As any Chicago politician, Machine or otherwise, would tell you, Good Politics is Good Government and Good Government is Good Politics.

Frankly, given the out-and-out disaster that Republican "governance" has been (not to mention its political aspects, as noted in the two posts below this one), I think it would be the height of good GOVERNMENT to have an office devoted exclusively to destroying Republicanism and everything associated with it for all time.

Considering that the response to Katrina was ALL "optics" and zero practical solutions, I can certainly understand why folks would prefer to view the political office with distaste. But as the blog "County Fair" within Media Matters pointed out yesterday, first the press hated the way Clinton was so tight-lipped about appointments in 1992, they were perfectly happy with Bush being similarly tight-lipped in 2000, now they're complaining about Obama being "too" free with information.
Obama appears to realize that the press is NOT his friend. He MUST have a way to go over their heads.

I am in sympathy with you bleh, but there is no need to get busted for murder when your opponent is so very busy with their own suicide.

The writing seems to be on the wall if we get a decent health care plan done. The GOP will be as popular as an STD.

IMO, it is really a matter of which is the principal driver, politics, or rational policy-making. In the best case, the policy teams would outline the potential policies, and likely realworld implications of whatever choices are available. The political part of the team would evaluate the probably political outcomes of the different choices (and perhaps suggest some form of window dressing). Then the executive would have to decide on the best policy he could implement, subject to the political constraints. The issue, is do the politics dictate policy -or simply provide a filter on the possible.

Couldn't Obama have picked somebody from a real union, not Management-Lite SEIU?

And, Rich, I've not seen the MSM complaining that Obama is "too free with information." Better strawman, please.

Nope. Can't buy it.
And winning being teh reason to keep it is still slimy.

That said, abolishing it doesn't mean it goes away forever. A future president could just recreate it.

Obama would do well to keep it but shackle it in chains that delimit what it can legally do with plenty of homage to the Hatch Act and any other clearly outlined unethical behavior explained.

As long as the Office of Political Affairs doesn't make policy there should be no problems.
Previous presidents had political "advisors" (Wilson/House, FDR/Howe) whose jobs were to foresee the effects of various political moves. It was still up to the president to decide how much value to place on their input.
Under the present administration that seems to have been reversed, with politics having had primacy over policy. The result has been disaster.
Only the proper admixture of the two components, policy and politics, will actually get things done. And getting the mixture right is the hard part; just ask any unsuccessful politician (GWB,I'm looking at you).

I'm not going to question President Obama's motivations. I happen to like partisanship just fine, like truth in advertising. If base political considerations motivate people to do the right thing, for a change, great!