especially when you consider whom she is replacing. What goes around comes around, and after Bush's misogyny in so many policies foreign and domestic, it would be great to have a woman who understands that women are people, too (no more gag rule, attention to overpopulation) not to mention an impeccable record on Israel, and a reputation for tenacity and hard, clever bargaining, someone who has a history in our recent history. But then, what do you do with Hagel and Kerry? Maybe one of them to replace Bolton at the UN? Please hurry.  

Given how leak-proof the Obama camp is, I believe this is a leak from the sieve-like Cllinton camp. So it may be what she wants, but it may not be what Obama is inclinded to do.

It looks a bit like a classic "insider" leak to undercut the competition, in this case Kerry, Richardson, and Hagel. And the Clintons certainly have political scores to settle with Kerry and Richardson.

I'd be surprised, though, if Hillary really wanted the job. If Obama stumbles or gets blamed for the upcoming "Mini-Depression," Hillary would be in a strong position to displace him on the ticket in 2012. If she took the SecState job, she would be forced to be a collaborative member of the Obama team for as long as she held it. (Of course, she may have concluded that top slot on a discredited Democratic ticket in 2012 would be worth no more than McCain's position atop the discredited Republican ticket in 2008--i.e., worth even less than a vice-president's bucket of warm spit. OTOH, if Obama shows savvy leadership and enjoys good fortune, and if Joe Biden's age and health become issues before 2012, perhaps Hillary could join the ticket as VP in 2012 and still be in good enough shape to run atop the ticket in 2016.)

And what about Bill Clinton's foundation and assorted commercial conflicts of interest in the Gulf and Kazakhstan? Selecting Hillary would be a financial vetting nightmare.

All that said, Hillary would likely be a more effective SecState than Richardson, Kerry, or Hagel. Richardson has a widely rumored problem with "the ladies." There is no reason to think that Kerry would manage American diplomacy any better than he managed his campaign in 2004. Hagel, though strong on military and security issues, may not have a sufficient grasp of the economic, social, demographic, and climatological challenges facing the planet.

So will Hillary's intelligence and grasp of the key issues trump the potentially scandalous baggage brought by her husband, Bill?

Stay tuned.

It's exactly what the Obama camp wants the public to know.  They are gauging reaction.

Don't know how it got misplaced.

...Hillary wants it and Obama asks her, it sounds like a great idea to me!

Steve

 11.13.08 -- 10:44PM //
Don't Get It

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

second paragraph.  What if Hillary uses her new "foreign policy experience" (unlike her claims, she really didn't have any before) and then parlays that into a race against Barack in the Democratic primary of 2012?  If we think we've had divisive in 2008 (when she gave McCain and Palin some of their worst talking points), we haven't seen anything.

Hillary Clinton is not more "experienced" in foreign affairs than Barack Obama.  Meeting and greeting doesn't count.

FMArouet21 said: "Richardson has a widely rumored problem with 'the ladies.'"

Why would that be a problem for being appointed Secretary of State?  He's been Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of Energy and "the ladies" didn't interfere.

But behavior tends not to change as someone gains in power. It tends to be reinforced. Power often works as an aphrodisiac.

Maybe Richardson can be discreet. Or maybe The National Enquirer photographers will get lucky again, as they did with John Edwards.

It is a judgment that the Transition Team will need to make: do Richardson's unquestionable political skills (and the political debt that Obama owes him for his timely endorsement during the primary campaign) outweigh the potential risk of major public embarrassment to an Obama Administration?

There are no saints out there, and we probably wouldn't want a saint handling the rough-and-tumble of U.S. diplomacy. Yet....

I loved the book "Team of Rivals" and admire Lincoln's confidence in managing his cabinet, but I don't see anything in it for either Clinton or Obama.

There isn't any remaining rift that needs mending between them.

Clinton would give up a lifetime Senate seat, with increasing seniority and power, for what is essentially a short term job.

Clinton doesn't really have that much experience or expertise in foreign relations.  Richardson, Nunn, or Hagel are much better qualified.

Hillary and Bill Clinton would be a continuing sideshow distraction in the press.

Richardson is a natural diplomat.  Hillary mocked Obama's wish for diplomacy during the debates.  She called him naive.  Now she would be the chief diplomat?  I remember when Israel was bombing Lebanon and the Iraqi came to plead with us to not keep sending them bombs.  Neither Hillary nor Pelosi attended.  I don't call her a diplomat at all.

Why would she give up a Senate that will finally be good to work with.  I would feel better with her in the senate.  I won't trust her kind of diplomacy.

I love the idea.  I supported Clinton during the primary, so for me this is kind of the best of both worlds.  Could be an extremely powerful team, especially given the enormity of what Pres. Obama will be facing in January.

Still, hard to imagine why Clinton would actually take this job.  

that it's smart politics and could be a smart policy move.  

Clinton has the policy chops.  Also in negotiations with foreign governments the Clinton name could add some extra heft to deal making above what a lower profile person might have.  She's popular outside of the U.S. too, so that's an added plus.

Clinton has also demonstrated in her time in the Senate and on the campaign trail that she can be a team player.

Having said that -- her people leak like a sieve.  Those press leaks can telegraph strategy, and create distractions.  On the other hand, they can keep the Obama people honest -- so it's a mixed blessing.

At a policy and management level too, it's conceivable that there are people who could do the job even better -- but who are getting passed over simply because they don't have her high profile background.  The 2002 AUMF lingers in the background (as it does for Biden too).

Overall, my take on this one is mostly positive with a few reservations.

By design, usually in practice (depending upon the presidential administration), and by law, the office of Secretary of State is the 5th most powerful/responsible position in the United States.

As one who had a very hard time deciding between Clinton and Obama for President until mid-February of this year, I would strongly support Hillary's move to Secretary of State if all parties agree.

Logically, if I could easily envision Hillary Clinton at either #1 or #2, then I certainly would have no problem with her being #5.

Thanks!

Steve

I see her as much more effective than any of the other names being floated, though the political side that others have mentioned make it pretty interesting.  

a republic an, I am Happy!

I think Secretary of State is the position you give to a Hagel or Lugar. Both are friendly with Obama and, while they are Republicans, they are both more moderate. This is the sort of quick and easy way to buy trust of plenty Republicans in the country by giving access to this department to essentially Republican control.

We all know Barack Obama will be running a lot of foreign policy himself simply because it is he and neither America nor Americans who have currency abroad. So he will need to prove to everyone out there that they can trust us again. But what he needs right now is an efficient manager for the State Dept.

No matter what the radical-wrong spin, Both Clinton and Obama are centrist Democrats.  We do not have to give away the most important positions Obama appoints to Republicans. And I don't think we should be looking for ways to give away the store, so to speak.  GOP rule has been bad for the country.  Why indirectly continue it?

I was mentioning that Lugar and Hagel are more moderate than some other Republicans. Clinton and Obama's political leanings were not questioned at all. The point I am trying to make overall is that if we decided to be crass enough to assign points to cabinet positions (like electoral votes to states) State would be a big one. So we could give that up and not much else and still walk away looking bipartisan.

While I think it is only natural to want Democrats everywhere in the government after this election season and the last eight years, we cannot fall into the same routine as Bush did. If picking the best person for the job means picking a Republican, we need to suck it up and do the right thing. The Republican brand is in tatters but plenty of Republicans are still good people and effective managers with plenty of great policy ideas. I am a Democrat but even I will admit we don't do everything right. I think there are some Republicans who can be expected to play ball with the Democratic majority in the hopes of scoring certain policy goals that we can tolerate.

The bigger picture here is that we actually WANT to encourage the Republican Party. The caveat being that we encourage the elements that are rational and reasonable. We lift up those with whom we can work and suppress those we cannot. Because while the Republican Party is shattered now it will soon reform and we want to make sure it does not turn into the party of Sarah Palin. We do that easiest by throwing bones to the good Republicans.

I didn't believe the rumor until I heard that Obama had met with her.  What else would they be talking about besides a Cabinet appointment?  

And if she's to get a Cabinet post, I couldn't imagine it being anything other than State.  She would be a great risk at Attorney General -- both for her own occasional ethical stumbles and because the president needs someone he can trust in the position, not another Janet Reno.  We know it isn't going to be Treasury and Defense seems highly unlikely.  And Hillary ain't gonna settle for HHS or Labor.

It would be a fascinating choice, and a brilliant one in many ways.  It would placate her loyal army of supporters, tap her intelligence and eloquence and experience travelling the world and serving on the Armed Services Committee.  And I suspect she would be bored continuing to serve in the Senate unless she's named Majority Leader or something at that level.

Of course, there are risks.  Obama has to be able to trust her, and she won't be as easy to control as someone who owes his or her career to him.  But she has significant talent and appeal that might as well be put to use.

Hillary has been fighting for universal health care and for children for decades.  I can't understand why she would want to not be a part of writing that type of legislation now, when it has at least a fair chance of passing.  And to give that up for Sec. of State?  That's going to be a very difficult and thankless job, involving the extrication of the U.S. from Iraq and Afghanistan among other things.

I would like Bill Richardson in that job, myself.  Regardless of who Obama asks to do it, though, I think anyone who is asked to do it for the good of the country is going to have a hard time saying no.

The nice thing about Barack Obama is that he is the face of American foreign policy already regardless of experience. I think Secretary of State will need to be a strong manager for the State Dept. without overstepping. Hillary Clinton is strong on domestic policy and that is what I would want from her.

...while I'd be happy with her at State, I should clarify that she wouldn't be my first choice.  At this point, Bill Richardson is.  He is a diplomat's diplomat and he aligns perfectly with the priorities Obama set during the campaign.  

And no, I'm not going to discount him because of some vague rumors about "the ladies".  These innuendos did not dislodge him from Congress, the UN, DOE, the governorship of NM or the presidential race.  So I'm not going to pay any heed to these whisperings unless somebody tells me -- where's the beef?