Yes, I know what the Guardian reported late yesterday, but I tend to be skeptical about British newspaper reporting on U.S. political developments.

Um. Why? Can you name one US paper that has had more reliable coverage than the Guardian (not greater volume of US government coverage, but better accuracy)?

Or is this just an irrational preference for the domestic media?

Here, here! I find myself a little bit conflicted over the nomination myself, only because they did seem SO at odds on some critical foreign policy issues during the primaries.

But Hillary has some exceptional qualifications for this post, and the idea of a Lincolnesque 'Team of Rivals' appeals to me on many levels.

We've seen what 8 years of a shielded Presidency can do, following the path of rigid ideologues interested in no ideas outside their own. That the newly-minted President-Elect would desire counsel from sources outside his own inner circle seems a great big step in the right direction to me.

The Secretary is also responsible for overseeing the management of thousands of State Department employees. If Clinton's campaign is indicative of her management skills then she may not be the best choice to take over an already troubled and demoralized Department.

But Hillary has some exceptional qualifications for this post

Like what? It seems to me there is a reason she told the stories of Tuzla, Macedonia and Ireland several times. When her campaign advisors couldn't answer the question of how she is prepared for the 3AM phone call, it was because she really doesn't have exceptional qualifications.

I trust Hillary Clinton a lot less than I did a year ago, but on the other hand I trust Obama's ability to effectively manage his subordinates a lot more. If Obama thinks his administration can handle Clinton in a high-level position, then I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

I think her wonkiness would best be put to use elsewhere. I'd really like to see her as some sort of Health Care Czar, or the head of DHHS.

Uh, Steve....?

Here's you today:

I haven't had too much to say about the prospect of Hillary Clinton joining the Obama administration as Secretary of State, in part because I'm inclined to take a wait-and-see attitude.

Here's you 5 days ago:

From where I sit, Hillary Clinton would be a fine choice. Between her Senate work and time as First Lady, Clinton has established international respect and credibility, and she's on a first-name basis with leaders around the world.

What's wrong with Hillary as Secretary of State? Nothing, as long as you believe that Obama ran on a platform of putting politics first and policy second. Everything if you bought into his rhetoric that we need to put partisan divisions aside and choose the best people for the job despite their political affiliation.

Maybe it's just me, but I kind'a had the feeling we just spent two years deciding who would be the best President, and that a big part of that conversation was who would be the best person to reclaim our international standing and respect. Hillary Clinton played the experience card and was laughed out of the room -- particularly after lying quite baldly about having been shot at in Kosovo. Moreover, most of her international experience had nothing to do with actual diplomacy, but involved ceremonial visits, no matter how her supporters spin them. Now all of a sudden we're supposed to think that she's emminently qualified to go from country to country, impressing foreign leaders with her knowledge and diplomatic skill?

The truth is this is pure politics, and it's too clever by half. The Clintons are all about the Clintons, Bill Clinton is a serial liar, and putting them in charge of America's foreign policy only undermines many of the basic arguments that Obama made during the campaign. I understand that campaigns are one thing and governing another, but you've taken Joe Lieberman to task for his behavior in this past cycle, and yet you're perfectly willing to let Obama and Hillary off the hook for their own hypocrisy.

Not me. If you're going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Giving Hillary Clinton Secretary of State is unnecessary. It is a political move, it is political appeasement, and it is going to bite Barack Obama in the ass. He's not even in office yet, and he's undermining his own mandate and credibility. And who's involved in that? The Clintons.

Well, lets not compare this to the current veep and Halliburton, or something.

I voted for Obama partly because I want to see the end of the Clinton era. No matter how good it was compared to the Bush era, it is time to put it behind us. We need a clean break with the past, particularly the Clinton-bashing of that time. Obama has everything to lose by making Hillary a part of his cabinet.

I still thinkg Clinton should stay in the Senate, prefferablely as Majority Leader, where she can take a leading role in guiding health care policy and shepparding Obama's legislative agenda through the congressional minefield. Clinton is a class-A policy wonk (I mean that in the nicest terms) and her talents would be best best put to use in that regard.

I also have to echo what some other people have said about why SoS. Hilary Clinton is not known as a foreign policy guru. She took no significant position in foreign policy during her husband's adminstration (phantom bullets or not). Yes she has a strong global strature, but that is largely the glow off of her husband's high global approval ratings.

Add to that she did become something of a working class populist during the later stages of the campaign and has repeatedly stated that health care, jobs and helping the working class are her top priorites. How does going to State help with those areas?

Of course Sen. Clinton is a team player. She voted for the invasion of Iraq to be on W. Bush's team and she will encourage Obama to nuke Iran for the Israeli team.

This group thinks that "team players" include Lieberman, as Obama seems to have pushed to have him keep his gig.

Yeah, real team players you've hired there...

Keep your friends close.Your enemies closer. Never trust either one.

Can't Obama just make Hillary Secretary of STFU & GA?

(Shut the fuck up and go away)

I predict the usual Clinton pattern of brilliance and competence marred by the inclination to fight the wrong fight at the wrong time.
There will be a peaceful Israel and Palestine but, somehow, we will end up in a war with Canada.

One of the big reasons I was attracted to Obama was the clean break with the last 20 years and now he's plunging us right back into it. I'm for powerful appointments seeing the fractured nature of the government but will Hillary really alleviate problems and fix a broken State Dept.?

If she's told "here's the job don't come back until you have a middle east peace deal.." then it might be worth it.

My biggest fear is she'll stab him in the back and run in 2012 on the platform that she was righ in 08 to question his foreign policy cred. She's a Clinton afterall.

Hillary for Senate Majority Leader!

Now, when I go to Joe for that crucial 60th vote, I can say, "Remember how you spoke at the GOP convention and refused to investigate Katrina? You've strayed before, but remember: I still love you. I LOVE you, Joe. I. LOVE. YOU. And I respect your decision either way. I'm not pressuring you, am I?"

I'd rather have Lieberman inside the tent pissing in.

I had to chuckle at the idea of any confirmation difficulties.

Really? Lets review: Joe Lieberman speaks at the RNC, campaigns for McCain, and moreover campaigns for several Republican Senate races, and is "confirmed" as chair of Homeland Security.

HRC campaigns extensively for Obama and raises money for Democratic Senate races (I just got another solicitation for Franken from HillPAC yesterday). And she is going to get treated worse than JoeLie? Seriously?

Clinton "going rogue" is NOT insane.

Merely unlikely.

Going rogue would jeopardize her success in the job. Foreign policy experience like SoS would be a rather good primer to a 2nd presidential run in 2016. If she does particularly well at it, heck, I might even start top like her,.

Fighting with the guy who decides foreign policy is exceptionally unproductive and I;'d expect Clinton to avoid conflict anytime she could. As would he. I'd sooner see them putting their heads together and coming up with some pretty remarkable new ideas.

That assumes she wants the job.
She'd DLC, she may think having a Senate post is much better for fundraising and figures getting it over the internet 10, 20 bucks at a time is beneath her dignity.

Wait and see, right?

And she is going to get treated worse than JoeLie? Seriously? zeitgeist

The Dems will confirm whomever Obama ultimately nominates. It's the Republicans who will have fun coming up with worst case scenarios.

I assumed that was in part the response, but then the Repubs (a) have said a million nice things about HRC trying to undermine Obama and (b) they also just let one of their own - a felon - off the hook today.

No, I don't see any way the Senate could, with a straight face, question Clinton.

The likes of Maureen Dowd have been living in a parallel universe for so long that it's probably too late for them ever to get back. So in their world, they will continue to write their script about Hillary undermining Obama and "going rogue," no matter what may actually be happening. Let's just review our Mowdy Doody's track record as a prophet, shall we?

First, she said Obama couldn't possibly win the primaries because he wasn't tough enough to fight back against Hillary Clinton's attacks. Oops.

Then, Obama was a fool to give Hillary and Bill Clinton speaking slots at the DNC; they would obviously use it to steal the spotlight and make the convention all about them. Oops -- they both gave gracious speeches, threw their support strongly to Obama and then stepped aside to let him and his family have the limelight.

Then, the PUMAs who had supported Hillary were going to go on harboring a bitter grudge, and Obama would get "killed" with women voters. Ooops -- he got about 56% of the female vote.

Then, the Clintons were going to secretly conspire with McCain to defeat Obama so that Hillary could run in '12. Oops -- Hillary hit the trail and supported Obama.

Then, Sarah Palin was going to "field dress Obama like a moose," and sail into Washington with McCain, to be his annointed successor on the '12 ticket. (McCain of course would retire after one term, because of his age, just the way all the Serious Pundits told us Reagan would do). And it would be Bitch Vs. Bitch in the '12 election. Dowd was so eager for it she was practically drooling on herself. Oops.

And now that she's been wrong about every single one of her predictions, she's squawking about how a Clinton position in the cabinet will be a disaster for Obama. What's the likelihood of that happening? Probably about the same as the likelihood of Dowd ever, ever admitting she was wrong about any of her predictions so far.

Exactly what differences are there in foreign policy objectives here?

There is a huge difference between Democrats and the Warmonger faction in the GOP. But between Democrats the differences are all tactics and approaches, not differences in goals.

Even the question of Israel comes in that frame. Clinton is assumed to support Bill's policies, but as we know there is serious reason to doubt Bill supports Bill's policies, they were compromises. In fact Hillary was often used to signal that there might be more than one point of view.

Will Hillary oppose normalizing relations with Cuba? I very much doubt it.

Hillary's perceived 'independence' might well suit Obama just fine. Give him some room for deniability.

And Obama could replace her for whatever reason. None of these choices are locked in, if he makes an error, it can be corrected.

The problem with Hillary is she is a Clinton and a woman. The 24/7 media wants this bad, endless Clinton non-sense is how most of them got their start and they would love to go back to their roots.

But is that reason enough to pass her by, no way, she's a rock star with a a great international reputation and strong liberal philosophies. I can think of anyone better for the job, but the Bill conflicts of interest are going to be a real stumbling block.

Can someone explain to me why HRC is such a great pick for State. I still don't see it. Aside from dodging sniper fire in Kosovo, what has she done the demonstrates international relations bonafides? Why must the secratary of state be a politician? They're some of the dumbest people in the country.

Can it be the case that this country cannot produce a smart, honest, multilingual person who specializes in foreign relations?

I agree that the idea that Hillary Clinton might go 'rogue'... is just absurd.

Who has HRC ever taken orders from? This isn't Colin Powell, the loyal soldier. I'm not sure she will go off on her own, I just don't see her carrying out someone else's policies when she doesn't agree with them.

WTF is up with all of this hand wringing about the Clinton's international ties?

Haven't we had 8 long years in which the son of an ex-president was installed in the White House? A president with extensive business relationships to the bin Laden family? A president who was a director of the Carlyle Group? And whose father was an adviser to same? And only fringe fatty Michael Moore was bothered by it.

Makes me want to shoot myself in the face.

. . . she will encourage Obama to nuke Iran for the Israeli team.

Obama has Rahm Emanuel for that.

Can't you Hillary Haters just let it go?

Apparently not . . . sigh.

Poor Bill. All the man wants to do is play golf, chase women, hang out with his rich friends, and rest on his laurels which are looking better day by day. But along comes Hillary, and her ambition, sucking him back into Washington and back into the spotlight. Man can't catch a break.

Obama's supporters are still serving up divisive talking points as if people care.

Re: "Hillary Clinton played the experience card and was laughed out of the room..."

Hillary Clinton won 18 million votes from Democrats... about the same as Barack Obama.
In my dictionary, only a robot would call that "being laughed out of the room."

One of the reasons I generally hate Democrats is because the rest of us have to constantly watch them eat each other alive publicly, even when they are in power.

DEMOCRATS serving DEMOCRAT Barack Obama in his Cabinet have the nutroots up in arms!
Whew.

I give both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton a lot of credit for being the grown-ups here. This election was a repudiation of George W. Bush's ideas, not Hillary Clinton's.

Do Obama's supporters have NO concept regarding working as a TEAM in an effort to help our nation now?????

If so, you humiliate the message of unity and hope and courageous leadership from President-elect Obama that won him this election.

So, for the sake of your candidate...
Go away.

Assuming that Obama offered her the SoS position and assuming that she accepts, why is her husband's fund-raising and other financial ties to other countries an obstacle for her appointment to this cabinet position but not an obstacle to her being president?

dmichael -

different bosses. if Bill was a known quantity and the public decided it liked enough things about her to live with Bill's baggage, that is the right of the governed to make that choice.

Obama, on the other hand, can set different standards.

and in the end, it apparently was an obstacle: she isn't president. i heartily believe Bill is a big part of explaining why she isn't.

HRC would reveal herself to be an idiot if she were to leave the senate.

in the senate, her future[with all its perqs] is secure as long as the ny electorate preserves her incumbency.

in the senate, she would not have to kowtow.

as sos, she would be subject to the whim of the new boss.

offering the sos job might be like a stunt often used by corporations who want to remove an irritant who works for another related entity[i.e., you offer the irritant a great job, a higher salary? in your entity. sometime after that offer is accepted, and the irritant enters into your employ, you terminate].

i think HRC needs to remain unshackled to obombya.

I think the hold-up is probably the Clinton's difficulty getting past the first page, perhaps the first question, of the 7-page questionaire.

Have you ever pissed-off President-elect Obama?

Wouldn't you just love to read the answers when it's done?