There is a lot of like-think forming out there, and one of the organizing concepts seems to be this: if Obama hires someone who served in the Clinton administration, then this is de facto evidence that Obama is offering more of the same rather than the 'change we need.'

The assumption is that Obama could bring in a raft of political executives that have no experience or previous affiliations in national governance.  I think this is patently stupid.

If Obama had to hire people that thought about thing just as he does, it would be indeed impossible for him to find a sufficient number of bureaucratically competent individuals to staff the government.  Fortunately, a competent administrator needs first of all to be able to grasp, assimilate, and translate into practice policy that is articulated by Obama.  They don't have to think the same thoughts as the policy maker.  Of course, someone basically sympathetic with the principles of the policy maker is desirable so that the 'translation' process of concept to policy to action goes well, which is why Obama might find himself with an incumbent who is a good administrator, but who should be replaced because they are ideologically ill-suited to translate Obama-ese into departmental policy.  Gates at DOD is a good example -- the question is, is he ideologically 'fluent' enough in Obamaese to be able translate Obama's policy directives effectively into action.  He seems by all accounts to be a good administrator.

So, unless some Clinton-era administrator is so ideologically inflexible as to be unsympathetic to Obama's policy directives, tocharge Obama with 'more of the same' when he appoints an Clinton-era administrator is a red herring. 

For some reason, MSM seems obsessed with fishing for this red herring. 

If she can't take direction and be a team player, maybe Hillary is a bad choice.  But Holden, Daschel, Craig, Orszag -- does anyone thing these people have ideological, Clinton-era axes they'd rather grind than participate in a Democratic administration that could be transformative?

The 'Clinton Retread' argument that fascinates the MSM is just the latest and equally bogus version of 'who has he be palling around with.'