Can someone set me straight here?

I've got a problem with australia's batting order for ODIs. Not a huge problem, as you can imagine, it's not keeping me awake at night this summer that's for sure.
But I don't understand why you'd have someone like michael clark at 4 and someone like cameron white at 7.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand clark is a better player, but I've noticed he's a really slow scorer.
He's a good safe batsmen. Meawhile cameron white either scores a 6 every ball or he's out for nothing off hardly any balls.
Wouldn't he make a perfect opening batsmen?
If he doesn't get out, the team will score the maximum runs it could have, if he gets out first ball, who cares? he's out of the way.
Clark is a good option to have later down the line for "in case" all the big hitters get out for next to nothing.
He can gradually tally up a somewhat respectable score for the team as a last resort.
I feel the same way about england, bell is like clark and pietersen is like cameron white (basically, obviously different techniques etc, but run wise), one thing I'd definately do if I was managing england was have pietersen out there first.
So it's a general batting order question.

I'm constantly wishing bell or clark would get out of the way so their team could start scoring at a faster rate.
When clark had that "man of the match performance" recently I was just wishing he'd get out, he seemed to be hurting australia to me by batting that early in the lineup. At one stage he had 8 runs from 38 balls or something.
I know white came in and got out for 5 in as many minutes, but I don't think that hurts my theory, it wouldn't have mattered if he got his 5 before clark had a bat.
It would have mattered if he came in and ran out of overs while hitting sixes off every second ball, after clark had drained the game of balls, scoring a single run off every 6th or 7th one.
It would have meant we could have got a way way higher score if white came in before clark.

I don't want clark off the team ofcourse, I just think players like bell and clark should be "insurance" you save for the end.
Is there some reason I can't see as to why it's not always like this?
Why have cameron white at 7? If he's good at anything, it's smashing the crap out of the ball, and he'd undoubtedly function better without too much pressure at this stage in his career. Throw him in first, he's either going to score a century in an extremely short and efficient length of time, or he'll be out from swinging when he shouldn't have, not carefully going about getting a run or 2 every over (really wasting the potential of overs).
That's ideal for an opening/top order batsmen, in ODIs at least.
These careful safe players would be much better lower down the order, as a plan b, after the explosive attack has failed to demolish your opposition.

My batting order for australia would be:
1. Gilchrist
2. White
3. Symonds
4. Hayden
5. Ponting
6. Hussey
7. Clark
... bowlers blah blah

Ponting can score big so why move him from 3 you ask? Well he's also fairly reliable and clutch, as a captain he should want to be in that position to oversee how things go and then be the guy to react accordingly or save the game if things don't go to plan. Hussey and clark are proven game savers.
Gilchrist, white, symonds and hayden are somewhat hot and cold, but when they're hot they get huge totals fast, so they should be "plan a".

It seems like respected players are being "rewarded" by being put high on the order, and rookie, uncemented players like white can't have the honours.
Despite how illogical this is strategy wise in light of how they play.
Does anyone agree?

If not, what am I missing?