Obama aide must choose

Obama aide must choose

Dallas Morning News: Plenty of presidential campaigns have been embarrassed by aides with controversial pasts. Candidates often must choose between defending the aide and doing what’s best for the campaign. This might be such a moment for Barack Obama and his senior foreign policy adviser, Gregory Craig.

Craig is a first-class lawyer who defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment. His long list of prominent clients includes the Panamanian government after the U.S. military ousted dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989. Craig also represented a Noriega supporter, former Panamanian President Ernesto Perez Balladares, after he was banned from U.S. travel.

Now he is defending Pedro Miguel Gonzalez, another Noriega loyalist and the president of Panama’s legislature. Gonzalez is a fugitive under federal indictment for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernandez Laporte on the eve of President George H.W. Bush’s visit to Panama in 1992. Though Gonzalez denies involvement, significant FBI evidence suggests otherwise.

He is a harsh U.S. critic. The murder indictment, combined with Gonzalez’s leadership position, is hindering bilateral relations and causing a new U.S.-Panama free trade accord to stall in the Senate, where Obama holds office.

The wrong lawyer

If ever a defendant needed a well-placed and influential lawyer like Gregory Craig, it is Gonzalez — but not while Craig holds a senior position in Obama’s presidential campaign. (Craig did not respond to our interview request.)

We’ve cited Obama’s judgment and credibility as reasons he deserves the Democratic nomination. Obama has made clear that the White House is no place for influence-peddlers and special interests. “I will make it absolutely clear that working in an Obama administration is not about serving your former employer, your future employer or your bank account,” he said in June.

This is one instance where he needs to show presidential decisiveness by asking Craig to choose between the campaign and involvement in a legal case where hot-button bilateral issues — and a Senate vote — hang in the balance.