What About a 3 PM Phone Call?

Leon Panetta's selection as CIA chief not only is being criticized on its own merits, but also is being panned as a procedural blunder, a gaffe that highlights the charges of inexperience that plagued Obama in the early days of his campaign. The fact that Dianne Feinstein, the incoming Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who will be in charge of Panetta's confirmation, was not notified of the selection speaks either to the transition team's oversight or its arrogance.

Either the pick was leaked, which is exactly what you need when you are dealing with intelligence, or Obama set aside senatorial courtesy in favor of spontaneity and secrecy.

In a similarly surprising announcement, Obama's team evidently decided not to alert anyone who was likely to be upset about the Rick Warren pick ahead of time, including none other than Feinstein, the Chair of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Even though news of Warren's involvement came out of Feinstein's committee, she was forced to release a statement after Obama's noting Warren was "solely the choice of the president-elect."

In the early days of his campaign, Obama risked starting off on the wrong foot by not consulting operatives in key states. In March '07, Obama's missed out on millions of fundraising dollars simply by failing to return the calls of a small group of highly influential donors and operatives in New Jersey known as "The Group." Obviously, Obama's focus on running a strictly "outsider's" campaign gave way to a disciplined, cautious and inclusive operation. But shades of Obama's "go-it-alone" approach seem to be returning.

If Obama is going to bring "outsiders" (aka Clinton insiders) to the table, he needs to do it while showing an ability to operate within the current political parameters. If you are hoping to restore morale to a battered intelligence community, you do not want to begin with a sneak attack. And, if you are hoping to run a transition based on transparency, then giving the impression your latest pick was planned and plotted in a back room is also a dead end.

In tapping Panetta to lead the CIA, Obama reached for a Washington veteran, one who cut his teeth as a nice guy and a good manager. He surely knows the value of using DC's institutional advantages. And, if not, isn't that why you hired Rahm Emanuel? To pick up the phone and show some congressional courtesy?

Comments

[comiso50]

We have elected a President for change and we have elected a President based on his judgment and ability to made sound decisions. Allow him the opportunity to do that. HIs choice for director of the CIA , in my opinion, is a sound decison made with forethought and should not be second guested by democrats or republicans who have prided themselves in dissention rather than conciliation. Change is an absolute and we should not be afraid of it. It is obvious that the present CIA policies have been contrary to what is just and prudent for our national security and it has vitually destroyed our reputation around the world as the leader of the free world in the 21st century.

[ebquillen]

Obama didn't go to Feinstein over Panetta because she was supporting fellow Californian Jane Harman, who is totally unqualified for the job as she was largely a collaborator with the Bushies. Panetta is an experienced bureaucrat who will do just fine as the director of CIA does not have to be an intelligence type himself. The DCI is much more a senior bureaucrat who has to manage a product and present it to the president and congress in a digestible form. Until he learns the ropes Panetta will be supported by a large staff with lots of relevant experience. Unlike Harman (and departing DCI Hayden), Panetta is strongly opposed to torture and rendition which is a huge plus for those of us who consider such issues important.