Let's see Condoleeza Rice vs. Hilary Clinton... It's a no contest to me.

Condi has been President Cheney's puppet and I believe it would be a ballsy move by Obama to offer it to her. Whether she would take it or not, I dunno. I hope so. I think it would show that Dems can put their battles behind them and get along.

I love Bill Richardson for a cabinet post no matter what it is. I just love that guy.

I think either would make a great S of S. Diplomacy, not puppeteering would be restored.

great post
rated

Citizen K had a blog post on pretty much the same issue, so I have some comments there, too. My big question from there, summarized more briefly here, is this: If Hillary was not appropriate as VP, why is she appropriate as Secretary of State. Was her non-selection a matter of personality or policy? Either of these would seem to disqualify her for Secretary of State, too. If it was just that he really wanted Biden and there was no room for her, then won't her alpha nature create a problem with her playing third wheel? I'd be more comfortable with her in a position (as she is now) where she could shine as her own person because she has a very dominant personality and I fear too much friction with her co-located in this situation.

I also think she'd be a lightning rod for Republican criticism that would dampen the "reach across the aisle" spirit. In that regard, I'll ask seriously: What would happen if Obama just continued Rice, for example? What specific problems would that lead to? And then having understood that, where would we like to go instead and who has the right skills do do that?

I am unclear as to her qualifications, frankly. Knowing leaders in a ceremonial first lady role does not make one qualified to establish policy. She may, indeed, have gained foreign policy experience in her limited time in the senate, but that tenure is not nearly as long or as varied as John Kerry's or Sam Nunn's for that matter.

Like Ted Kennedy before her in 1980, I suspect Hillary would be better served to remain in the senate where she has received praise from Democrats and, however grudgingly, Republicans alike. From this perch she can either become somewhat of a liberal lion in her own right, serving as a lightning rod and partisan bomb tosser when no one else has the courage to do so akin to Ted, or she can simply bide her time and take another lunge for the Brass ring later on down the road.

I think it would be a bad pick for Obama and a bad career move for Hillary.

A call to C-SPAN just now reminded me of the fact that I'd seen a critique the other day of the choice of Rahm Emanuel as a confirmation that Obama didn't mean what he said about change, picking insiders instead of new blood. Hillary would be the ultimate non-change. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to worry that Hillary's selection would be spun in the next election as a violation of an Obama campaign promise (even before getting to office), offering change. I hear another "new blood" comment coming in, again making me think this is not an isolated feeling. Falling back on the same old people says there are no other qualified people out there. I just don't think that's true. I'd almost rather see even a Republican in there just to solidify the sense that this administration is looking at all sides of complicated issues. A Republican in such a position would still be ethically obliged to take policy cues from Obama. If they fell down in that role, they could be replaced and it would show poorly on the Republicans for letting him down, not on Obama for trusting them.

Since we have 2 threads on this issue, I'll post this comment here as well......

Without going into specifics, the primary role of Secretary of State is that of a public face to the world during negotiations and policy disputes. There are significant other duties of course, but when we look into the effect on the playing field, this is what makes the largest impact. Let's take Condoleezza Rice as an example. Outside of Kissinger she is arguably the most dangerous secretary we could have hoped for. She is rarely transparent, her negotiating style is more pleading and obstinate than determined, and her particular understanding of the US's place in world affairs is domineering. It has lead to relatively little positive maneuvering on the world stage.

In contrast to someone like Colin Powell, who at the very least went into discussions with a determined outcome, and allowed the other side autonomous breathing room so they could feel good about the resolution.

The primary concern is the "face" we present on the world stage. I understand the appeal of John Kerry, but his style may do more damage with other nations during negotiations. He didn't have a hope of winning over the "real" American public.

Hillary on the other hand, is a professional negotiator, well respected, and supported by the public at large. When it comes to experience, she has met with and worked with many of the governments we'll need to have at the table from day one. Also, I feel it is important to note, she is a mother and caring parent. While I wouldn't normally think of that as a qualification, in this role it is extremely useful. It will allow her to grow relationships, negotiate with empathy, and hold the line no matter what comes. If you can weather the "terrible twos", you can hold your own with Iran.

One more thing as it relates to the choice of VP over Secretary. In many ways the Secretary has a wider playing arena. The VP will be limited to official policy and required to maintain the public message. The Secretary has a much less visible and scrutinized role when it comes to negotiating tactics.

Stellaa, did people (Obama supporters) really feel Hillary was not experienced enough? It seemed to me that experience was her strongest asset and that people recognized it, supporters or not.

I stopped voting for Clinton after she signed off on the Iraq war. However, she has otherwise been a good senator (as a NY State registered voter I did not vote for her in the last senate race).

Her defeat in the primary is enough for me. I'm over my anger at her.

I don't want her as President, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be fine with me.

I am naive enough to suppose Hillary would decide this on the basis of where she would do the most good for the country--rather than her personal ambitions.

I love her being in the Senate...but I would love her as Secretary of State.

Either way she decides, if offered State, would be just fine by me...and either way, I suspect, a point of derision among the people who hate her.

Yeah, I totally agree with Frank. I don't think it would be a trap, and I think she would excel at the job. Not a great fan of some of her political positions, but I think she is tough as nails and as smart as anyone, including our President-Elect. She would be a tremendous asset to the administration. But she'll know what's best if the job is offered, and she'll do good work wherever she is.

I must have a very "outside the norm" position on this. I believe that Hillary did not want VP spot. Shortly after the Obama nomination (like that very same night when they were sequestered in a private home out of site of the media), she negotiated for the position she DID want.

How could Obama ask her and her husband to campaign on his behalf without having struck a deal that was acceptable to both of them but that SHE most definitely wanted? My goodness, we are underestimating her talent if we don't think she is strong enough to negotiate within her own party for a position of power/prestige. She would not have campaigned on his behalf just for the fun of it!

Bear in mind, however, that this is a "media leak". I have never varied from this position: Hillary will do what she thinks is best for herself as well as the country and that this was negotiated several months ago.

Personally, I hope she takes the Secretary of State position. Her past experience abroad is invaluable; the Clintons (both of them) are as beloved abroad as they have been disrespected in our country. We the People just don't get the right impression of the Clinton's personal power, widespread respect, or their combined contributions on the world stage due to the past and ongoing sins of the MSM.

I am hopeful that things are changing, but as I have said so many times -- all will be well for Hillary. She will continue to serve our country to the best of her considerable abilities in whatever capacity to which she has agreed. I am eagerly awaiting that announcement.

Hillary ran a horrible campaign. Her management skills are very questionable (always have been since she imploded with the White House staffers)...and now she's being considered for Sec. of State? God help us. She needs to stick to her much smaller Senate staff. She's a policy wonk for sure, but she can't handle the management of the massive State Department and all that goes with it. Not to mention, when she's fatigued she's prone to gaffes or exaggeration. It will be about Hillary and not America. I'm hoping this is a false rumor, perpetrated by her supporters. Maybe he's interviewing her for another position...something less noticeable..U.N. Ambassador?

MSNBC is confirming this rumor. I hope it's true. Talk about a power cabinet! It would give Bill incentive to stay involved too. Never a bad thing.

Dear Salon Bloggers,

I stumbled upon this:

"The whole thing is a media freak show being served up by members of the Clinton factions in the Democratic party and obliged by a national media (some of them also Clinton noisemakers) in search of a story. The speculation is not because Senator Clinton wants the job, but because her people so desperately want to muddy the waters and throw up a roadblock to either New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Massachusetts Senator John Kerry - two of the leading contenders - serving in the post, whom they consider turncoats for having endorsed Obama vs. Clinton earlier this year."

dailykos.com http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/14/101142/61/202/660858

I don't know what to believe at this point. I don't ever discount her ability to manipulate events in politics. Is this an asset?

Kim Jaye, spoken like a true infiltrator. Tossed aside...No merit...
Buh bye. Ghost account

I think she will have more influence if she remains Senator -- I think many folks would like to see her part of the domestic agenda, esp. healthcare. I'm not sure it's noise from the Clinton folks alone -- I think the Obama camp wants to look good here, too, esp. if they are going with a man (and mostly men) in Cabinet positions.

Hillary would make a good Secretary of Health and Human Services but it might be a step down for her. She has done well in the Senate and should stay there to take the lead on health care.

I would rather see Richardson as Sec. of State--he has more experience.

Stella, i'm with you. no good for hrc. b.o is a mess and let him stay that way. she should stay put and be ready to clean up his mess. not good boogie for her. she needs to be the "loyal" opposition and do her thing in senate

Dear G.T. Randolf,

Can you rephrase in English??:

"Kim Jaye, spoken like a true infiltrator. Tossed aside...No merit...
Buh bye. Ghost account "

Particularly the ghost account buisness. If you mean what I think you mean, tell me where it states on salon that all contributors must post a profile. What keeps you, Sir Randolf, from even lying?