Ignore speculation about Obama aides

After the euphoria of election night what has been really extraordinary is watching the mood swings gripping some people in the wake of Barack Obama's victory. Why the sudden descent into cynicism and, occasionally, despair? It bears repeating: Obama has barely begun forming his administration, let alone taken office.

As I write this only a handful of presidential appointments have been announced and transition officials have indulged in no public speculation about possible appointments. Obama's campaign was noteworthy for the degree to which it succeeded in keeping internal debates out of the public eye. The transition, so far, has followed the same pattern. The widely published lists of people allegedly being considered for cabinet positions represent little more than Washington gossip distilled into conventional wisdom. We are in a situation where those who speak with reporters (invariably on the condition that their names not be published) rarely know anything about the transition's inner workings, while those who are privy to the decision-making process are not talking.

When phoned by a reporter on deadline, however, few Washington movers and shakers like to admit that they are not really part of the transition inner circle. Asked who appears to be the leading candidate for secretary of whatever, it is far easier to repeat what you read in that morning's newspaper, replying 'Well, I'm hearing that so-and-so is the leading candidate'. Reporters are not stupid. They know the sources are doing little more than repeating gossip. But under pressure to generate new stories every day they are generally more than willing to play their part in this charade.

In short, ignore speculation. Wait. Watch. See what happens. If you are the sort of person who feels the need to soak up every last tidbit of American political news, do so in the knowledge that most of what you are reading at the moment represents little more than guesswork.

Next, when the president-elect does announce members of his new team, try to give him - and them - the benefit of the doubt. As extraordinary as this may seem, an individual's positions on Middle East issues are not always the first thing an American politician thinks of when picking someone for a job.

Case in point: soon-to-be White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Because Emanuel is Jewish, because he spent time as a civilian volunteer with Israel's military during the Gulf War and because during his brief career in Congress he has been a supporter of Israel, many observers in the Arab World seem to be assume his appointment is an ominous sign for the Obama administration's relations with the region.

I have never met Emanuel, but have no reason to think his appointment is a sign of good things or bad where America's relations with the Arabs are concerned. As an aide to Bill Clinton and, later, a member of the House of Representatives, his concerns have been mainly party politics and domestic policy. Does he have views on major Middle East issues? Probably. But you would be hard-pressed to figure them out from his political career to date.

Yes, there was that Israeli newspaper interview in which his father said, "Obviously he'll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to be mopping floors at the White House."

Apology

Less widely noted, however, was the subsequent phone call Congressman Emanuel made to the head of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to apologise for his father's remarks and offer to meet with the group's leaders. Even had he not done this, is it really fair to assume the congressman shares his father's views? Surely one of the lessons we have all learned from the Bush family is that a son cannot be assumed to share his father's political views, or skill.

This is not to say that the background of people appointed to high office does not matter. But the deciding factor - the thing that drives every American administration - is the person at the top. In the final analysis a president's character is far more important than who his aides worked for prior to signing on with the new administration.

Gordon Robison is a journalist and consultant based in Burlington, Vermont. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades, including assignments in Baghdad for both CNN and Fox News.