Barack Obama has yet to be sworn in as president of the United States of America, but his team is already surrounded by controversy, giving many the impression that the confirmation hearings of some of his nominees for senior posts in his administration may go less smooth than Obama hoped. 

First and foremost, there is the controversy surrounding Obama’s choice for Secretary of Commerce Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor and early supporter of Obama despite his long standing alliance with Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

Richardson is investigated for possible involvement in a pay-to-play scheme similar to the one that brought Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich down (or almost down since he is still in office despite increased opposition). Richardson received support from a company who then got rewarded for its financial support by a major, more than $1 billion deal with the state of New Mexico. A grand jury is now investigating whether a pay-to-play scheme was involved: did Richardson or other senior members of his administration promise companies that supported him financially that they would reap the benefits if he would win the gubernatorial elections?

The controversy finally forced Richardson to withdraw his candidacy for commerce secretary. In less flattering words, one could state that Obama et al. threw Richardson under the bus for fear of a major controversy early in an Obama administration. 

The New Mexico governor probably interpreted the events as such since he and his closest aides started a PR and media offensive against Team Obama one day after the forced withdrawal while Team Obama does everything in its power to put all the blame for the controversy on Richardson. ”This was out there, and he told them,” said a senior Richardson aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. “I feel that they just missed the boat on it. The FBI or the campaign or something. I don’t think it’s fair that this is being portrayed as him holding anything back.”

As said, Team Obama has a slightly different opinion. The Washington Post reports, for instance, that ‘[s]ources within the transition and the Justice Department said that Richardson had played down the importance of the probe and did not reveal that his office and staff could be at risk. The seriousness of the matter became apparent after the FBI began its own background check on Dec. 2.’ The pro-Obama Politico adds that Richardson certainly held some relevant information back, but that Team Obama did a horrible job vetting him nonetheless. 

Conclusion: Team Obama is to a very large degree for this major controversy.

Another controversy surrounding the president-elect is his announcement that Leon Panetta, former Congressman and Clinton aide, will be director of the CIA in an Obama administration. Although some responded by arguing that Panetta is a competent manager who knows his way around Washington, most commentators and politicians responded critical arguing that Panetta lacks necessary experience in the intel world. A director of the CIA, these critics argue, should not only know his way around D.C. and be a competent manager, he should also understand the intelligence world. 

Interestingly enough, the ones responding most angrily and critically to Panetta’s nomination were Democratic leaders such as Dianne Feinstein, who will head an influential and powerful Senate intelligence committee. She responded to the news of Panetta’s nomination by saying that she knew nothing about him and that she was not willing to let someone with no direct experience in the intelligence world head the nation’s chief intelligence agency. 

Shortly after Feinstein responded furiously journalists started wondering whether she or any other prominent members of Senate intelligence committees were informed by Team Obama about the Panetta pick. The conclusion: no they were not. As with the controversy surrounding Richardson, Team Obama did not what it should have done. Strike 2; once again a controversy brought to you by Obama himself.

The third major controversy surrounding the man who has to be sworn in to the highest office of the nation is that of Roland Burris. Burris was selected by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to replace Obama in the U.S. Senate. Since Obama is a black man, and his seat the only seat in Senate held by an African American, many considered it prudent for Blagojevich (or others) to nominate a qualified black man for the job. 

Since Blagojevich is accused of involvement in a pay-to-play scheme surrounding the vacant Senate seat, however, many Democrats including the president-elect himself condemned Blagojevich’s decision to appoint someone to the seat. Obama and other leading Democrats made clear that they did not want Burris to be seated. At the same time, constitutional (and other legal) scholars said that there is little to no room for anyone to prevent Burris from being seated. If the latter goes to court, he will almost certainly win. 

Conclusion: Obama’s support for a movement which wants to prevent Burris from being seated is quite unwise both politically and legally. Firstly, there is no way that the Senate or anyone can truly prevent Burris from taking the seat (eventually) and, secondly, Team Obama’s statements drew the president-elect more into this controversy then he already was. Strike three, you’re out.

That is not all, however. There is also a strike four: Governor Blagojevich himself. As said, Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder. Team Obama initially remained quiet about the controversy, then agreed that it had “some contact” with the government about the seat but was eventually forced to admit that it had presented the governor with a list of “acceptable candidates” and that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, spoke to Blagojevich’s office on six or seven separate occasions. The Blagojevich scandal is the fourth strike not because Obama may have been involved in the pay-to-play scheme but because he was not open about his team’s contacts with the governor. 

The above four controversies give on the distinct impression that Team Obama may not be as political savvy as many thought. A president will deal with crisis after crisis, even when things are good. The way the team handled the above controversies do not instill a great deal of confidence in Obama’s crisis management skills.