Really, really nice post.
I think the good points outweigh the bad overall, and I think the POTUS has some influence on how far "traditionalists" are willing to push it.

Given the tragic ineptitude and imperial arrogance of the last 8 years, worrying that Clinton's policy staff won't be quite liberal enough seems like small potatoes to me.

I agree, its a great post Steve. It seems there is a good deal of ambivalence out there. I'm on the fence.

She sure is a strong personality. Yes, bright and capable. And whatever is decided, it will likely be fine.

I just hope her stance doesn't 'drown out' or otherwise undermine Obama's more progressive and even pacifist vision.

Someone today (name?) on MSNBC aptly called this not a team of rivals, but more like a team of elephants! Maybe that's a good thing..I just don't know.

Wait, he's naming Hillary Clinton as secretary of state?

Well crap. I guess I was confused. I thought we wsere talking about George Clinton.

MSNBC just had a chyron saying NBC has confirmed Obama will nominate her after Thanksgiving.

I think it will be interesting to see who gets the gravy embassies like italy, France and Belgium. These often go to political donors, but somehow I don't picture Obama and Clinton sitting around and discussing whose donors get first dibs. And we'd better not be hearing about Ambassador Lady Baroness de Rothchild. :)

My only real concern with Clinton is the personnel issue -- given how she staffed her campaign, I hope she's willing to take outside advice on hiring for the State Department. Other than that, I think she'd be a good choice.

Okay, I give up.

If this blog has actually become part of the Hillary Clinton public relations machine, who am I to stand in the way?

On the subject of your post, a simple point. If Condi Rice can be Secretary of State, then anyone can be Secretary of State. Yes, Hillary could do better -- and I hope she does if she's not too busy to accept the offer -- but at the very least a floor has been set that I think she can comfortably meet.

Too, it's not like Hillary will actually be able to do anything without Obama's consent. She can try to make progress, but when it comes to signing treaties, it'll be the President calling the shots. She might bring in a bunch of retread losers to work for her, but the sum of them isn't going to drive the Obama train off the tracks.

Or, more to the point, if it looks like they are, they'll all just get fired. Which is the number one reason why I think Hillary may back away from the job. As a Senator from NY, she's her own boss. As Secretary of State, she has to answer to someone else. And I don't think she likes answering to anyone.

I think Josh Marshall at TPM has made some other good points against her as SoS - among them is the point that, in both of her episodes of running a major effort (health care and her presidential campaign), she did a pretty poor job. One can always argue that the loser always appears to have run a bad campaign, but by all accounts, the drama and internecine fighting within her campaign were pretty bad. Maybe legislating is a better match for her skills.

I frankly think that the whole argument spinning arround that these cabinet choices somehow don't represent change is a huge myth.

This whole complaint about "not enough change" seems ludicrous to me, frankly. I think the "there isn't enough change' spiel is a completely bogus argument-- a non-argument, if you will.

Here are three big reasons that I see:

1. First of all, having a liberal democrat as our next President is change! And one less who is also black, who has fantastic grassroots experience and graduated first in his class and appreciates Constitutional Law and ran the best campaign ever is a HUGE CHANGE!

2. Secondly, I really think folks are defining "Change" very narrowly, even simplistically.

Things can't NOT change from here on in....

And it goes beyond the argument of just picking really the best and the brightest who are tried and true--although that's a pretty good reason!

Look at how so many key figures themselves have all changed over time...look at how we all do.

The fact is people do change (usually for the better, although, sadly McCain for the worse) over time.

Most responsible and reflective politicians with a brain and some humility do tend to look at their actions, review their mistakes and ideally LEARN from them. Maybe Hillary wouldn't be so ready to say yes to a war now, for example--knowing what she knows now...

3. Finally, the times have changed. We live in a different climate entirely than we did ten years ago--on all fronts, both foreign and domestic.

We live in unbelievably trying times: We are on the brink of an economic Depression, our status with the world has sunk to an all time low, we are involved in two wars that are unbelievably costly, and the planet is in peril.

Therefore, the same people who were in office 8 or 10 or 12 years ago can not and will not engage the issues of 2008 in the same way they did then--because not only have they changed, but everything has changed! Including suffering the horrors of eight years of Bush!

Not enough change? Are you kidding? We are going to be overdosing on change! And the fact that we'll have some familiar faces there--that we'll have some folks who are 'tried and true' in the cabinet-- doesn't negate this one iota.

As a retired corporate executive I find all this speculation bizarre, but I admit ignorance on the specifics of the range and limitations of Obama's authority.

In the corporate world, the CEO hires his top managers to carry out the policies that he sets forth. Insubordination is simply not tolerated. Any officer who doesn't perform is summarily fired, and a new one hired to replace him/her. There's no long soap opera involving intrigue and shadow organizations and infighting and backbiting and endless gossip and speculation from spectators. Well - okay, there is, since we are all human, but at least on paper the organizational lines are clearly drawn and understood.

So I don't understand the pundits fascination with whether Hillary will play ball or not, and whether she'll go her own way and create her own shadow presidency. Why on earth would Obama hire someone who wouldn't carry out his directives and policies? And why would Hillary bring people aboard who won't follow the plan? Doesn't Obama have any authority over her if she misbehaves? He can't get rid of her? What a peculiar institution government seems to be, other than the military, where you do have a rigid top-down organization. No wonder it's so inefficient, as if it were designed not to be able to do anything. Maybe it was.

I hope Obama attaches enough strings that she decides to just stay Senator Clinton. Her ability to screw up has been demonstrated way too many times, and her choice of people has been horrible at best. Mark Penn, anyone?

And what about that resolution to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, and give Bush "a blank check" to attack Iran?

"As we learned with the original authorization of the Iraq war - when you give this President a blank check, you can't be surprised when he cashes it," the Illinois senator wrote in the opinion piece. "I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment." - Barack Obama, 10/11/2007

Bill Clinton had the chops to pull off what he did, and Hillary has gotten a free ride ever since because of what Bill pulled off. She is barely qualified to be a senator IMHO. Definitely not a good choice for SoS.

Maybe Hillary wouldn't be so ready to say yes to a war now, for example--knowing what she knows now...

Regardless of her AUMF vote, she would not have ginned up the evidence to go to war. I don't know how much she knew, and I suspect her vote reflected political aspiration plus the belief that the war would go quickly and easily like the first. Poor judgment, good enough reason not to vote for her. But not enough to think she would have been the catalyst.

Also, ditto hark's comment.

I find myself more and more in agreement with Matt Rothschild over at The Progressive.

It's looking like the left is in for one long, four-year Sistah Souljah moment.

Well, at least he ain't McCain.

roundly acknowledged expertise on the relevant issues

This still confuses me. When did Hillary Clinton become an acknowledged expert on foreign policy? I didn't see any evidence of expertise during the primaries and don't see it now. Just because you have traveled widely as a goodwill ambassador doesn't mean you have any actual diplomatic expertise.

the Friends of Hillary problem is a real one.

a simple example in two words: Mark. Penn.

she thought it was a GOOD IDEA to hire him. she thought he had something useful to say. that's not exactly a high recommendation for her team-choosing skills.

on the other hand, surely the Obama people will want to be able to hand out some of the State positions as well. we have no idea how this will actually work - if there's some kind of mutual consent required, or a divvying up, or what.

and so, as usual: a) we don't really know; b) we'll find out soon enough; c) i sure hope it works.

And we'd better not be hearing about Ambassador Lady Baroness de Rothchild. :)

Oh, I don't know. He has to appoint somebody to be ambassador to the Solomon Islands. Or maybe Somalia?

One advantage of getting Hillary out of the Senate is that she won't be there for the health care debate. She'd want a leading role on that and the Repubs would bring out the old "Hillary care" line. It would be a big distraction the media would buy into. We don't need that.

Great post. It's just funny to reflect on the fact that Hillary Clinton, of all people, is the Democrat conservative Republican warmongers trust the most. I'm not knocking her - I agree with Steve's post. But if a visitor from the future had come to me in 1994 and told me this, I'd have laughed my butt off. Hillary Clinton, the serious, heavy-lifting national security hawk. Strange but true.

What is this vast difference that's supposed to separate the Obama foreign policy from the Clinton foreign policy? The only thing they could find to argue about during the primaries was a five-year-old vote that Obama didn't even have to make and an entirely-semantic and otherwise nonexistent "distinction" between their policies over diplomatic approaches to unfriendly powers. Their Senate foreign policy records are pretty close to photocopies.

Their Senate foreign policy records are pretty close to photocopies. Posted by: Trickster

No. Obama voted against the Iraq war resolution and the Iran resolution. Clinton voted for both and tried on several occasions to out-hawk the hawks apparently needing to prove how tough she was.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21594008/

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obamas_iran_resolution

Obama voted against the Iraq war resolution and the Iran resolution.

Obama did not vote on either resolution. He wasn't in the Senate at the time of the AUMF, but he voted with Clinton on each subsequent funding measure after he entered.

He was in the Senate, but not in the building, when the vote was taken on the Republican Guards resolution. He issued a press release saying he would've voted against it, but that's not the same thing as a vote.

There is some distinction between their Iran positions, but Clinton has long called for immediate diplomatic engagement with Iran, and a constructive dialogue with Iran to create a cooperative framework for dealing with Iraq. Those are the main points, I think, and Obama and Clinton are right in synch on that.

On the minus side, she's a bitch.