Why would the Guardian, of all publications, have the inside scoop on something like this?  

She's going to do a great job.

What do the PUMAs have to say now?

Or did they cease their pumanosity on November 5th?

hooray for freedom, liberty, America, and the Clintons!

tThat guy pushes a thinly sourced story about Clinton calling senators on behalf of Liebermann and refused to acknowledge his mistake. I am not sure I will be with Josh Marshall on anything to do with Clinton, he does not think straight when it comes to them. Also, Guardian is fairly good newspaper. Indeed for many stories, the UK newspapers are more reliable. US newspapers nowadays are more into creating news rather than reporting them. So that is why you will not see the US news sites  reporting until they know for sure that a formal announcement is going to come within 2 hours.

...very early Monday morning. I had a diary on the Rec list here most of the day on much of this.

(I'm not linking to it; but it was all over the press today...way ahead of the Guardian story.)

It went something like this: 'Hillary's folks were working closely with the President-elect's team all weekend and making progress on the matter.'

By definition, this means Hillary certainly wants the job! The Guardian article really just changed the headline, IMHO.

Boy oh boy, I don't get this thing at all. This entire SOS appointment to Hilary makes no sense from every standpoint I can think of. What does Obama get out of this? A SOS whose celebrity will suck all the oxygen out of his foreign policy initiatives, it will all be gossip strum & dram from the MSM whenever she opens up her mouth about anything on the diplomatic front. What does Hilary get out of this? As far as Im concerned an appointment as SOS is actually a diminution of her power & influence. As a Senator from New York, the media, financial & cultural capital in the world and holding a seat that she will own for as long as she wants it, she is as powerful as anyone in the Capitol, even more powerful than any potential SOS. In the Senate she is her own boss who can set her own agenda, advance any policy she wants and she wields a public megaphone second only to The President himself. Why in the world would she accept a cabinet position where she has to advance President Obama's agenda and not her own, and where she serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning she can be fired (or forced to resign "for family considerations") at any time? What does the party get out of this? As SOS it would be considered unseemly to be involved in domestic politics, meaning the Democrats lose one of (if not, outside of The President himself) the most potent crowd gatherers and fundraisers in the party. Millions of dollars that she can raise and put in the coffers of House, Senate, Gubernatorial and other Democratic candidates for office are gone. What does New York State (My State) gain? We lose one of the most powerful politicians in the Capitol. My point about the money she can raise nationwide is even more pronounced locally. Her presence & fundraising prowess in this State has been a boon for local and statewide office seekers here (Ive seen it with my own eyes)It is one of the reasons why we took back the State Senate. And do not take for granted that whoever Gov. Patterson appoints to replace her with is guaranteed to hold it, especially if Guiliani decides to challenge the new Senator. This entire episode has soured me on the Obama transition, he seems to be in thrall to this idea of the Doris Kearns Goodwin team of rival's theme. For a campaign that was so leak proof, this transition is like swiss cheese. There are any number of qualified Democrats (and even a Republican or two...yes they do exist) who would make an excellent SOS. I don't understand why it makes any sense for it to be Hilary. Please Senator, stay where you are.

CalDem, are you referring to me and my post as Hilary hate? If so I suggest you reread it because you're profoundly wrong. My opinion is in fact based on the exact opposite feeling that you suggest. I have happily supported, donated money to and voted for Hilary in 2 senate elections and in the Presidential primary here in New York. I have had the proud privilege to meet her twice, shake her hand and tell her to her face what a terrific Senator she is and what a great President she would make. If you read what I wrote you would see that I think her taking the job of SOS is a demotion for her, for all the reasons I stated above. Now if she accepts the position, well then I will respect her choice and wish her & The President well on whatever diplomatic course they take. But respecting her choice is not the same as agreeing with it. I think it would be a mistake for her to take this job. The SOS cant blow his or her nose without permission from the White House, their job is to be a good soldier and pursue the Presidents agenda (or in the case of Colin Powell, the Vice-Presidents agenda) and do it with a smile on your face. And if there is ever a foreign policy blunder that requires a scapegoat, the SOS can be fired by the President at the drop of a hat. Who will Obama's National security advisor be? Can you guarantee it will be somebody who is simpatico with Hilary? Will he or she be the one actually in charge of foreign policy out of the White House (as was the case in the Carter administration when SOS Cyrus Vance was undercut at every opportunity by Brezinski)? What's been the average tenure for a SOS in the past few decades? 2 years? 3? Why should Hilary give up her powerful Senate seat she will never have to leave until she decides when to retire to take a job where she has little if any sovereignty and can be terminated at any time for any reason? This is not about her qualifications or competence to be a SOS, she certainly has all that in spades to be a great one, but so do any number of individuals I (or anyone here) can rattle off in a few seconds. While Hilary was my original choice for President I happily and enthusiastically voted for Obama in the end, I hope he is a great President and he has my support but this choice is a bad one for him, for Hilary and for the party.

This seems to have become an issue more about Bill than Hillary, at this point:

 "The problem is it's going to require some sacrifice by him," said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. "If he's not willing to do that, it could blow up."

One proposal, floated by Mr. Mikva and several other aides involved in the vetting process, would be for Mr. Clinton to separate himself from the activities of his foundation, including raising money.

"It's not just what he does or says -- it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," Mr. Mikva said. "It's more than a legal problem -- there are ethical problems and appearance problems."

Don van Natta Jr and Jo Becker - Many Dealings of Bill Clinton Under Review NYT 17 Nov 08

And who is Abner Mikva to be throwing spanners into the works at this point?  Hard to say:

The transition communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, says Obama adviser Abner Mikva didn't speak for the campaign in a Times story that went online this evening, in which Mikva appeared to set an almost impossibly high bar for approving Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

"There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they'd have to be made public," said Mikva.

That contradicts suggests from other's familiar with the process that the chief focus of negotiations is Clinton's activities with his foundation going forward -- not vetting of his past.

[...]

A Democrat who saw the quotes suggested Mikva's words were Obama's way of walking back the suggestion that Senator Clinton could serve as secretary of state.

But Pfeiffer, asked if Mikva spoke for the campaign, responded, "no."

Ben Smith - Mikva's high bar Politico 17 Nov 08

Curiouser and curiouser.

I'll believe it when I read it on change.gov.

I think it's a mistake, but personally have no opposition to it.

Accepting SoS just feels like a short-sighted move to me.  Most S0Ses last a term or less.  The Senate seems like a much better place to effect long-term change.

Ya, I'm a big Hillary fan myself but I just don't see the strategy in her taking the SOS spot, rather see her as majority leader in the Senate someday, and I doubt at this point the white house will ever be in her reach.  Maybe Obama offered her the VP spot in 2012 if she'd take the SOS for now and "toed the line".  I'm sure it will be all right either way but I just hope Obama knows somthing I don't (which I'm sure he does, it just better be good).

Also, lately these "this is going to happen" says an anonymous source articles seem to be 100% speculation and bullshit anyways.

Everyone keeps talking about Hillary as Senate Majority Leader, but has a junior Senator in their state ever become Majority Leader?  If not, Hillary has no chance because Schumer will always have more seniority than her.  Anyone know the answer to this?  I started looking it up, but it is really difficult to find who was junior or senior at the time each one became Majority Leader.  At the moment, Hillary is 68th in seniority (pending Minnesota and Alaska).  Harry Reid is 25th, and was probably lower when he was first elected, so I suppose it is possible.