B-Rich would be my choice, but I'm also loving the idea of Hillary Clinton's job description including "publicly supporting every foreign policy decision made by Barack Obama."

Plus, New York has a Democrat for Governor, so there's no loss there.

Chris Hitchens is just being his usual self...

I also don't know why Matthews thinks that Kyl could never support her. She voted for the war, she is a hawk.

However, Hillary belongs in healthcare, not foreign policy. Secretary of State is obviously the plum, but foreign policy is not her forte. Despite Hillary's legendary failure with national healthcare in 93-94, she has seemingly revisited the issue in great depth, far more so than most other legislators. With Ted Kennedy's failing health situation, Hillary is the logical choice to spearhead national healthcare along with a few of the Democratic healthcare advocates in Congress.

I would have to be convinced that Hillary is qualified for Secretary of State. Her vote to invade Iraq and her "oliterate Iran" statement stand out where there isn't much of anything else to judge her by. She hasn't been a senator for that long and her entire first term was in the minority party. What exactly did she do that qualifies her for foreign policy?

Ummm, to distract people from Larry Summers? Who is very smart, very capable, and very energetic, and has a talent for offending people, particularly his women faculty members?

I will argue that she is very qualified because she knows so many politically powerful people around the world and knows how to schmooze. She has a dozen years of representing American interests to the world. Our allies (other than Japan) long to return to the Clinton years, so I don't see what "baggage" would cause a problem.

My sole concern is her lack of management skill, but with the right deputies this can be worked around.

HRC is essentially a policy wonk who's come to occupy high political office. She's deeply respected among the Defense and Intelligence folks, so she might be a decent SecState. But I dunno.

umm, i'd have to disagree on that one. a lot of us were kind of hoping for a clear signal towards peace & cooperation, not the same old belligerent thuggish bullshit.

Pro Iraq war: check
Pro threatening nuclear obliteration of Iran: check

NBC interview

QUESTION: …Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.

Bill Richardson is head and shoulders more qualified to be Secy of State.

Meantime, we hear all the time about how qualified B-Rich is, but during the debates he seemed to me to be a borderline buffoon. Did I miss something?

I doubt it will heal any divisions, but perhaps it will exacerbate some. I see a recipe for disaster. He wouldn't be able to fire her. They've perennially bickered over foreign policy. I see a very schizophrenic Obama administration ahead if she's appointed. Not worth throwing a bone to the feminists.

But more importantly, why "crumudgeon" in the title? Is this an allusion I'm not getting or just a typo?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_advisor_greg_craig.html

- Peace in Northern Ireland?
- Opening the border in Macedonia?
- Sniper fire at Kosovo airport?
- Pushing for human rights in China?

And then there's the possible conflicts of interest with the CGI.

That having been said I got to believe that Obama knows what he's doing here and I trust him on this.

I mean, maybe he's just giving the Clintons enough rope to hang themselves. Look at what have they done in the past when they have power and opportunity: Get impeached and lose the '08 Dem nomination.

As someone who really, really doesn't like the Clintons, I'm surprisingly unruffled at the idea of her as SOS. I guess after watching Obama for the last two years, if he thinks Hillary should be SOS, I'll go along for that ride. She not an untalented person, and its quite an effective way of keeping the Clintons in line.

Diabolical, actually. I mean if you look at the list of things that Bill will have to stop doing (speeches for pay, etc), he has to be quite the shade of plum at this point.

Her approach to foreign policy has always seemed to be to try to sound tougher than Republicans in the hope that Democrats can win office on domestic issues. And that is not what Obama needs in foreign policy.

On the otherhand, the idea that Obama is intent on turning the page on all things Clinton is some odd wishful thinking on the part of Clinton haters like Hitchens and Sullivan (even thought they have opposite views on what this nomination would do).

Obama has always been clear there are aspects of the Clinton years he likes and others that he doesn't. And his hires show that the ability to get stuff done is a high priority, and an aspect of change.

She's a superstar. She is loved around the world in a way that only two other politicians that I know of are- Her Hubby and BHO himself. And since those two dudes are busy (one giving speeches in Abu Dahbi and the other doing something in a big house) I'm gonna say she's the right woman for the job.

Forget all of this "keep your enemy's close" crap. The Clinton's are no threat to Obama. For either of them to try and undermine him during his term as Pres would be political suicide. And how does that help her in 2016. If she wants to run then, she better hope to have a popular dem in the white house. She doesn't need her own version of Bush.

She is a brilliant woman, who will attack this job with excitement, and will be greeted as a hero around the world. What more could you ask for from a SoS?

Personally I have a mad man-crush on the gaunt and ponderous John Kerry, who is extremely intelligent and second only to Joe Biden in foreign policy understanding on the Dem side. He would be my number 1 -- like Colin Powell, except that his Commander in Chief will actually respect his advice.