So I have been watching with growing irritation as the chattering class goes blathering on about Hillary Clinton's selection as Secretary of State. They're all busy speculating on how she must have some other agenda and "oh, she'll just be uncontrollable", and "she's only out for herself". She surely must have some other agenda besides being qualified to do the job and wanting to do it. All this with nothing to go on save for their own speculation.
Most annoyingly, they're also constantly harping on about how the appointments Obama has made so far, though widely viewed as being excellent picks who are imminently qualified, represent a repudiation of his rhetoric of change. These mindless repetitions are baseless on at least a couple of levels. First, it's a bit disingenuous to insist on having non-Washington insiders. Who thinks that folks inexperienced in the ways of Washingtonian politics would be a good idea? Before you answer that, remember what happened when Bill Clinton filled his staff with outsiders. He was roundly criticized for not hiring people who knew how to navigate the treacherous political waters of Washington. Second, who thinks that by change, Obama meant outsiders? It's patently ridiculous to assume that people who know the system cannot bring change. Think about it. If you stayed with that assumption you would have to believe they all think the same way. No one would seriously argue that. The change Obama was talking about is the divisive politics that has been part of Washington.