Democratic officials said Obama had selected Panetta for his managerial skills, his bipartisan standing, and the foreign policy and budget experience he gained under President Clinton. Some Democrats expressed support for the choice, with Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, describing him as “one of the finest public servants I have ever served with... since he left the White House.” But Panetta, 70, was also described as an unusual choice to head the CIA.

The news was disclosed by Democratic officials, and neither Obama nor his office has commented publicly .

Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feinstein, who would oversee confirmation hearing for Panetta said, “My position has been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said. Another Democrat, Senator John D Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares her concerns.

The skepticism might be an obstacle to the nomination of Panetta, who would succeed Michael V Hayden, a former Air Force general with decades of intelligence experience.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and member of the Intelligence Committee, called Panetta a “strong choice” who “has the skills to usher in a new era of accountability at the nation’s premier intelligence agency.” The choice of Panetta reflects the difficulty Obama encountered in finding a candidate capable of taking charge of the agency but is not tied to the interrogation program run by CIA under President Bush.

As President Clinton’s chief of staff, Panetta attended intelligence briefing, and has a reputation as a skilled manager and power broker. But he has little direct intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, Panetta would take control of the agency responsible for hunting leaders of Al Qaeda.

An early test in his tenure would be to determine the future of the agency’s interrogation program. “Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives ..... and still be true to our values,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly last year. “But that is a false compromise.” But some experts called the selection underwhelming. “It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California.