What's the difference in cabinet/high level position choices........

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

between Obama and Hillary?

Forgive me I've been on Atlasian vacation since the election, and I'm sure this has been bandied about before, but would the Cabinet or high level appointees under Hillary have been so different?

What's the CHANGE?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Oh and before you bash my brains in as an Obama hater, that's simply not true.

I supported Obama most of the primary and general election cycle.

[YRABNNRM]

Good question [Obama voter].

[Beet]

It's becoming clear that the 'change' is not in personnel but in a new form of 'triangulation'. Basically what Bill Clinton did to the Democrats on economic issues Barack Obama wants to do for social issues- reach out to the religious conservatives, etc. etc. Pretty much what I suspected all along. But the extent of the Clintonite infiltration does surprise me a little bit.

[Daniel Z]

Who was Obama suppost to appoint?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Well, there'd be a different Secretary of State

[Ogre Mage]

As the campaign progressed, I became increasingly convinced that "change" was mostly rhetoric.  Given the economic and foreign crises that we face, it would be foolishly risky to pick a bunch of inexperienced people.  And if you're looking for experience, there's little to draw upon except the veterans of the Clinton Administration.

Bill brought in a bunch of so-called "fresh faces" in 1993 -- and the first two years of his Presidency were ugly.  Now that the country's problems are even worse, Obama realizes he won't succeed with that strategy.

If the Democratic Primary had played out in a similarly close fashion except Hillary had won, I think she would have tapped Obama as VP and there's a good chance she would have made Joe Biden SoS.  We'd have the same people, but moved around in different positions.

[The Mikado]

"Change" meant putting in competent, experienced people who believe in government to replace the cronyism and nepotism of the last eight years.  We have a Nobel Prize Laureate as our new Energy Secretary!  This is one of the most impressive teams in American history.  It's a huge change from a team that tried to put the President's lawyer on the Supreme Court and put a blundering bombastic buffoon in Defense for six years.

[anti_leftist]

"Change" meant putting in competent, experienced people who believe in government to replace the cronyism and nepotism of the last eight years.  We have a Nobel Prize Laureate as our new Energy Secretary!  This is one of the most impressive teams in American history.  It's a huge change from a team that tried to put the President's lawyer on the Supreme Court and put a blundering bombastic buffoon in Defense for six years.

So in essence it was a change from the Bush years back to the Clinton years....that still doesn't answer why Obama was any better of a "change" candidate than Hillary during the primaries.

[Middle-aged Europe]

"Change" meant putting in competent, experienced people who believe in government to replace the cronyism and nepotism of the last eight years.  We have a Nobel Prize Laureate as our new Energy Secretary!  This is one of the most impressive teams in American history.  It's a huge change from a team that tried to put the President's lawyer on the Supreme Court and put a blundering bombastic buffoon in Defense for six years.

So in essence it was a change from the Bush years back to the Clinton years....that still doesn't answer why Obama was any better of a "change" candidate than Hillary during the primaries.

Because Obama was obviously better qualified to sell that "change" message.

[Beet]

"Change" meant putting in competent, experienced people who believe in government to replace the cronyism and nepotism of the last eight years.  We have a Nobel Prize Laureate as our new Energy Secretary!  This is one of the most impressive teams in American history.  It's a huge change from a team that tried to put the President's lawyer on the Supreme Court and put a blundering bombastic buffoon in Defense for six years.

So in essence it was a change from the Bush years back to the Clinton years....that still doesn't answer why Obama was any better of a "change" candidate than Hillary during the primaries.

Because Obama was obviously better qualified to sell that "change" message.

Obama was better qualified to sell a "change" back to the competent Clinton years?

[Middle-aged Europe]

"Change" meant putting in competent, experienced people who believe in government to replace the cronyism and nepotism of the last eight years.  We have a Nobel Prize Laureate as our new Energy Secretary!  This is one of the most impressive teams in American history.  It's a huge change from a team that tried to put the President's lawyer on the Supreme Court and put a blundering bombastic buffoon in Defense for six years.

So in essence it was a change from the Bush years back to the Clinton years....that still doesn't answer why Obama was any better of a "change" candidate than Hillary during the primaries.

Because Obama was obviously better qualified to sell that "change" message.

Obama was better qualified to sell a "change" back to the competent Clinton years?

Not exactly, because that isn't what he sold. He tried to sell a "change" away from the Bush years. Explicitly campagining for a "change" back to the Clinton years wouldn't have made much sense for him strategy-wise, because a Clinton was his main opponent.