Many have been critical of President-elect Obama for choosing too many former members of the Clinton administration to serve in his own. Of course, those who are critical don't make any recommendations of which candidates might be better, more qualified and more experienced. But, hey, that's what being a critic is all about.

Let's take a look at the choices that Obama had available to him that meet the "better, qualified and experienced" qualifications.

In the past 16 years, we've had only two Presidents and two administrations. Clearly, the President-elect wasn't going to choose too many from the Bush administration--they didn't exactly distinguish themselves in almost any department or function you can think of. Many of the lesser cabinet secretaries were little more than political or financial supporters who were rewarded with a cabinet position. However, there were many candidates from the Clinton administration who met all the tests. During Clinton's eight years in the White House, the economy was strong and the world was generally safe. They were pretty good times for the country.

Prior to President Clinton was President Bush 41, of course, but he left the White House 16 years ago. Many of the more prominent members of that administration, like James Baker, Larry Eagleburger, Dick Thornburgh, Elizabeth Dole and Jack Kemp and the like are all well into their 70's. Oh, there is one younger guy who was Bush 41's Secretary of Defense, but I don't think he made Obama's list--Dick Cheney.

So I ask you, if you wanted a cabinet whose members are qualified and experienced and who could "hit the ground running" in these troubled times for our country, how many choices did Obama really have outside a large number who served in positions of responsibility during the Clinton years?

Yes, you could pick people who never served in senior government positions, and Obama has done that in a several cases (Senator Clinton for State, Geithner for Tresasury). He chose Gates for defense from the Bush administration. But others in his new administration who could be effective from the outset did serve under President Clinton.

So what's so terribly wrong with those choices? And what were the alternatives?