You make many good points, but at this point this is what we have. I'm willing, to an extent, to trust these folks. I'm like Ronald Reagan and arms control agreements--Trust but verify. Thanks for the comment.

I understand moving on... but some of Clinton's behavior during the campaign revealed just how low she was willing to go to get what she wanted.... and revealed some trust issues. I will have a hard time believing anything she says, especially after she used the argument that she didn't know what she was voting for when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Everyone else in the government knew what it meant, as did the media and the American people....who were already geared up for the attack at that point. More importantly.... I am perplexed by the appointment because these two have (or so I thought) two different world views and two very divergent opinions about diplomacy, use of force, and Americas place in the World, relations with key Countries, etc. Although Obama has shown himself to be much more to the right than I thought... He's much more of a traditional Democrat.... not a change agent at all. Perhaps Obama has been a hawk all along.... The corporate media made him out to be the most liberal politician on earth.... which is why a lot of folks are surprised by his foreign policy picks. But I was getting the feeling as far back as a year ago that he was much more to the right... particularly on foreign policy. His cabinet picks have only confirmed my gut feelings about him. But as right leaning as he is (or "centrist" as it's called), Clinton and the band of Clintonites, and Democratic hawks are still even farther to the right than he is. And of course, there are no Progressives in any key positions to balance any of this out. I call the new government "Neo-Con Light".