales.
Let us not forget that if ever there were a person who was antithetical to what Bush represents, it is Obama. That is one of the primary reasons he was elected.
It is not in the best interests of the American people that Obama should compromise his reasoning and selection process just to symbolically avoid conceivable association with Bush, who is his polar opposite. This is not fair to Obama, and it is certainly not fair to Holder, who is an exemplary candidate.
Your editorial suggests that Holder's "close relationship with his boss" would raise questions as to whether he is Obama's lawyer or the government's lawyer.
How about President Kennedy's choice of his brother, Robert, as attorney general in 1961? That was a pretty close relationship!
Rolling Hills Estates
Re "Ex-Clinton official tops list for attorney general,"
It is rumored that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton might be offered the position of secretary of State. Eric Holder probably will be offered the job of attorney general. I have to question how these people have passed Obama's vetting process.
Wasn't Holder the lawyer who approved the pardon for Marc Rich, a fugitive, after Rich's ex-wife made large donations to the Clinton presidential library and other Democratic interests? Didn't Hillary Clinton associate Monica Lewinsky with a vast right-wing conspiracy to damage her husband?
Don't these instances show potential for embarrassing a new administration with questions about these people and their judgment? Or is Obama already setting up two standards for those who want to be a part of his administration? And what is this change that he spoke of?