Who’s got whose back?

Photo by Charles Dharapak/AP

Obama is rolling out many of his cabinet picks, and while the media are trying to figure out what they signal, the loudest buzz heard right now is over the gamble he took with Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy and national security appointments – Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Robert Gates as defence secretary and James Jones as national security adviser – have won praise from the moderate centre of the Democratic party and even from many Republicans. So far, it is mainly those on the left of the Democratic party who are expressing doubts.

As well they might. They campaigned for Mr Obama this year believing him to represent – in foreign policy above all – a clear alternative to Mrs Clinton, to the administration of George W. Bush (in which Mr Gates currently serves as defence secretary), and to John McCain (with whom Mr Jones, a former commandant of the marines, appeared during the campaign). Mr Obama has chosen a centrist if not centre-right team which, whatever its merits, calls into question the posture he adopted during the campaign. Has Mr Obama been subverted even before taking office?

Depends on who’s defining subversion. Obama’s transition team claims he is acting out of “pragmatism”.

For the moment, therefore, the main question to ask of these appointments is not about Mr Obama’s foreign-policy aims, but whether he has chosen competent and effective lieutenants.

Mr Gates and Mr Jones arouse little concern on this score, but the same cannot be said of Mrs Clinton.

And coming to the job with the “irrepressible” Bill Clinton makes her, say the FT editors, makes her a risk that is “difficult to justify.”

However, others are very pleased. Last night, Jay Leno rejoiced on behalf of all late-night comedians that the Clintons will be back for at least four more years.