From talk radio to the Internets many on the Right and Left are howling that the avatar of "Change" is appointing well-known, high ranking Clintonites to major posts. This is seen as a rejection of his election message.
First, of all, he did not promise any personnel changes. His message was basically that he embodied "change." That change was that he was not George Bush, was a non-scary Lefty and was black. No other specific change was identified. He has kept his promise to not be George Bush and to remain black. However, were he to start appointing "Obamaites", long term academic lefties of the William Ayers, Rev. Wright persuasion he would cease to be "non-scary Lefty."
He has a lot on his plate. Does he need the added headache of Cabinet officers who do not know what they are doing? Certain appointments like Eric Holder might be opposed on the merits, but not that they were in a previous administration (widely seen as successful by the American Public).
We are learning whether or not Barack Obama has drunk his own cool aid (uhmmm.. perhaps bad terminology on the 30th anniversary of Jonestown). He apparently has not. By picking people who have been confirmed by far less Democratic Senates in the past he eliminates a lot of bumps in the road in his early administration. I don't think Hillary will take State but if she does it is greatly to be preferred to John Kerry or Bill Richardson.
Similarly, even Eric Holder who has big problems ethically, is much to be preferred to Jaime Goerelich she of the "wall" memo. Holder would, at worse, do what Gonzalez did for Bush, subordinate all interests to what the President told him to do. Goerelich would actively make her own mistakes.
People with no experience, or only Chicago or academic experience are likely to be those Obama knows and trusts. They are landmines waiting to explode in his first year were he to appoint them. Known quantities have draw backs but Obama has demonstrated the first lesson of conservative governance, no surprises.