I think it's a brilliant choice.

It was mentioned at MyDD a while ago.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/11/13/212 9/1122

Maybe not as eloquent, but it is there.

Progressive Blue

I don't understand why Obama is choosing Hillary as secretary of state. Obama has been hammering in the primary that Hillary's only foreign policy experience is having tea with foreign leaders. Something wrong with him?

As with Rahm and (maybe) Gates this makes sense because of who will be setting the policy: President Obama.

This is getting kinda weird. Obama is picking out Senators with good seniority i.e. committee assignments and putting them into play working for him. His administration is beginning to look like Clinton 3.  What gives in 2006 we elected a whole bunch of new Dems to Congress and what did we get--Lady Pelosi and Whimp Reid who duplicated the McCain record of voting over 90% of the time with Bush--I don't get this at all--where is the new blood that should be coming in--I mean like aren't there some people "under 60" out there who need a job in this Administration....My excitement about Obama is starting to wane a bit....

i think it's safe to say that biden isn't running in 2016.  if that happens, there will be an obvious power vacuum for prez.  hillary would be the obvious choice, but much will depend on the popularity of obama and his administration.  imagine if bush's popularity was somewhere around 60-65% in 2007-2008.  understandably the people would want a rep of a hypothetical (and unlikley) popular bush administration to run.  cheney wouldn't, so the obvious choice would be sec of state rice.  african american, female, experienced, new and experienced at the same time.  she would be the defacto frontrunner with mccain as the main challenger and guilianni as the third alternative.  imagine her as hillary, mccain as obama (as hard as that is to fathom) and guiliani as edwards.  romney wouldn't even bother, or would be a richardson, just running for a cabinet seat.  

But whenever there's this much chatter, there's clearly something going on.

Yeah, team Hillary making it all about her, again. Just like the VP talk when they demanded the conversation be about her. Just like the convention when they made the first few days about her, not Obama.

there's no question that such a move would underscore Obama's determination to put together the strongest possible team

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I can't think of a policy area where Obama and Clinton were more diametrically opposed.  Why would this appointment make sense when there are any number of domestic policy areas where there was very little daylight between them?  I'm not buying this until I see something more tangible and if it is the case I will be profoundly disappointed.

I think she could take the job. Because of the importance of foreign policy, it would almost be like being President in some sense, which she wants, and hopefully we can see her elected in 2016. It will buff her up more on security, and she gets to avoid votes in the Senate, but still have positions on health care, as her knowledge on that isn't going away. She does have foreign policy experience, not just in the Armed Services Committee, but she was no normal First Lady, she knows many of the leaders all around the world, and the Clintons are respected by many far and wide.

A good way to prevent her from sabotaging Obama's legislative initiatives.

Josh Marshall unpacks this story:

Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama.

Late Update: This post, not surprisingly, has generated a big response. And a few of you have suggested that this is a way for Hillary to angle for another shot at the presidency in 2012 or 2016. But that strikes me as deeply, deeply improbable. Never an easy thing to challenge a sitting president of your own party, next to impossible to do it from his own cabinet. I don't have an answer on why either party would want this appointment. But that ain't the reason.

Josh Marshall - Don't Get It TPM 13 Nov 08

Fair comments all.  Where did this curious 'leak' originate anyhow?

It's a fantastic idea, it really is.

We know the reason she wasn't named VP was Bill, right? Well, as head of the State department, his proximity would be an absolute boon.

I don't see it as being a step downwards, I see it as leading to her being named VP just in time for 2012 and President in 2016. Gives her and Bill a reason to work FOR Obama beyond simple party loyalty. I imagine Bill would gain a ton of respect for the guy, too.

This is just a catchall for all the comments about how Clinton either does, or does not, see eye-to-eye with Obama.

First of all, I think we all know that obliterating Iran, "dangerously naive", and probably even the AUMF were electioneering.

More importantly, the Secretary of State generally doesn't set policy: see Mssrs Powell, Rusk, Vance, Forrest... now that I think about it, strong Secretaries of State have been the exception since National Security Act, and that was over 50 years ago.  State is the Wimbledon of
Cabinet departments: it's prestigious but it's not where the money is.

Even so, the point is that the West Wing sets policy, not the Cabinet.  You get yourself some capable administrators and get their input, but it's not like there's any doubt whose viewpoint would prevail.

I don't want her as Security of State. The area of foreign policy is where I saw Bill Clinton as disastrous during the 1990s for my home region (the Balkans).

Not as disastrous as Bush was, mind you, but still pretty bad. They waited too long to intervene in Bosnia (allowing ethinic cleansing and the horrible creation of Republika Sprkska), then they acted inappropriately in unqualified support for the UCK in Kosovo (a thing which promoted civil conflict in the Republic of Macedonia as well).

Bill Clinton may have been brilliant in domestic affairs and the economy for all I know -- but he was mediocre in foreign policy, acting alternatively too little or too much (probably depending on whether he had a sex scandal to cover up or not).

The Clintons as Obama's world diplomats would be incredible.  The world would love us once again.  

then I would love to see the look on the faces of Kerry and Richardson.

But it aint gonna happen and frankly after the whole Clinton-as-VP fiasco, I wish that Obama camp had not gone down this road. Because, if Cliton is not made SOS then that will be taken as
(fairly in my opinion) as another humiliation of Clinton. Frankly, Obama does not need this.