Lobby-pop, Lobby-pop, Oh Lobby, Lobby-pop...Lobby-pop!

President Obama is coming under fire for some appointments he has made to his administration. Specifically, there are those on the right and the left criticizing him for appointing lobbyists after he declared time and time again during the campaign that he would do no such thing. Let's examine this a bit deeper.

On his first day in office, Obama declared that anyone in his administration who left, would not be allowed to lobby the administration for its duration. He also stated that he would not employ anyone who had been a registered lobbyist in the past two years. There have already been exceptions to the second rule.

William V. Corr lobbied on behalf of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and is now the deputy health and human services secretary. Honestly, I have no problem with that. If someone who lobbied AGAINST tobacco use is now in a prominent position with health and human services, fine by me.

William J. Lynn III has been nominated as deputy defense secretary. He is an ex-Raytheon lobbyist (Raytheon is a prominent military contractor). This is potentially troubling. I am not aware of how recently Mr. Lynn worked for Raytheon. Obama has declared that appointees would not be allowed to work on issues on which they lobbied in the past two years. We'll have to see how this one plays out.

I am also troubled by the appointment of Mark Patterson (lobbyist for Goldman Sachs), who is now chief of staff to Tim Geithner (Treasury Sec'y). Again, I do not have specific details about how long ago Mr. Patterson lobbied for Goldman, yet it does raise eyebrows since financial firms are so implicated in our current economic mess.

So yes, I understand why some folks are bent out of shape about this. Obama promised such sweeping change that people are extra-sensitive to even the slightest indication of "Washington as usual". But there is a problem with this criticism as well. Obama's rhetoric during the campaign did sometimes obscure the fact that he is, essentially, a pragmatist. He has referred to himself as such many, many times. He is a politician and politicians bend the rules in order to get things done. Ah yes, but didn't he promise to change all of that? My feeling is that he has already gone a long way towards changing the tone (and he hasn't even been in office a full month yet). Some stumbles along the way are inevitable.

And in comparison to the outrageous cronyism of the Bush administration, the appointment of individuals who were egregiously unqualified for their jobs, these blips from the Obama administration pale in comparison. There will never be absolute purity in politics, Obama or no Obama. The difference I see in this situation, and it is a significant difference in my opinion, is that the few appointments coming under question right now have one thing in common -- these people are actually qualified to do their jobs. I am willing to allow Obama a little wiggle room. A little, not a lot. But I do not expect him to take advantage of that wiggle room to a large degree. Time could prove me wrong and if so, I will admit it. But for now, I am maintaining hope.

What I do feel needs to change is the way the Democrats in Congress operate. I am disappointed in Nancy Pelosi's leadership, despite being thrilled to have a woman as Speaker. She and Harry Reid strike me as ineffectual leaders. This does not make them bad Congresspeople; it means that perhaps other individuals would be better at leading the party in Congress.

I am extremely curious to know how others feel about all of this. I welcome any and all comments!