I had hoped this story could get past demonizing lobbyist. Attorneys represent clients who are disliked, but for a lobbyist to do so is never forgiven. The vetting process must be deeper assuring that members of transition teams are of good character. Media seem to always seek an easy way to classify. The Times does try to look at little deeper but overall falls back to the easy classification.

This is important information for the public. The Times gives us a good sense of the most ethically challenging appointments, done so in an even-handed way. I do think better contextualization- specifically comparing Obama's procedures with that of the last president- would have been helpful.

Informative report about members of the Obama transition team and how the new administration is living up to its commitment to prevent conflicts of interest related to prior lobbying activity from its members. The article is factual, fairly presented, though its sourcing is a bit weak, largely based on written documents recently released by the administration. I applaud the correction notice about the error in a previous version of the article, a good sign that the authors and ... More »

Some of Obama's people were palin around with lobbyists - this article doesn't say much more than that. Still, it's good to attempt scrutiny. For more depth, see NYT's series "The New Team" (linked here).

Yes. The public has a right to know who is advising Obama on his transition to the highest office in the land.