A simple question. Why all these leaks?

[Mass]

I cannot figure out why the Obama team would leak these names (last in date Daschle), via anonymous Democratic officials, rather than announcing them officially. What is the point?

This is not about Hillary. It is about Holder and Daschle. What is the point of not releasing these names officially.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. If something comes up you can back away from a leak

You leak the name to see the reaction while you're still able to back away from it without undue embarrassment.

This is how it is usually done, and it's typically not real "leaks"

[babylonsister]

2. I have no clue; maybe as the circle gets bigger, it's harder to control,

especially people's mouths running? :shrug:

[HereSince1628]

3. WHy? Because Obama is courting old DC insiders. The leakiest crew

since those boiler stokers on the Titanic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Official vetting now is also done by the FBI, unlike during the campaign

it's not FBI agents leaking, but they interview many friends, neighbors and acquaintances of potential appointments. And when the FBI starts asking questions about someone, everyone know it's not a bluff, that person is definately under consideration.

[mtnsnake]

5. IMO, to get public reaction without actually making any commitments

It's a wise thing to do.

[Alter Ego]

6. Obama's organization grew by about a thousandfold the minute he became

President-elect. It's harder to prevent leaks with a Titanic than it is with a rowboat.

[Abacus]

7. Testing crowd response, I think.

No sense burning away political capital on a cabinet pick leaving little left for policy.

[jobycom]

8. So many reasons for leaks. Depends on who is leaking.

Some folk just can't control their excitement at knowing something others don't. They call their reporter friend to prove they are valuable and connected. Others want to boost the candidate the leak is about. Others want to destroy it. Sometimes the people in charge of the official release "leak" something to give cover. Sometimes the leak is deliberately wrong to throw people off.

And sometimes the media is just guessing and claiming someone leaked. "A former legislator close to the Obama campaign" could mean a former intern who knows someone who overheard a discussion somewhere, or who witnessed Daschle (or whomever) shaking hands and smiling and saying "I look forward to it."

It's really hard to keep something like this secret. The discussions aren't just between Obama and a couple of people. He's got a large staff interviewing and researching, and this staff has staff, and they have to pull records from someone else's staff, and neighbors see people around some candidate's house and talk to the house staff or the pool boy no one thought about while they discussed matters, or whatever. Remember that Kerry's VP choice was uncovered by an airport worker who saw the plane's new paint job.

It's a circus. Circuses aren't quiet. Although I suspect the choice of Daschle, assuming it's true, was less of a leak and more of someone near Daschle spilling the beans early.

[Ian David]

9. It's because Obama is being Bipartisan now, and has Republicans hanging around.

And we all know that bipartisanship with Republicans is date-rape.

You cannot trust Republicans.

Period.

[npincus]

10. I think those were on purose... Clinton is still being vetted and MSM dissecting it 24/7

Obama threw them another bone (s) to play with.

[scheming daemons]

11. Simple answer: Nannygate

Frankly, the media often does a better job vetting a candidate than even the best transition staff.

It's how we ended up with Janet Reno as AG in 1993 (she was Clinton's 3rd choice, after the first two had "nannygate" issues).