As Calculated Risk puts it, it’s time to party like it’s 1997.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal runs the numbers:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which suffered a 485-point slide last week to hit new bear-market lows, ended down 250.89 points, or 3.4%, at 7114.48, its lowest closing mark since May 7, 1997. The S&P 500 dropped 26.72 points, or 3.5%, to 743.33, its lowest close since April 11, 1997.

The economy was booming in those Clinton years. But it’s painful to see the stock market falling back to  mid-1990s levels.

When it comes to the stock market, forget about nostalgia. Just cross your fingers and hope for an end to the free fall.

The New York Times’ Mark Landler and Helene Cooper have a great story — great in terms of being so comprehensive that it makes commentary difficult, because most points worth making are actually in the story — reporting that Clinton is going with two deputy secretaries: Jim Steinberg, as Greg Sargent has tirelessly reported, for traditional deputy tasks like diplomacy, policy and management; and former Clinton administration budget chief Jacob Lew, who will push the bureaucracy to get money for the department.

This is something Bob Gates has been behind all through his Pentagon tenure as it is. Back in February 2007, right as Gates was coming into office, he expressed alarm that the State Department wasn’t shouldering enough of the burden in Iraq. He turned that burden-sharing concern into a fundamental theme of his secretaryship, and according to the Times, he’s naturally on board with Clinton’s move, as is incoming national security adviser Jim Jones.

“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,” the [transition] official said. “We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”

There is a question here of capacity, though. It’s one thing to give the State Department a bigger budget. But it’s quite another to give it a bigger budget and instruct it to take charge of certain things the military does, like, say, outreach to tribal groups far from embassies and consulates in the middle of shooting wars. The State Department still doesn’t have an expeditionary culture, largely because it hasn’t really had to have one for awhile. A question that Clinton should have to answer at her confirmation hearing is how she intends to address that. Will pay incentives change? Will foreign-service-officer training change?

If not, the natural instinct — at least in rubber-hits-the-road places like Iraq and Afghanistan — is for the military to remain in a dominant role, since it’s the far more capable organization.

A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month.

“The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework,” the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced.

Lake says that they’re considering a career diplomat for the post. I can think of at least two Leveretts who fit the bill. Also? Just saying? Maybe not a bad job for Zalmay Khalilzad, the rather talented diplomat whom Bush sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations.

Neither Clinton’s Senate office nor the Obama transition has responded to him yet. If nothing else, it’s a good pair of questions at Clinton’s confirmation hearings.

As Secretary of State-pick Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. envoy-choice Susan Rice separately visited the diplomatic agency’s headquarters in Washington’s Foggy Bottom neighborhood, persons familiar with the transition said that Rice wants to install her own transition team inside the department.

Such a move by an incoming U.N. ambassador is rare, if not unprecedented, because the job is based at the United Nations in New York, where Rice already has a small transition staff, the sources familiar with the incoming administration.

The push by Rice, an early Obama supporter whose position the President-elect wants to elevate to a cabinet post, is also a signal that she intends to use her influence with the new president to play a more significant role than previous U.N. envoys, they said. The transition sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

I’m not sure who’s on that team and have an inquiry out. And I should of course say I have no idea if this story is, you know, true. (All this comes via Megan Carpentier and Jason Linkins.)

According to a CNN poll released Wednesday, 75 percent of Americans support Obama’s cabinet nominations, including 71 percent who back his choice of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and 83 percent who approve of his retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. A Gallup poll released Monday showed similar numbers: 69 percent for Clinton and 80 percent for Gates.

Yet today’s Gallup tracking poll shows that Americans’ faith in Obama to be a good president hasn’t budged. In fact, Obama’s overall confidence numbers since November 23 have been remarkably stable, never climbing above 66 percent or dropping below 64 percent:

Of course, the rigidity of these numbers isn’t so surprising when you take a look at President Bush’s approval ratings, which have recently hovered between 26 and 29 percent:

The die-hard Republicans who continue to support Bush unflinchingly may not warm up to Obama no matter what he does. That Bush’s job approval is roughly equivalent to those who are not confident in Obama suggests that it will be tough for Obama to reduce his no-confidence rating to less than 25 percent. That means he’s doing about as well as he can, and barring a cataclysmic event like 9/11 — which boosted Bush’s approval numbers to an unprecedented 92 percent — he may have nowhere to go but down.

While being mindful of President-elect Obama’s admonition yesterday against the Obama-versus-Clinton meme, Steinberg almost assuredly isn’t whom Clinton would have picked on her own. Like Greg Craig, Steinberg has roots in the Clinton administration but gravitated toward Obama during the primaries. Steinberg, who was on the progressive side of the Clinton administration, can hardly be considered a loyalist. If anything, he’d be a good bridge-builder between the two of them, and a likely candidate to smooth over any feathers that get ruffled. The pick probably portends a healthy working relationship, as the Washington Post indicated today.

But perhaps the more interesting aspect of Greg’s reporting is that the Obama people don’t want to see progressive bete noire Richard Holbrooke in the deputy job:

“They don’t want him,” the source said of the Obama team. “The collateral damage that he brings is too great for them to want to deal with. There will be a role for Holbrooke, but not as deputy.”

May I suggest a role for Holbrooke? This speaks very, very well of Obama. Holbrooke is an extremely talented diplomat — possibly the best of his generation when it comes to crisis management — who is better suited to forcing implementation of Obama’s policies than helping shape it. (How’s that for diplomatic?)

Marc Ambinder runs down the list:

Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Dayton Peace Accord broker; Clinton’s chief defense adviser, Bob Einhorn, a Clinton administration veteran and non-proliferation expert, Andrew Shapiro, Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser, Wendy Sherman, a senior adviser to Madelieine Albright and Warren Christopher, and Melaine Verveer, a former Clinton chief of staff and longtime Clinton confidante.

If this is the team, it’s a fairly progressive one. Holbrooke we’ve dealt with before, and chances are if he’s not going to be deputy secretary it’s hard for him to find a suitable place at the department. As for the others, Andrew Shapiro is probably the one that would most concern progressives, as he worked for Sen. Joe Lieberman on the 2000 presidential campaign and has been wary of setting a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq, but he’s also got the Steve Clemons seal of approval.

Einhorn and Sherman certainly qualify as progressives. Sherman, an Emily’s List veteran, did yeoman work in the Clinton administration trying to staunch North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Einhorn is a dyed-in-the-wool non-proliferation guy who’d be a bold choice for undersecretary for arms control. Melanie Melanne Verveer, I must confess, I don’t know anything about. [UPDATE: Including how to spell her name. Sorry!]

None of this is to say that progressives shouldn’t be watching to see whom Clinton places — and doesn’t place — in her State Dept. But judging from this list, they’d probably be pretty OK with several of Clinton’s top aides.

In addition to the highly flattering portrait of Holder as a young man in today’s New York Times, he’s getting praise from some of the most serious critics of the Attorney Generals under George W. Bush.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), for example, a fierce critic of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for his politicization of the Justice Department and the approval of torture methods such as waterboarding during his tenure, gave Holder a ringing endorsement today.

“Our new Attorney General must restore the Justice Department’s proud tradition of independence and excellence, and insulate it from improper pressure even when it comes from the White House,” said Whitehouse. “No one will fill that role more capably than Eric Holder.”

Whitehouse, who was the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island during the Clinton administration when Holder was deputy AG, added that he “can attest to his vast experience, his calm judgment, his legal skill, and his unswerving loyalty to the Department and its principles. I have no doubt that he will offer the independent, wise leadership necessary to repair the terrible damage of the Bush years. He has my enthusiastic support.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has previously supported the nomination of Eric Holder, and noted that even the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, has praised the former judge and federal prosecutor. “I respect the man and I intend to support him,” Hatch told reporters a few weeks ago.

Although Holder has faced criticism for his role signing off on President Clinton’s pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich in 2001, Holder has acknowledged that that was a mistake, and many key senators on the judiciary committee appear to be giving him a pass on that stumble.

Holder was confirmed easily as deputy attorney general, after a two-hour confirmation hearing. Talkleft has excerpts and a transcript.