THIS is what I'm talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802730.html?nav%3Dhcmoduletmv&sub=new

I know this administration is not the first or only one to do it, but the maneuvering and manipulation at the agency level just drives me crazy.

So, it appears that the President-Elect is bringing people from the Clinton administration aboard. Does that lessen your confidence at all of a "shake-up," because these people were part of a previous administration?

No, I've been saying DC needs a shake-up from the last 8 years, I never argued that no one that's ever served in an administration should serve again (I just recently had this argument with my father by email too ;)). And with all the "experience" arguments some made against Obama, what would the reaction be if he brought in a full new slate of newbies? He knows he needs to bring people in with the experience and expertise to support him. And looking back, there were a lot of relatively young people in the Clinton Administration that are still in the prime of their lives and have plenty of years left to serve, I've been very comfortable with the people he's brought on so far and the prospects I'm hearing about. (my father warns of a "3rd Clinton term", I reminded him that there are plenty of people for whom that is a welcome, rather than scary, prospect ;) :)).

Oh, I'm not making judgments on the experience level or intelligence of those people. In particular, Eric Holder is a brilliant attorney, and the same could be said of Dean Kagan from Harvard Law, who looks to be a favorite for another Justice Department position.

No, I get what you were saying, my father keeps saying something similar (in fact, he had the same reaction when I sent HIM the link this morning ;)).

The implication is that Obama isn't really living up to the "change" mantra since he's bringing in some people that served in the Clinton administration. And my argument is that the "change" mandate was in reference to the past 8 years. If these people have not been in position the last 8 years, then hey, that's CHANGE! And yes, I believe in it. ;) :)

Well, I think there could still be "change," so to speak, even if you're using people recycled from past administrations. One of the great things about using "change" as part of your platform is that it's such a broad term. No matter what he does, as long as it's somewhat different from the past, he could say he's living up to that "change" philosophy.

Exactly! ;)

And even if he's using people from the past, he's still the guy in charge; he doesn't have to repeat the policies from the past. I would think part of the equation is finding people for spots who know how to do the job and are willing to the job the way this president wants them to.

Does it seem odd that they mention that the transfers have longed been tracked but then only give data for the Bush administration? Wouldn't it be helpful to know how many positions have been similarly converted at the end of other presidential terms for a basis of comparison?

It just seems strange not to offer the data.

ETA: this article from the day before offers some data from Clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?tid=informbox
47 transfers in the last year including seven at the senior executive level.

For real comparison, we'll have to wait until January. The Bush Administration has two more months to go.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem wildly off to me so far. If you read about the whole process, it's not as if the shift is entirely up to him. There's a whole application process apparently.

I agree that the bureaucracy is a problem, but it's not just Bush's bureaucracy that bothers me.