Regardless of how it turned out, I don't think the Houllier appointment was a bad one at the time. We'd just had our manager walk out on us right before the start of the season. There weren't really that many options available to us at that time. Houllier did have a fair bit of success and while he had health issues I distinctly remember him being passed fit by his doctor. In hindsight it might look a bad appointment, but as I said, at the time, I don't think it was bad at all.
McLeish on the other hand was as you said, a skull-caver. He'd just gotten SHA relegated after they were looking safe only a few months before. His teams play dire football and he came straight from SHA. While I don't think his SHA connections matter, it did to some people and I'm pretty sure Randy and Faulkner would have had the foresight to know that appointing him with all those things in mind would certainly ruffle a few feathers. Not only that but there were definitely better candidates out there. I just don't understand what their rationale was. It was possibly one of the most bizarre managerial appointments in history.
The other head scratcher is that the appointment came after we were interested in talking to Martinez, who is the complete opposite to McLeish football wise in just about every single way. Yeah, that's another thing. Doesn't make any sense. They clearly weren't using style of football as criteria when looking for a new manager, nor was success a criteria (obviously). So what was their main criteria?
nobody else wanted the job