However Minnesota Campaign Report has an even better local perspective on the issue!
Senator Coleman had plenty of opportunity to review Paulose's
qualifications before helping push her from "interim" to
"Senate-confirmed". She has a glossy legal resume -- Dorsey and Whitney,
Department of Justice -- but is that resume thick? Precedent says that
even Assistant U.S. Attorneys should have several years of jury trial experience
before being considered for a job. Did Paulose have such pointed
experience that it warranted a catapult shot to the front of the class?
This question doesn't address the management aspect of being a U.S.
Attorney. As reported, the mass resignations were caused mainly by
Paulose's management style (or lack thereof). Where in her resume did it
say she had experience in a legal management environment? Three months
serving under Alberto Gonzales and Paul McNulty at the DoJ? That's it?
Rachel Paulose's failings are her own, and we will learn more about
them in the coming weeks. But don't let Norm Coleman off the hook,
either. He had at least nine months to review Paulose's experience for all
aspects of the job into which she was thrust. Being disappointed in her
performance doesn't absolve the Senator from his responsibility for helping
confirm her appointment.
Senator Coleman should assume that responsibility, and accept that it
is himself, and not only Paulose, in whom he should be disappointed.
And we have more from the diaries at Minnesota Campaign Report. This work by mswsm asks some very important questions, including Paulose's campaign contributions to Senator Coleman totalling $1500, $1000 after she secured his support.
As this scandal unfolds, should Coleman return this money?