The media seems determined to write the "Obama is angering liberals by appointing centrists to his cabinet" meme, despite there being not too much in the way of proof. Ah, the media--never let a lack of facts get in the way of a good story! Matt Yglesias says what needs to be said here. For my part, I could care less if he appoints left-wingers, right-wingers or even Ralph Nader to his cabinet. The cabinet doesn't really do anything aside from managing their respective bureaucracies, and they rarely even advise the president directly. Anyone who thinks that picking a "moderate" cabinet is a sign of President Obama's lack of commitment to a progressive agenda should actually look at, say, what his incoming Treasury Secretary and HHS Secretary have to say about the economy and healthcare. It ain't triangulation, that's for sure.
In the end, a lot of these people have moderate reputations, which is good. But what does it mean to be a moderate these days? In the 1990s, it meant Clintonism of the Bill variety. Nowadays, it evidently means believing in massive stimulus, fixing inequality and bold steps on healthcare. Liberals tend to be process-oriented in these things, I care mostly about results. If by election day, 2010, Obama has enacted Universal Health Care, gotten us out of Iraq, passed stimulus and turned the economy around, I would say that he has been successful. He should also do away with secret prisons and torture. He has pledged to do all those things. These are my metrics for his success. So far, I haven't seen any real reason to believe he will not do them. (The Clinton appointment is something I'm ambivalent on, but I'm willing to believe that Clinton's hawkishness was just pure tactics and that she'll be eager to work along the lines that her husband's administration used.)
