Does Obama need to exercise more control over his advisers? (John Brennan-Telecom Immunity)

[McCamy Taylor]

It is good for a candidate to have private discussions with his advisers about all possible strategies, however it is not good for a candidate to have rogue advisers tell reporters in the middle of the Democratic primary that they support positions that are at odds with the stance that most Democrats take. That kind of rhetoric should be saved for the general election. I also question whether it is good policy for any candidate to have staffers talking too freely to the press. We all remember the pr problems that Reagan encountered with his cabinet gone wild---before Nancy put her foot down. Nancy was the one that was responsible for turning Reagan into a beloved president, not Ronnie himself.

The "monster" episode is another example of an adviser who was not thinking about her candidate's best interest. The Democratic base does not like a bully. That word is almost as bad the one that begins with B and rhymes with Witch that the Republicans like to use.

The public needs to know that Obama is in charge. I realize that his image is that of a free spirited, youthful leader, but every leader has to set boundaries.

Here is what I am talking about.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/07/obama-brennan/

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues.

One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity:

Here is the interview:

http://www.shaneharris.net/blog/2008/03/interview-john-brennan.html

Q: Assess the debate in Congress and with the administration over reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Why has it come to this point where politics has arguably pulled things off the rails?

Brennan: There is this great debate over whether or not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the government after 9/11. I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that's important. And I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that's the right thing to do. I do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately. Mike McConnell, I think, did a very good job trying to articulate the distinctions between the old FISA law, the FISA understanding under the Protect America Act, and then the House and Senate versions.

ABC has Obama's rebuttal at the end of an article about Brennan's position:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/03/intel-adviser-b.html

Last month, Obama voted to strip language in an intelligence bill that would have granted to Verizon, AT&T and other companies the immunity Brennan favored. The firms have been identified in lawsuits as having cooperated with a National Security Agency program to intercept phone calls and other communications data within the United States.

What does Obama think? "Sen. Obama welcomes a variety of views, but his position on FISA is clear. He and Brennan differ," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Obama's rebuttal should have been the headline. Obviously, he does not want to criticize his adviser, John Brennan. But on the other hand, when he lets the press report that he is now being advised to give the telecoms immunity and when he does not come out with a strong rebuttal, he gives Democrats the impression that he is considering the immunity option. Or worse, that he is triangulating.

The worst possibility is that GOPers will use it this fall to call him a "flip-flopper." Conservatives have already begun to pick up the topic.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977280790

http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2008/03/assessing-barack-obama.html

This is the trap that a candidate can fall into when he or she does not keep control of advisers.It is better in the long run to monitor what they say than it is to let them say whatever they want, until they finally say something unpardonable. Then, they have to resign or be fired, which leaves an angry ex-staffer out there with intimate knowledge of the campaign's strategy.