Obama appears to still be living in the 90s with his choice of ex-Clintonites  and being super selective on who he chooses to be working for him. According to Daniel Schor on NPR, Obama picked out Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton because he though they have experience. But the world is a completely different place than it was dring the nineties. The United States now has try to end two wars and solve the financial crisis. To do this requirres fresh new minds and not veterans from the Clinton administration. Also Obama appears to fear that press would go after anyone with something in their closet due to the fact that applicants applyng for positions in his administration must have a perfect record. This appears to be mainly a 90s fear when the press had nothing to write about but scandals . With the economy in the toilet, I doubt that the public would have much of an appetite for tabliod stories about the Obama administration. Moreover Obama his once again limiting his choice of advisors and viewpoints.  Obama needs to realize that the nineties are over and that he needs new perspectives even though they could offered by someone, who may not have a perfect private life.

I would be really disappointed in Obama if he picks Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. Hillary is to the right of Richard Holbrooke, whom I strongly disapprove of , and her foreign policy basically resembles that of Joseph Lieberman. Her comments about getting involved in a potential Israeli-Iranian conflict and supporting the second Iraq War raises serious concerns about her judgement. But for those who do not like Hillary's foreign policy we must remember that it is ultimately is Obama, who makes the decisions.

    A few new books basically describe that it is ultimately the leader and and not his advisors that make policy. In the book Lincoln and his Admirals by Craig Symonds, Lincoln rejected his naval secretary's advice to block all trade with the Confederacy, instead Lincoln  allowed a limited amount of economic interaction between North and South in order to soothe postwar tensions. While in another book Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein, Kennedy ignored the hawkish advice of Bundy and McNamara to get his involved in Vietnam, while LBJ accepted their reccomendations in deploying American ground troops in Vietnam. Finally in Carlo D'Este's book Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War 1874-1945, Winston Churchill ignored his military advisors and made the disasterous decision to divert British forces from North Africa into the doomed effort in Greece in 1941. Although the British political system is different it was still the leader of the country who was responsible in conducting the war. All three of these books basically state that cabinet member or minsters, in the British case, have no real power to stop the leader of the country from implementing policy.So when it comes to dealing with Iran and Russia it will probably be Obama in the driver's seat and not Clinton. 

       

 

 

Josh Marshall on TPM TV has stated that Obama is considering to keep Gates for one more year due to the influence of Brent Scrowcroft. A lot Democrats are angry at Obama for wanting to  keeping Gates, but if it means having a Secretary of State Hagel than I'm all for Obama listening to the advice of Brent Scrowcroft. Some progressives want Obama to pick Holbrooke as Secretary of State and reject Hagel because the former is a Democrat while the later is a Republican. Will progressives actually feel comfortable with Holbrooke's hawkishness towards Russia and Iran. Also how will Holbrooke's policies be different from the current neo-Conservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. Hagel's foreign policy would mark are sharp shift with its realist emphasis on diplomacy and working with allies. Hagel symbolizes change while Holbrooke is just the same product but in a different package.

There is one person that Obama really should not consider as Secretary of State and that is Richard Holbrooke.  Holbrooke was just as bellicoise as John McCain during the Russian conflict witrh Georgia. Holbrooke with his hardline attitude toward Russia will only alienate Western European countries such as France and Germany. Moreover, Holbrooke will continue the hardline stance against Iran that could likely lead to conflict. Also Holbrooke will not be considered an neutral particpant in any Israeli-Palestinain conflict due to his past association with the Clinton peace process which was led by Dennis Ross, whom many in the Arab world believe to have a strong pro-Israeli bias. Finally Holbrooke supported the Bush administration during the run up to the Second Iraq, and I personally believe that says a lot about his judgement. Obama needs to make clean break with either Susan Rice or Chuck Hagel as Secretary of State instead of attaching himself to Clinton's failed foreign policy in the Middle East and Russia which is best symbolized by Richard Holbrooke.