DiFi v. Panetta: Face-saving time

The minor kerfluffle over Leon Panetta's nomination to be head of the CIA (is that position still referred to as DCI - Director of Central Intelligence?) is already cooling down. TPM yesterday reported that Dianne Feinstein was supporting Obama, after he and Biden both called her. So, as I expected, first we have a bit of face-saving: Obama and Biden both show Feinstein a little respect, she pledges her support. But of course she can't back down all the way:

"I understand the administration's desire to cut clean and open a new chapter and I support that. Whether those changes can be made" with Panetta at the helm, she added, remains to be seen.

So she'll ask some tough questions at the confirmation hearing, and Obama won't take her for granted. But that's actually a good thing. I'm all in favor of the Dems in Congress disagreeing with Obama when they feel they have to. That's healthy.

So it all worked out. At least that's the way it looks right now. The LA Times put this story on the front page, but I think they blew it somewhat out of proportion. On the LAT Op-Ed page, Tim Rutten argues in favor of Panetta, pointing out that some of the most experienced directors of the CIA, at least in terms of intelligence, have also been some of the worst.

I still think it's a good call. Time to move on to the next kerfluffle.

Being mayor of LA is not for the weak of spirit

Tim Rutten, a great recent addition to the LA Times Op-Ed page, has an excellent piece on where Antonio Villaraigosa is at this stage of his first term as mayor of Los Angeles. He's doing well so far, hiring good people, but the jury is out because the job isn't done. It will never be done, of course, but Villaraigosa set for large goals for himself, and has not yet accomplished them. Rutten points out the contradiction of being mayor of LA:

Los Angeles is arguably more difficult to govern than any other major American city. Its mayor is elected by one city to govern another. The "city" that elects a chief executive is far older, more affluent and whiter than the real thing. The city that elects a mayor has interests; the city that the mayor governs has needs, and in that disjunction much of our civic discontent simmers.

I don't think it's entirely fair to describe LA as unique in this respect. New York certainly faces this conundrum, and Washington has the added burden of not really being in control of its fate. But the basics are right.

Rutten is not quite damning with faint praise, but neither is he slamming Antonio. He's reserving judgment, which, honestly, is refreshing for an Op-Ed piece. It's refreshing because it's an honest appraisal, and it's neither too cynical nor too optimistic. This is what "balanced" means.