HuffPo: "Obama Advisers Concerned By Gates Decision -- 'Makes Them Look Wimpy'"

Here we go again. This time from the Huffington Post.

There is an article in the Politics Section of the Huffington Post entitled: "Obama Advisers Concerned By Gates Decision -- 'Makes Them Look Wimpy'"

It links to an article in The New York Times, called: "Obama Plans to Retain Gates at Defense Department"

Scanning the article, we see the following:

“From our point of view, it looks pretty damn good because of continuity and stability,” said an Obama adviser, who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. “And I don’t think there are any ideological problems.”

The point of the article was to announce Gates' retention. It was not a piece about Obama advisers complaining about the retention; despite what Huffington Post seems to think. But, to be fair:

In deciding to ask Mr. Gates to stay, Mr. Obama put aside concerns that he would send a jarring signal after a political campaign in which he made opposition to the war his signature issue in the early days. Some Democrats who have advised his campaign quietly complained that he was undercutting his own message and risked alienating war critics who formed his initial base of support, especially after tapping his primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for secretary of state.

But advisers argued that Mr. Gates was a practical public servant who was also interested in drawing down troops in Iraq when conditions allow.

The key paragraph, at least in Huffington Post's mind, is as follows:

But it also stirred a debate inside Mr. Obama’s circles, where some advisers worried that the decision to turn to a Republican appointee — something President Bill Clinton did in naming William S. Cohen to the defense post in 1997 — would reinforce the notion that Democrats could not manage the military. “It makes them look like they’re too wimpy to be trusted to run the building,” said one adviser who asked not to be named.

Keeping Mr. Gates after a polarizing campaign on the war also seemed incongruous to some. “I really can’t begin to understand from a political point of view how Barack Obama, a person who got the nomination because he ran against the Iraq war, can keep around the guy who’s been in charge of it for the last two years,” said Loren B. Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a research organization.

The Lexington Institute is something I've never heard of. This is from it's mission statement:

It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.

Uhhh, sounds fairly conservative to me. At least, they resemble the bunch who brought us into this War in Iraq. I can't imagine any of these guys are close to the Obama Campaign. Maybe they are, but since they're not identified as such in the NYT Piece, I kinda doubt it. So I'm left to wonder why the New York Times is going to them for quotes.