Happy Monday, and Obama’s national security team

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: December 1, 2008

Welcome back to work, or just to your routine! I hope you had a great Thanksgiving weekend with friends and family.

Lots has happened since last we conversed here. The horrific terrorist attacks on nine sites in Mumbai, India, and the ensuing tensions they lit between India and Pakistan were the latest reminders of the foreign policy powderkegs that will greet Barack Obama upon his inauguration in seven weeks and one day.

... Which brings us to our first topic of discussion today!

Obama will name his national security team today, and it will reportedly consist of his former nemesis in the Democratic presidential primarty, a Republican who leads a war universally hated by the left and a man who advised John McCain on national security issues during McCain’s campaign against Obama.

Team of rivals? Check. Check ... and check.

Hillary Clinton, of course, is that former nemesis, and she will be announced this morning as Obama’s Secretary of State nominee. But since that news has been around for a few weeks, its shock value has really worn off.

Luckily for us, there’s always another Clinton to provide us with more fascinating political gossip. And, unluckily for Hillary Clinton, her accomplishments—once again—are being accompanied by talk about her husband.

Click here to read a scintillating story about what Bill Clinton’s life would be like as ... U.S. Sen. Bill Clinton. That’s right: The former president is being mentioned as a possible successor to his wife as she vacates her position as the junior senator from New York.

There are so many interesting angles to this story. My favorite so far is the possibility, far-fetched as it admitedly is, that Mr. Clinton could end up chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and questioning Mrs. Clinton about her work as Secretary of State. Too bad that probably won’t ever happen, because it would be awesome to watch. One Clinton grandstanding against the other? Wow! C-SPAN might crack into the Nielsen Top 10.

As for the SOS pick itself, I have said before that I think it’s a bad idea for Obama to go with Clinton. Obama had much more experience and much less baggage in New Mexico Gov. and please-pick-me, pick-me Secretary of State candidate Bill Richardson than with Clinton. Experience aside (and I can’t believe we are even saying “experience aside” when it comes to the Secretary of State), there are plenty of other question marks underlying this pick: Will the woman who would have been president be able to follow the lead of the man who vanquished her? Will the woman who pinned her candidacy on her experience be able to hold her tongue as the man with comparatively little experience finds his way in the foreign policy world? Will the woman who fashioned her own foreign policy platform and promised to be ready to answer the phone at 3 a.m. be able to have her actions dictated by the man whom she charged is not ready to be president?

In short, will Hillary Clinton be able to substitute all Barack Obama is seeks to make of himself for all Clinton has made of herself?

I understand the team of rivals concept, but I just think this is too much.

What do you guys think? Is Hillary a good match for Obama? Or is this an ugly mess waiting to happen?

And then we have late word that Obama will have Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—as in, President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates—join the Obama Administration by staying around for at least a year. Obama reportedly believes that there should be some stability at the Pentagon, what with two wars going on and all.

Apparently, even Obama believes that the change everyone can believe in is not such a great idea when it comes to the military.

And boy, has it got the left wing of the Democratic Party all fired up ... and not in a “Yes we can” kind of way.

Liberals who went with Obama for his promise to get U.S. troops out of Iraq are anywhere from confused to incensed that he apparently plans to keep one of the architects of the surge strategy that sent more troops to Iraq to get a handle on the growing insurgency. Two left-wing bloggers opine:

Liberal blogger Chris Bowers of The Open Left says the message sent by the selection of Gates undermines Democrats.

“The message would be clear,“ he writes in his blog. “Even Democrats agree that Democrats can’t run the military.“

... Bowers, a member of the Pennsylvania state Democratic committee, argues that Gates provided support and cover for practices from waterboarding to the use of psychotropic drugs on terror detainees. The blogger isn’t as negative toward Jones but still called it “very disappointing.“

“It is just so very frustrating,“ Bowers writes. “It seems like the only place progressives are making any gains is in the House. We are being entirely left out of Obama’s major appointments so far. I guess everyone gets to play in Obama’s administration, except progressives.“

Former congressional assistant and current Democratic blogger Brent Budowsky put it this way:

“It is unfortunate that on an issue so momentous as who runs the Pentagon at time of war, the views that were stated in the campaign, and supported so deeply by the base of the Democratic Party and the new voters and small donors who were the heart of the Obama campaign, are sacrificed so quickly, for Bob Gates,“ he writes in his blog.

Obama has also heard criticism along the lines of the Washington-insiders-don’t-equate-to-change argument vis-à-vis his financial team. He finally addressed it this weekend:

“What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand ... the vision for change comes first and foremost ... from me. That’s my job,“ he said.

In other words, not to worry; Obama is the big picture guy, and all his positions are the same. It’s just different people who will be implementing them.

... Or is that that the positions are still different, but the same people will be implementing them? Gee, I guess it could be either one. Same = change. I am getting dizzy.

And then we have Obama’s apparent pick for national security adviser, former Marine Gen. and NATO commander Jim Jones. Jones is a close and longtime friend of McCain, and McCain told the New York Times in April 2007 that Jones would “play a key role” in a McCain Administration.

Apparently, Obama liked McCain’s idea.

SIDEBAR: That April 2007 Times article referenced above was about McCain’s support for the surge in Iraq and how he was lobbying fellow lawmakers to support it, even in the face of opposition from the American public. Consider this paragraph from the article:

Mr. McCain methodically dismissed as unrealistic every other plan that has been proposed by Democrats as a substitute for Mr. Bush’s strategy, including those from Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois.

I just want to point out that there you have the failed GOP presidential nominee on record defending a strategy (that ended up being successful, by the way) against the future Secretary of State, the future vice president and the future 44th president of the United States.

I’m just saying. END SIDEBAR

As I said, all of this has all kinds of people in a tizzy. Liberals are wondering what happened to their champion of change—

—Obama responded to that criticism a few days ago:

 

—and what gives with the new Obama Administration. Rounding out the national security team, according to ANONYMOUS “sources close to the transition,“ are Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary and Eric Holder as attorney general.

SIDEBAR: Check out Susan Rice’s areas of expertise as noted on her Brookings Institution bio page. Interesting, no? END SIDEBAR

All of this will be announced at a news conference at 10:40 a.m. Eastern this morning. But until then and throughout the day, stay close; there’s more catch-up on the way.