Apologist thy name is Cyclo.
Is there no incongruity that you cannot rationalize?
Since Obama ran against a Clinton chanting a mantra of CHANGE, it is hardly unreasonable that some might question this mantra based upon his present intended reliance on Clintonistas.
Heaven forbid that anyone surmise that the following is an endorsement of Jimmy Carter's presidency, but clearly, his mantra (albeit no so publicly declared) was every bit as much about CHANGE as Obama's, and he actually made good on his promise.
His administration was not overwhelmed by Democratic hacks from the Johnson days.
Arguably, Carter's desire to bring fresh blood to DC was a cause of his presidency's failure, but at least he remained true to his vision and declarations.
Obama apologists, not surprisingly, fail to address the issue head on.
There are plenty of creative, skilled and intelligent people who Obama might call into service. Does anyone really believe that the Clintons exhausted, during their reign, the pool of left leaning Knights Templar, and that no new lefty wunderkinds have risen to the top since 2000?
Smartly, or otherwise, Obama has decided not to follow Jimmy Carter's lead and to surround himself with folks who have been in the (Clintonian) trenches.
Nothing at all wrong with this, but it does fly in the face of the CHANGE mantra, and it is pretty pathetic to see his supporters attempt to explain why the two diametrically opposed actions can be reconciled.