OK you had me until the succession comment. Drifting off into tin foil hat land sort of weakened a pretty good case.

My feeling is some Clintonites (what Huffington referred to as "two senior Democratic Party officials" in their post a few days ago) are just not giving up and are feeding little snippets to the various media outlets. The media, seemingly starving for news, are just eating it up. I think the two Clintonites could be chosen from among Penn, Ickes, Wolfson, McAuliffe, and maybe a few others. They're not being included in the transition and their egos are suffering badly.

I do not feel HRC would pass the vetting at all. The Times had an editorial on the vetting this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/opinion/17mon4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Here's the actual 7 page form from the Obama transition team:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf

I think (hope) Plouffe and Axelrod are just letting the media spin this all out of proportion, making them look even more foolish. But what does concern me, is this isn't their usual style. Someone from the Obama team usually issues a denial fairly quickly.

The two things that stick to Hillary like glue are:

1. Her complete failure at health care reform in the first year of Bill's presidency. She had 7 more years to try again, but just gave up. The failure was the way she approached it, and her exclusion of so many people who should have been included; the inability to say no to the insurance industry, and pissing everyone else off in the process. She asked for and got the job with much fanfare, and had everything going for her except that she just couldn't pull it off. Her secretiveness worked against her and the level of trust was just about zero. There was never an objective evaluation of this effort to help the next try at this problem. She set the issue back how many years?

2. Her recent campaign. They made a decision that it would all be over by Super Tuesday. They spent their millions foolishly on posh hotels and extras. The never saw Obama for what he was, and they completely blew their enormous advantage. From what I have heard her campaign was always chaos because she couldn't control it. There was a lot of back-biting and leaking, and animosity. That kind of stuff flows from the top down. Only the big cheese can change it. She didn't because she didn't know how. On the plus side, she hung every possible piece of Barack's dirty laundry out so that when Sarah latched on to it (in her screeching way), only the rabid base bit on it; to everyone else it was old news.

I agree with everyone that she is very smart. I do not agree that she has vast international experience except as someone along for the ride. I have also travelled as a "wife" and I think it has given me a world view that I wouldn't have if I stayed home and read books about those countries. However it isn't the same as negotiating; it isn't the same as being able to organize a coalition, and it isn't the same as agreeing with (and putting forth the policies of) the person under whom you would be serving. Hillary has many talents; I am not certain that leading a huge agency like the State Department would be one of them.

Oh, there is a #3 --> Bill. Could he keep out of things? Doubtful. I believe that there are others who would give the stamp of Obama on our State Department without all the drama. What would Hillary bring that would be more than someone else? That is the question.

Only problem is -- After all this, if she DOESN'T get it, look out Obama! Any other offer will seem like a consolation prize. I don't think Hillary would take that very well. She obviously wants this; it would be a feather in her cap towards her next run; if she stayed as a Senator her votes could be used against her, and she would have no further accomplishments than she had going into this election season (did I say season -- I meant decade!) It is a step up for her towards her eventual goal. I believe ambition is not enough. A huge job such as Sec'y of State should be the person's goal; not a stepping stone, and that is how I see Hillary's interest in it.

I can't read her mind. I could be wrong, but that doesn't negate #1, #2, or even #3 above.

If you want BIG people in your administration, you are invariably going to be confronted with with exactly the sort of potential problems described here: Associations, enemies, suspicious friends, a 'history', speculations about motives and ambitions, and all the rest of the usual baggage that trails alongside the really big players.

You get a lot less of that with relatively uncontroversial nobodies, but it's also possible that you leave a lot of talent on the sidelines for the simple fear of taking a chance with a brave choice.

President Obama is going to have make a lot of these kinds of decisions: Those with clear trade-offs, and no absolute certainty AHEAD of time which way to go. If he proves-out in the end to have a reasonably good batting-average (which I fully expect), he'll be fine. If he ends-up wrong too often on too many big calls like this one, he'll struggle.

That's the chance he takes, and we all take with him. Good luck.

I think it's a poor pick primarily because she's such a hawk. He already has a hawk VP - surely one's enough.

But it's all academic now as she obviously has it. No way would he have allowed the speculation to reach the level it has if he wasn't committed to her having it. (We saw at the end of the primaries how his campaign instantly damped down the VP speculation.)

I do think he's handld this badly. Really gratuitous to bring Richardson over to talk about it when he had no intention of giving it to him.)

Obama is built in the mode of Lincoln. Lincoln would let his cabinet debate for months on end on hot button issues. HOWEVER, when Lincoln made his decision there was no more debate and all the people in Lincolns cabinet did what they had to to IMPLIMENT this decision. This is exactly what Obama will do, Hillary will be heard but once Obama says to do something, she will do what she need to do to implement his plans.

Bill's conflicts of interest will keep her out of the office. He doesn't want to be forced to report all the Saudi and Chinese money he's taking for his "Presidential library".

Obama is showing himself to be a bit paranoid with his 7-page quesionairre. It telegraphs a lack of trust, which makes one wonder why he's talking to an untrustworthy Clinton at all.

Bill Kristol agrees with those who think this is a good idea.

So does John Kyl.

How generous of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/mr-president-elect-judge_b_144523.html

Senator Clinton, might make an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. Here her commitment to fairness might be invaluable. She might turn out to be an advocate for American families and maybe, just maybe the Constitution, but I digress. Our pending constitutional scholar in chief, will know that about her better than I.

Regarding the Secretary of State position, Senator Clinton's casual, some might say flexible approach to "messaging" during her campaign I believe has irrevocably compromised her value as a foreign policy advocate. Especially her belligerent comments on Central Asian and Middle Eastern issues have been hawkish and counterproductive. Even if her war-mongering comments were careerist and not deeply held beliefs they remain undiplomatic and unseemly. Her reminiscences about "being under fire" were ridiculous and indefensible.

If America intends to regain its' international reputation as an honest broker, we can't do that using a messenger who has a renown flexible relationship with the facts.

While I believe she has a high potential "shock value" she might be a voice of moderation for our current Supreme Court and still be a forceful advocate for working Americans, and thus a welcome addition to the bench.

I am not a fan of the idea of Hillary as SoS. But, what the hell do I know about it? My reservations are primarily about bringing Bill and Hill into the Administration, along with their substantial baggage. But, I must say, if Obama had listened to the advice of bloggers, he cure as hell wouldn't be President-Elect right now.

I think he is really serious about the "Team of Rivals" idea, and I think that may be precisely what the country needs right now. We should be prepared for a very intensive period of getting things done, and if Hillary helps that happen in the area of Foreign Policy and can move Obama's policies forward, then maybe she is the right choice.

One justification that comes up is the "team of rivals" meme. Lincoln hired people who disagreed with him. But in this case, I don't see Hillary as a rival on ideology. She's only a political rival.

The most fundamental disagreement between Obama and Clinton is about who should be president.

My problem with Hillary in an Obama administration is that unlike Biden, for example, neither she nor her husband have the least bit of respect for Obama.

The Clintons are innately divisive people. They have a history of toxic relationships.

And as I understand it, the State Department needs to be completely rebuilt and empowered. Diplomacy is more important than bombs, especially at a time when both our treasury and defense have been depleted.

LOL! This post might be the lamest argument you've ever made, Jade. It not only fails to meet the accepted standards of Clinton-bashing (whether your own or TPM's), it fails to actually jerk anyone's chain. The proof is that the comments in the thread are lukewarm at best. Was your heart just not into it, Jade, my dear? Or are you doing self-parody now?

I'm disappointed because I could have written this for you.

Congratulations, I guess?

P.S.

Dick Durbin as SoS? That was priceless! ;-)

"Conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron, because wisdom is by nature and definition unconventional.

It is also a cliche/substitute for thought.

Jade:

I think HRC could be an effective SoS. I think this is where the Bill factor is helpful,since Bill has a resevoir of good will overseas that can certainly be helpful as Obama attempts to repair the damage that Bush/Cheney have done over the past 8 years. My objection to Hillary is simply that it just isn't worth the hassle to have a Clinton go through the confirmation process. My choice would be Kerry. Richardson has a Joe Biden problem, in that he tends to put his foot in his mouth on occasion.

I do think that Hillary would make an excellent Senate Majority Leader, a far better one than Harry Reid. I think she should be groomed to succeed him.