Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
The Slate is providing a helpful chart that will be updated every time a new appointment is made: http://www.slate.com/id/2205007/
And hey, for a guy with an "experience" problem for many, I think 3 newbies out of 10 so far (and 2 more that only have 10 years in DC -- which isn't that many in DC-terms) is pretty good! And can I say that I love Janet Napolitano? I am happy with every person on this chart so far, I don't care whether they're considered "loyal" to Obama or to Clinton. They're all smart, accomplished and worthy of trust and confidence. *big, happy sigh* |
I know that "change" is a non-starter because we're changing from a horrific era in American Executive history, but for a guy who promised a "new sort of politics" (based around a post-partisan agenda, a "common sense" approach, etc.) the heavy reliance on the Clinton-era staff, while overcoming experience issues (which, again, aren't very intelligent to start), still seems . . . awkward. I guess I'd almost feel better if it were just new people, since I find that the Clinton era is an overrated period anyway.
Not that I disagree with any particular selection, as all seem reasoned, but I don't think attacking the "experience" bent should even be an issue, and is completely reversed by the lack of a "new" era.
Threaded Mode
