great analysis. This is horrifying. Whatever you think of Clinton, her demonstrable problem with the truth is reason enough to keep her out of a Cabinet post. I'm amazed the people of NY find her to be acceptable as their Senator. She's not trustworthy, and Sec of State is no post to offer for political reasons. Let her be the drug Czar or something.

I think everybody hyperventilating about Sen. Clinton is a bit foolish. Sure, she's more hawkish (at most obvious in the bright lights of a Presidential campaign) but she would necessarily have to defer to the President in her position. Do you think for a second that Pres. Obama would be foolish enough to just let her run wild w/o briefings or a firm knowledge of what his goals are? Please. A collective chill pill would be nice here, people. Who would have more stature: SOS Clinton or SOS Kerry. For those of you that just yawned, thanks for proving my point.

Thank you very much. In my opinion the source of this rumor about HRC for State is Clintonites in the Dem Party who will just never let go and still seem to think they have a few tricks to play. The Huff Post article quotes "senior officials in the Democratic Party", not anyone on the Obama transition team. As you said, she will not pass the vetting as the result of Bill's secrecy regarding donations to his foundation and library. All we know is groups from Colomia and Kazahkastan gave millions to his causes. This in itself would disqualify her, as it would have if she had been vetted for VP.

Clinton could take a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, then perhaps run for Governor and wait for 2016. Both the seats held by Obama and Biden will be vacant, so that should pacify her for the time being. If Kerry is selected for State, I believe Russ Feingold would be next in line for Chairman, which is fine with me! (He is no fan of HRC's.)

Personally, I still find HRC repugnant and cannot imagine she posseses the skill set necessary to deal diplomatically with Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, China and the innumberable other crises facing us. Certainly she can't deal with the global economic crisis either. Obama would be dragged down by her and Bill. It's a horrible thought to think she might end up at State.

The election is over. Grow up and stop the Hillary-hating. Obama is about chossing the best for the job, regardless their name, and regardless their position/s during the campaign.

Hillary is perfectly qualified for Sec. of State, and better so than innumerable others including Richardson. (Who's he?) It is up to her, though, whether she wants to be Sec. of State for at most 8 years, or remain in the Senate where she has been growingly effective and promises to have a great future.

I'm not a big fan of HRC (and really, really did not appreciate her campaign late last spring, but did appreciate her support for Obama this fall, though I think it is all overhyped, as from what I've heard, the Clinton rallies for Obama came off more like Clinton rallies for Clinton), but I believe that her hawkishness might not be just that. Why should we think that her positions of the last few years have anything to do with what she really thinks should be done in the world given a position of any power (for the sake of this argument, treating the junior senate seat of NY as less than all that powerful)? I suspect she's as cynical as any politician, and her hawkish votes were mostly if not entirely tactical moves to make her less unacceptable to the frightened right and center. Turned out to be a bad tactic, of course. Oops.

On the other hand, if SoS is a platform she uses to undermine Obama as she reaches for his job, there's no reason to believe she wouldn't continue such cynical tactics. And maybe she should pay (further!) for her cynical tactics of the past.

I started this post thinking she might not be so very unacceptable, but I've convinced myself otherwise.

I like Richardson or Hagel.

I recommended, just to highlight how radical the left-wing blogosphere is.

Clinton at State is not itself a crazy idea. The big stumbling blocks, as I see them, are these:

1) Campaign debt. HRC needs to keep fundraising for at least a couple of years to pay down her campaign debt, and a direct bailout from Obama for America is illegal. If she becomes Secretary of State, she needs to stop raising those funds and likely dismantle her fund-raising organization itself. And frankly, donors don't have any reason to give money to someone who isn't running for anything. Maybe Bil can do the fund-raising to retire the debt, but that raises ethical question marks and leads us to the other problem.

2) Managing Bill. The relationship between a President and a high-profile Secretary of State is always complicated and sometimes tense, but it's manageable and can be very productive. What's much harder to imagine is a successful triangular relationship between a President, a Secretary, and a Secretary's world-famous spouse.

Former Presidents of the United States are extremely bad at following their successors' foreign policy. They are natural freelancers. Bill Clinton learned this the hard way with Jimmy Carter. Once someone's had the nuclear launch codes, you can't send them to negotiate with a limited brief. And even if Bill Clinton promised himself that he would defer to Obama, he wouldn't. He would start negotiating independently without even realizing he was doing it. A former President doesn't speak on someone else's authority any more. He always speaks on his own.

Maybe making Hillary Secretary of State would help rein Bill in, but the experience of the primary campaign suggests that this isn't so easy.

I think Hillary Clinton would make an excellent SOS politically and diplomatically.

Politics: The media is fascinated by all things Clinton, which will make state department matters a palace of sunshine and scrutiny. The major problem of the incoming Obama administration is going to be the Bush appointees who will undermine government from within, usually by leaking information to right wing radio that will seep upwards to the mainstream derelicts. This conflict is inevitable and will play out in the messiest possible manner on our 24 hour airwaves. Fixing Clinton's star to this conflict creates an atmosphere of partisan trench warfare that will keep the noise from escaping the lunatic fringe. By this I mean that the mushy middle will see it as "same old same old politics," and this fatigue will undermine the impact of the inevitable "scandal."

Mark my words, the efforts to scour the national security apparatus of Bush cronies who will abuse their clearance to undermine Obama will become a scandal. Giving Hillary Clinton the broom fixes the argument in a way that will blowback on rightwing media. They will try to rehash it as "TravelGate redux," which will fly over the American audience like a lead balloon.

Diplomacy: Yes, the Clintons have unsavory international connections. They also bask in the collective goodwill of much of the developed (and undeveloped) world. Hillary brings positive energy backed by Oslo, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and dozens of other diplomatic missions that ushered in an era of relative peace and prosperity. The same star power that applies politically will apply diplomatically. In diplomacy, any attention is good attention. I also have confidence in Hillary's ability to broker negotiations.

I find that many criticisms of this potential appointment hinge on the boondoggle of her campaign. The fears of power-hungry self-centered Clintons stealing Obama's thunder and publicly humiliating the young President are so much mythology. Her campaign was awful and will end up in the ashcan of history. Her skills, reputation, and media magnetism outweigh the primaries in a manner that dwarfs comparison.