Per ABC and NBC News The Huffington Post is reporting that Barack Obama has offered the position of Chief of Staff to Rahm Emanuel.
This is the guy who as head of the DCCC hand-picked corporate friendly, Republican-lite candidates in 2006 and told them NOT to talk about Iraq. Many of his candidates went up against progressive netroots/grassroots candidates in primaries. In cases where the grassroots candidates won, Like Carol Shea-Porter in NH, Rahm turned his back on them in the general election.
Rahm is known for fierce partisanship -- both against Republicans and against grassroots progressives on the left -- but not for his policy insights (to put it mildly). Is this REALLY how Barack wants to follow up his eloquent call last night for citizen involvement and putting partisan divisions behind us?
Couldn't Obama have waited more than 12 hours before disappointing us? (I write this as a supporter who canvassed for him in the primaries and most recently flew to Ohio the day before the election to speak on his behalf.)
Is there a way we could let Obama know that progressives are universally unhappy with this choice before it is too late? (Rahm is reportedly "agonizing" over whether to give up his Congressional seat for this.)
Something along the lines of the group that formed to oppose Barack's position on FISA, but hopefully more effective in swaying Obama?
Please post ideas in the comments.
UPDATE: A comment below reminds me that Rahm vehemently and very publicly opposed Dean's 50 state strategy. Where would we be right now if Rahm had gotten his way?!
UPDATE 2: Thanks for all the excellent comments pro and con. I think this is a really good debate of the merits of this selection.