Being a Clintonite should NOT be a disqualifer for serving in the Obama Admin.

[Skwmom]

But what should be a disqualifer is whether you were involved in making the decisions (or did you support the decisions) that helped drive this country in the ditch (NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagal (which occurred AFTER the S&L debacle which would have led anyone with a functioning brain cell to know it was a bad idea), etc.).

That should be the disqualifier.

Mike Barnicle was on Morning Joe blaming women for trying to derail Larry Summers. I thought, why is he supporting the guy that played a major role in driving the bus into the ditch? Surprise, surprise, they said his wife is high up in a bank. No wonder he's pushing Summers. What a schmuck.


If you pick qualified people, it won't matter if they were part of the Clinton Admin. But if you pick Clinton people who are part of the reason we are in this mess.... well when the going gets tough (which it will) don't be surprised if people ask what in the heck were you thinking.

To make this a disqualifier could lead to exclude ethical and brilliantly qualified people whose only "crime" is they served in the Clinton Admin. That is as dumb as appointing someone who is part of the problem.

[H2O Man]

1. Nominated. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

2. And the needs of the 90s are different than today. Same folks will act differently today.

Democrats have a learning curve!

[izzie]

5. I liked the Clinton years and their people but it is now

2008 and time to move on. Lets have a brake from the two top players and get with what Obama wants. That is why we voted for him and not her. Count on it if she is put into SOS the whole thing will be a free for all unless Obama 'corners' her at Foggy Bottom and he and Biden do the SOS stuff which is what the world and his voters want. Or so I feel.

[Honeycombe8]

3. I don't think that's what the critics are saying. They're saying, if 2/3 of those you pick are ..

They're saying, if 2/3rds of those you pick are Clintonites, that's an indication of a problem. A big problem.

Is he insecure in his own experience, with his own ideas, in his ability to find his way without the Clintons leading him?

Did he mean what he said when he told voters that bringing the Clintons back is not true change? Did he listen when the voters had an opportunity to specifically bring the Clinton administration back, and they specifically voted against that?

It's not picking one or two or three, or ten, Clintonites. It's that the majority of the people his camp has chosen for his transition team and his staff and his cabinet are Clintonites. Yes, a lot of experienced, able people served in the Clinton administration. Yes, he would undoubtedly pick one or two or three, or ten, of them. But for ALMOST ALL of them to be Clintonites is very strange. And unnecessary. It seems as if it is by design. His camp actually had to go out of their way to pick so many Clintonites.

[Skwmom]

4. Oh please. This is the Clinton gang trying to undermine him.

Some VERY stupid people served in the Clinton Administration. Those are the people that should be excluded, not qualified ones.

Surrounding yourself with QUALIFIED people shows you are secure. Only insecure people surround themselves w/unqualified people. Hey, is that how the Clinton administration made so many DUMB mistakes. Bill Clinton couldn't stand the thought of having anyone smarter in the room?

[NewJeffCT]

8. However, part of the problem with not picking people connected to Clinton

is that you have to start raiding Congress and various statehouses - while Janet Napolitano is well qualified to be head of Homeland Security because of her executive experience and her work as a US attorney, she will be replaced by a Republican as governor of Arizona. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president in the last 28 years after all.

Besides, Napolitano was appointed to her original US attorney post by Bill Clinton.

And, then, if you go out of your way NOT to pick people connected to the Clintons, you will have critics saying that Obama is not confident enough to have Clinton-connected people around him because he is afraid they'll stab him in the back or will control the agenda, or have their own agenda.

[Alter Ego]

6. But Larry Summers hasn't been named to anything yet...

[Skwmom]

9. And let's hope it stays that way.

[ksoze]

7. Agree - would the Mayo Clinic be a blemish on your resume?

How about teaching at MIT? Interning at CalTech?

In order to effect change, you have to have experience. Find experience and you will get the change yu need and want. Simple.

[Skwmom]

10. It's not just a resume. It is what JUDGMENT and ability have you displayed.

It seems like a lot of people that have went to top name schools have really turned out to be total idiots (George Bush being a prime example).

[ksoze]

11. No experience - No change

My example was more towards experience as in real world.

Most successful entrepreneurs had failures in the past, thats how they got it right - hitting a home run as a rookie is less likely. Although the rally call is for change, picking from a successful pool of experienced candidates (Clinton people) is the best way to ensure you can use that experience to effect change. Hillary's first foray into Health care was a learning experience that will ensure she would do it differently. We can't afford too many misses right now.

[blue_onyx]

12. Obama should pick who he thinks is best

Of course, being connected to the Clintons shouldn't disqualify people. Many on here seem to be against anyone from the Clinton administration...well, except for Bill Richardson for some reason. But it wasn't that long ago that most on here would've defended the Clintons and the Clinton administration. Just because a person served for Clinton doesn't mean they can't be apart of change.