wish obama would stay away from the clintons and their past cabinet members---he may just be inviting trouble,as there are a lot of dirt in the clintons closets---he should pick people with a cleaner past.hope he dont start off on the wrong foot so to speak.richardson seems a good choice.

rodney,

I agree. Two to Three positions are okay but nearly the entire cabinet? I'm sure he can find talent else where.

They call him No Drama Obama. I am concerned that if any CLinto is associated with the administration there will be disaster ause drama seems to go where ever the Clintons are.

there is no conflict whether Hillary wants it

that is made up bologne...

and the press jumps on it.

If there wasn't so much spin going on this would have been done already...

It is now clear that Obama lacks executive experience to such a degree that he must rely on Bill Clinton's choices. Lucky for us: Bill Clinton was a great president.

and as far as picking people outside Clinton affiliations...where do you find someone who knows anything about the issues that wasn't on some tangential of lower level involved in the 8 years that dems were successful

this is all soooo stupid.

the change is the process ...not the people's histories.

I thought Obama promised us "change." Filling his administration with Washington insiders is giving us more of the same. 8 years of Clinton was fine but it certainly is not change to just regurgitate his staff. So much for change we can believe in.

People who are pointing to him picking people that had something to do with the 8 years of Clintons administration/democratic rule before the 8 years of Bush and republican rule...

show clearly how limited they are in grasp of the situation and talent pool...

anyone who is worth their salt... or is the best person for the job ...is going to have some activity in governemtn during those 8 years

stupid stupid stupid

the change is about process ugh not about not picking people just because they had experience in the 8 years of dem rule that were successful before this past 8 years...oy

it's baffling how people can be so stupid

Change is about the process and not the people. You have to be a fool to believe this nonsense. Our nation politics have been in grid lock with these two parties and bringing back the same old folks who care more about their own party will not change how business is conducted. What comes around, goes around. The circle repeats itself again. This is what happens when lawyers run this country.

The Clintons will take over. Why didn't we vote her in. Can Obams not think for himself. The best peoople were not the Clinton people. Always scandal, immorality, is this what he wants? He needs to be his own man and he never will with so many Clintons around? What a mess. We would never have voted for him and surely will not again as I have heard many people say. They just wish they had their vote over. We thought we would be getting rid of the Clintons and this is not the case. The Clintons will run the show - you just wait and see.

Whenever a powerful woman is in the news, they call it a "drama." Stop being so sexist and just cover the story (or not, as you choose).

Tina:
It is not that he is lacking executive experience. The situation we are in now is so immense. He is tapping those who he is sure they know the job very well and easy to adjust to the CHANGE he
desires. It is not the time for
him to do the guessing work! The man is serious.

So far no Change, but what do you expect from Zero Experience Obama.

The Clinton Era is what brought about the current housing crisis by lessening the rules for those that could actually afford to buy a house. This is going backwards.

Obama said anything to get elected and democrats bought it hook line and sinker, now America will pay the price.

Before Hillary Clinton can become Secretary of State:

1) Bill Clinton must provide a complete listing of all donors to his foundation and presidential library.
2) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton need to clearly indicate that any and all private financial dealings and other interactions with foreign leaders are now over, unless specifically authorized by the US government.
3) Hillary Clinton needs to publically discuss exactly what her approach to the job of Secretary of State would be and clearly indicate how she would be able to perform that job without any conflict of interest whatsoever.

If the Clintons are unwilling or unable to comply with the above requirements Hillary Clinton should not become Secretary of State.

"Change is about the process and not the people. You have to be a fool to believe this nonsense. Our nation politics have been in grid lock with these two parties and bringing back the same old folks who care more about their own party will not change how business is conducted. What comes around, goes around. The circle repeats itself again. This is what happens when lawyers run this country. "

Charlie,

This system of government was specifically created to prevent the rise of total one party rule! The founding fathers wanted there to be an oppostion force to maintain a balance. They did not want a monarchy or a dictatorial sytle of government.

By design, our system was created not to move to far in any one direction too quickly!

If you do not understand this, its time for you to go back and really study how our system was created and the intentions of those who risked everything they had in the world to create it.

Strangely, when it was Republicans in control of congress, I dont recall you libbies b!tching about phillabustering when you were using it to block progress.

I like it when a liberal is trying to educate us on how the government was founded. Although the system has declined into a two-party system, the Constitution does not mandate a two-party system, nor does it limit political parties. In fact, it doesn't say anything about political parties at all. During the ratification, the Federalists and Republicans did debate and argue, but these two "parties" were not opposition parties, nor were they to truly develop into such until 1814. The electoral process (which isn't in the Constitution either) went down hill from then.

Rather than promote a "party system," some framers had deep concerns about such entities. James Madison in Federalist Paper #10 argues against "factions," claiming that to ensure a fair democratic process such factions (politically parties) should be limited. Of course the anti-federalist's Clay reacted vehemently in Federalist Paper #11, claiming that limiting the liberty of citizens to form political factions violated the sprit of democracy, a point that Madison had already conceded. Clay ignored the stronger argument that Madison proposed, which was to ensure that any political faction remain non-partisan, so that an individual's freedom to vote his conscience could not be hindered.

I agree completely that the current partisan, two-party system essentially creates an "either or fallacy." The partisan, two-party system creates a perpetual false dilemma that allows both parties to use fear to persuade voters to reject the other party: "if you don't vote for us, we'll get hit by terrorists again." The current parties are opposition parties in that they "oppose" the current government. In other words, the current political structure ensures that the minority party becomes a "political insurgency" whose purpose is to overthrow the majority party through the electoral process.

To do so, the minority party points to the errors and crimes of the majority in hopes of regaining control of the legislature and presidency, which can influence the judicial selection rather than build a coalition with the majority to advance the will of the people. To keep power, the majority party, more often than not, resorts to slander, libel, vote tampering, and fraud. Legislators and senators too often use procedural tactics to inhibit the majority party's agenda, so legislative success cannot be used during the next campaign. In other words, opposition parties, too often, try to derail legislation presented by the other party, even good legislation, rather than build consensus.

rodney and Vanessa,

You blind followers have been had!

You should've supported HRC in the first place. Stop making boneheaded mistakes as our Greatest Leader constantly does.

I don't get the media ragging so much on former Clinton employees working in this administration.
With all the serious problems facing this country you expect him to pull in a bunch of rookies with no experience at all to solve these things?
Common sense tells you if you have anyone with even minimum experience it's going to come from the Clinton white house as the democrats have had only ONE democratic administration inthe past 30 years!!!!!
Where is he suppose to get people with experience, who know what they are doing and can do the job? From the moon???
Geez, the media is sooooooo brain dead.
Of course Obama can pull all inexperienced people and put them in the White House like Jimmy Carter - how'd that work out for him?
The democrats do not have a deep bench.
Where is the talent going to come from? Reagan's white house? One of the two Bush's?
I think the media needs to chill out and quit whining and try using a little common sense.
Besides, he's only named 5 or 6 people and as far as that is concerned: Emmanuel happens to be a close friend of Obama's.
Holder is a personal friend.
And for your information the guy who came up with Clinton's 1996 slogan "the bridge to the 21st century' was by David Axelrod!!!!!!!!!!
Get some common sense and quit whining!

Do we really want a lawyer to be the SOS? Lawyers specialize in twisting words and language to say what they want people to hear while meaning something totally different. Most current members of Congress cannot even understand the simple language of the Constitution of the United States. They have no concept of "limited government" as instituted by the founders of this country.

Nothing wrong with former Clinton appointees....After all, the Clinton presidency would have been one of the best last century if it wasn't for the moral failures of the big guy. So, a Clinton cabinet minus Clinton ain't so bad.