This even-handed piece analyzes and explains Obama's choice of Clinton-era veterans for his transition team and cabinet. Unfortunately, it conflates or doesn't fully explain the connection between these veterans and the the revolving door in Washington for lobbyists and government officials.

Superficial story with little context. Says that Podesta said little, but didn't seem aware of Podesta's own recent extensive work on health, the environment, etc. Made little or no attempt to explain the significance of Obama's choices for various roles.

The greatest strength of this piece is its context: the reporters clearly show that Obama's strategy of picking many former Clinton staff members stems from not wanting to repeat mistakes of past Democratic presidents. It would be interesting to read some outside sources and commentary on what Obama is doing for additional insight.

humdrum story on Obama's new team--same old.

Although this piece takes some liberty with language and style, I'm glad the Times didn't shy away from an analysis of John Podesta's presentation. This could have easily been a plain, straightforward news story. Good context is provided by comparisons to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter's early days as presidents-elect. Key statements from the campaign trail are pitted against recent actions Obama has made toward transition into the White House, questioning the reformist tone Obama maintained during the election.

Pretty fair comment, neither praising or pilloring Obama. Just reporting what is happening.

Very, very superficial. The story sounds more like filler than something worth reading.