>>>>>>>>>>>IMHO, two totally different situations. In Obama's case, it's more an issue of taking a stance but doing the opposite. With Palin, it's typical political cleaning house and bringing those whom you trust into the fold.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Bringing in those you trust and who are proven in government is one thing. Putting family members on salary is very different. If Obama were to become president and then bring in his family to salaried positions, I'm pretty sure it would suddenly not be so acceptable to the right. I absolutely agree that both things are wrong, but one should not be treated as acceptable while the other is denigrated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Absolutely. I would be like making one's brother Attorney General !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bobby Kennedy was a lawyer, not an oil worker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just to catch me up ... what oil worker was hired for what position?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sarah Palin's husband. He is not paid by the state of Alaska but is directly involved in state matters according to articles in the NYT. It seems to go beyond the normal advise and consent role of political spouses.
>>>>
>>>>>>Bringing in those you trust and who are proven in government is one thing. Putting family members on salary is very different.
>>>>
>>>>So this is an example of "putting family members on salary" ?
>>>>
>>>>Wasn't this a big plus when we got a 'twofer' with the Clinton's and were privileged to have Hillary's firm hand on health care, travel office personnel and her brother's good offices in arranging pardons?
>>>>
>>>>Do you really not see this Palin furor as the tiniest bit partisan ?
>>>
>>>Perhaps. But do you really not see that he has had a say in state matters, such as the budget, way above his qualifications?
>>>
>>>PS -- Hillary's firm hand must have been on those things because her fingerprints sure were all over them ;-)
>>
>>Do we know exactly how much say he had on policy issues, just because he was present. It is not uncommon to have someone present whose judgment you trust about people rather than policy. He may have a particularly good lying weasel detector or just be another pair of ears in the room to pick up stuff that might otherwise get missed. I don't think the idea that you have the person you trust most in the room with you is per se evidence that the person has undue influence in areas outside their expertise ( I felt that way about Hillary, Roslyn Carter, E Roosevelt, even Nancy Reagan. I think it's important in an atmosphere of people telling you what you want to hear that somebody is watching your back.
>
>There was one part in the Times article that said Sarah Palin, her husband, and one other person did major state budget cuts together, ignoring legislators, mayors, etc. who were trying to reach her. If true, that's a little more than being present.

I don't remember that. I remember that he attended meetings and helped her review the budget, but not that he participated in state budge cuts together. Are you sure that is not an assumption due to his attending meetings?