Obama said, “…when it comes to hiring people in my administration, the litmus test we’ll apply will not be based on party or ideology, but qualification and experience.” Obama pledged to have the most ethical administration in history, and specifically promised that no lobbyists would be employed. Since this is supposed to be change we can count on, let’s do a quick assessment, checking for competence and integrity.

From USA Today: “A USA Today review of Obama hires shows that 21 have registered as federal lobbyists…” (This was reported exactly one week after the inauguration, making for a short-lived promise).

Maybe we should check in on Obama’s promise of “the most ethical administration in history.” Here are the highlights:

Tom Daschle: Withdrew from consideration as head of Health and Human Services when he couldn’t stand the heat for being a tax cheat.

Nancy Killefer: Withdrew from consideration as the country’s Chief Performance Officer when word leaked out she was a tax cheat.

Bill Richardson: Withdrew from consideration as Commerce Secretary when it became apparent his confirmation would be hampered by a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors while he was the governor of New Mexico.

Timothy Geithner: Approved as Secretary of the Treasury despite proof that was presented to the Senate (which he corroborated with his own testimony) that he was a tax cheat.

Hillary Clinton: Approved as Secretary of State despite very significant conflicts of interest stemming from donations to her husband’s foundation by foreign entities and questionable donations from foreigners to her campaigns. Additionally, she has been plagued with scandal after scandal throughout her political life.

Eric Holder: Approved as Attorney General although he: is anti-gun and inclined to restrict the second ammendment, he pressed Clinton for the pardon of the Mark Rich (a fugitive financier), and he worked to force the deportation of a juvenile refugee (Elian Gonzalez) back to Cuba.

Steven Cu: Approved as Secretary of Energy though he advocates very high gasoline prices, is opposed to off-shore drilling, clean coal, and nuclear energy. As a blind follower of debunked global warming theories, he believes his main mission in this office is to vigorously pursue unproven and non-viable energy alternatives.

Arne Duncan: Approved as Secretary of Education despite the very dismal failure of Chicago public schools while he presided over them. He is a strong advocate of significantly increased federal spending (naturally with strings attached) on education and greater federal influence on curriculum.

Janet Napolitano: Approved as head of Homeland Security though she nearly bankrupted Arizona while governor, failed miserably to protect her state from the dangers of illegal immigration, and helped derail the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination with her advice to Anita Hill.

Cecilia Muñoz: Hired as a White House aide though she was formerly employed as a lobbyist by La Raza (Spanish for “The Race”), a radical Mexican nationalist organization that aggressively seeks to undermine American sovereignty and regularly attempts to thwart national security. La Raza has been called the Mexican version of the Black Panthers.

Hilda Solis: Nominated as Secretary of Labor in spite of (or per perhaps because of) her many connections to organized labor – she is the daughter of a union organizer and a former union demonstrator. She is also a member of the House Progressive Caucus, a group of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives.

Lisa Jackson: Nominated as Administrator of the EPA despite that both liberals and conservatives find her lacking any compelling qualifications.

Obama-the-candidate suggested the performance scale on which his administration should be measured, which included several factors: diverse ideology, strong qualifications, demonstrated experience, and solid ethics. Assuming all of his other nominees were wonderful, we do see some concerning trends. That Obama would nominate the individuals mentioned above and that Congress would approve them makes one wonder if Obama-the-candidate did not really mean “Change you can count on”, but rather is satisfied with “Corruption you can bank on.”

Shame on you, Mister President. Is it really that hard to find people we can respect and have confidence in? For someone who promised integrity, competence, openness, and so much goodness, this is not a promising start.

He is keeping to his promises as far as I can see. All the rhetoric in this article shows nothing to change that fact.

Even if you disregard what you say is rhetoric, these people Obama picked certainly do not represent anything close to choices that would represent the most ethical administration in history. It's been a constant skeleton in the closet for most of his nominees.

since when does rhetoric mean "opposing argument?"

These are largely facts with opinion laced in here and there. The facts are that Richardson did in fact withdraw for that reason, many nominees had tax issues, and a large portion of his important nominees were lobbyists - many in the same field they now control. There are no good ethics in that.