When considering a candidate, don't lose sight on their advisers.

So far Obama seems to have escaped overly intense scrutiny on his stance on specific issues. His advisors have essentially escaped being known to the majority of Americans. Here are some things to keep in mind and consider carefully, specifically in the area of national security.

Focus on key advisers--as well as disturbing initiatives suggested by the candidate--challenges the assumption that Obama would pursue a foreign policy rooted in that bipartisan mainstream. In an abrasive article in the American Thinker, Ed Lasky found a "consistent theme running through Barack Obama's career, i.e., his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates." Obama has appointed numerous advisers fitting this description (and one who does not). The most disturbing is Robert Malley, a Clinton foreign policy aide who became a propagandist for Hamas. Malley has concocted a revisionist history of President Clinton's peace efforts at Camp David, co-authored with Arafat henchman Hussein Agha, which exculpates Arafat from blame for the collapse of those efforts and the ensuing massive bloodshed. Malley's account --published in the erudite but arch-left New York Review of Books, which used to proclaim that the Soviets should not be resisted-- has been repudiated by key participants including Clinton , Dennis Ross and Ehud Barak.

Malley was not content to publish pro-terrorist views under his own co-byline. He leaked supposed inside accounts, based on his government service, to Deborah Sontag, a New York Times reporter notorious for her antipathy to the military forces of democratic countries. Sontag published a series of articles quoting anonymous sources as confirming that Arafat was a peacemaker. The Times thus joined al-Jazeera among the few newspapers portraying Arafat in this benign light. In recent weeks, Sontag published front-page articles in the Times portraying returning U.S. combat soldiers as deranged murderers. Even the Times public editor was compelled to admit in print on January 27 that Sonntag's statistics were false. What kind of advice would Malley offer President Obama? Based on his work to date, Malley would advise that Hamas and Hezbollah are democratic reformers who should not be resisted.

Malley is not the only prickly pear in Obama's basket. Zbigniew Brezinski has introduced Obama at campaign events and is listed as an important foreign policy advisor. When Brezinski advised Jimmy Carter, the United States first facilitated theocratic rule in Iran by failing to support our ally, the Shah, and then dithered helplessly when Iran committed the outrage of kidnapping our diplomats (which was terminated only when Ronald Reagan took office). Brezinski's advice to Carter helped build Iran into a major threat to peace. Was it due to Brezinski's advice that Obama recently disagreed with most of his Senate colleagues on designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards--who promote murder throughout the world including attacks on U.S. forces--as terrorists? Even New Republic Editor Martin Peretz, an Obama supporter, says "I get the shudders" when contemplating Brzezinski and Malley as presidential advisers.

The Tentacles of Soros

The problematic tycoon George Soros shrewdly uses legal loopholes and rings of donors to massively fund Obama. Soros is known to employ financial clout as a weapon; he once nearly broke the Bank of England speculating on the pound. Soros wants to break the America-Israel alliance and cede U.S. sovereignty to international organizations financed by him. Obama sometimes endorses reliance on international institutions in foreign affairs; many of these institutions have manifest hatred toward the U.S. and Israel. When Soros recently demanded concessions to Hamas--a group which calls for the destruction of Israel--key Democrats protested; an Obama spokesman spoke mildly of disagreement on this issue. Shortly afterwards, Obama and Soros appeared together at a fundraiser. Soros insists on getting a return on money he spends.

There are many more questionable advisers. We will name only one, Susan Rice. When John Kerry was forced to concede that his suggestion of James Baker and Jimmy Carter, two enemies of Israel, as Middle East emissaries was a bad idea, he blamed "staff." As Lasky notes, "His staff was Susan Rice." The point should be obvious by now. From this cabal of Arabists, Obama is and will be counseled to radically tilt American policy to favor terrorist forces and abandon the bipartisan mainstream followed during the Clinton and Bush administrations. To comfort those apprehensive about his advisers, Obama recently said he would receive advice from Ambassador Dennis Ross, a widely respected diplomat who served in major positions in both administrations. But Ross's role has not been clarified, and his moderate views are massively under-represented among the advisers chosen by Obama.

Two Dissonant Senators

Counting advisers is not the only concern of those who fear that Obama might radically revamp American policy. When asked in a recent Newsweek interview which Republicans he might appoint to his Cabinet, Obama named Senators Lugar (Ind.) and Hagel (Ia.). He could not have picked two politicians more radically estranged from the congressional consensus. E.g., When the Senate voted 96-2 to help deny Iran and Libya money for supporting terror or acquiring WMDs, these two constituted the opposition; when 87 Senators signed a joint letter urging that Arafat be denied meetings with top U.S. officials, these two refused to sign; when the Senate voted 88-10 to ban U.S. imports of Iraqi oil until Iraq stopped paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, these two were among the nay-sayers. As the New York Sun , which previously had urged giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on his Mideast policy, recently commented:

"Either Mr. Obama doesn't know for what Messrs. Luger and Hagel stand, or he does know it and embraces it, in which case he spells trouble for the cause of our country in this war and for those Americans who stand with the state of Israel."

On occasion, Obama has made remarks suggesting he sides with the most venomous advisers. E.g., at an anti-war rally, he castigated "the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair weekend warriors in the administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throat." Perle never served in the Bush administration. Obama singled out two Jews, while ignoring Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld who outranked Under-Secretary Wolfowitz. At least two persons said to be close to Obama have suggested he wants to address radical foreign policy changes after he is elected. This would make him a stealth candidate. Obama's proposal for a summit conference with all Muslim nations to hear "their grievances" would hand the initiative to those whose priorities include abolishing Israel and imposing Sharia law in the West.

Clarity Urgently Needed

The interminable debates confirmed that we know more than we want to about the Clintons. But we do not know nearly enough about Obama. The concerns addressed above do not prove that he is intent on abandoning the bipartisan consensus supporting our special relationship with Israel. But they detect enough smoke to warrant his addressing these concerns, not by recycling the generalities of his fine AIPAC speech (which I heard and applauded) , but by clearly stating how he intends to utilize these advisers and their clearly defined views.