With Richardson out, I'm very comfortable with Laura Tyson at commerce

[RB TexLa]

Shouldn't be any problem on vetting could announce her tomorrow.

[sandnsea]

1. You must like things how they are

With Richardson, at least there was a hope that he would put people over the status quo of globalization. Laura Tyson won't. That would be so discouraging. Richardson was one of the brighter spots in the Administration. There aren't that many left.

[Me.]

2. Not Me

That business with the Rachel Maddow Show has given me pause re: Ms. Tyson

[NMDemDist2]

4. what business was that?

pray tell, inquiring minds want to know

[moondust]

6. Nondisclosure.

Tyson is paid I believe a 6-figure salary for sitting on the board of JP Morgan-Chase. She went on Rachel's show and pumped up the bank bailout at length without disclosing her vested interest in it. Rachel came on the next night and issued a full apology for allowing it to happen.

[Me.]

7. Here You Go

David Sirota

Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Lack of Transparency

“Last night, Rachel Maddow did something I never thought I'd see a journalist do: In the name of transparency, she went back and clarified that a bailout-justifying guest of hers actually had a blatant conflict of interest. Watch the clip here.On Monday, Maddow had on Berkeley professor Laura Tyson to talk about the bailout. You can watch that clip here. As you'll see, Tyson defended the firms that have received bailout money, saying they are not at fault in either how they are using the money, or in how they are refusing to answer questions about their use of the money. She also insisted that companies that get bailout money should be able to keep paying dividends to their shareholders.

Yet, Tyson didn't tell viewers that she sits on the board of directors of Morgan Stanley, a bank that has received $10 billion in bailout money. That's right - according to Morgan Stanley's SEC filings, Tyson makes about $350,000 a year from Morgan Stanley in total compensation from that position, and she now owns about 79,000 shares of the company. In other words, she has a direct financial interest in defending the bailout, absolving bailout recipients of wrongdoing, and justifying the use of bailout money for shareholder dividends.

Obviously, it's really unethical to appear on a show billing yourself as an objective disinterested professor at the same time you aren't telling people you are on the board of directors of the company you are effectively defending. But, as a recent New York Times story about defense commentators shows, this kind of thing happens all the time. It's completely corrupt - quite literally, paid industry spokespeople are being allowed to cloak themselves in the veneer of objectivity and use the media to limit the parameters of our political debate on major issues.

Thankfully, when I pointed Tyson's conflict of interest out to Maddow and her show's staff, they did the responsible thing and made a big effort to inform viewers about what happened. Indeed, in doing this follow-up piece, the Rachel Maddow Show displayed the kind of integrity and respect for their audience that is almost unheard of in political journalism. In being so honest about this, they really showed what their program is all about, and how they aren't willing to be used or deceived by corporate spokespeople”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/maddow-busts-morgan-stanl_b_153355.html?page=2&show_comment_id=19133583#comment_19133583

[choie]

3. Sure

let's have every former-Clinton appointee join Obama's administration. Sounds great! Nothing like change!

[MiniMe]

5. I must have missed something

Richardson is out?

[polmaven]

8. Yeah, me too!

I've been out for much of the day....When did THAT happen?