Did Obama make HRC the offer of SecState knowing that she wouldn't/couldn't take it because it would interfere with retiring her campaign debt? If so, Obama has seriously entered Magnificent Bastard territory, and--given that said MB actions would be hosing HRC--I'd have to give him mad props.

But the danger lies in creating the perception abroad that this is a co-presidency, because Hillary is such a large figure on her own right, and she would be doing so much of the traveling.

I think the one thing Obama needs to establish to all comers, foreign and domestic, is that he be da man. With Hillary, this will be less than crystal clear. From some vantage points, it will be downright opaque:

She's tough enough to face down the bad guys, smart enough to play nice when required.

As secretary of state, she should leave the tough-talk in Obama's hands. The Secretary of State is the top diplomat, after all. It's not the red phone job. The guy in charge of that lives in a big white house.

Also, her "toughiness", which I would prefer to call self-imposed hawkishness, has resulted in the very bad call of her Iraqi war vote.

Harley's unfortunate phrase reflects I think some confusion here. And confusing is what this assignment would be. Sure, I can see the political sense of it for Obama, though his presidency is less likely to benefit in the long run. Still, if she appoints her this is a clear signal that his priority is domestic. She does not reflect well his world-view, but she sure as heck would be a useful ally (and otherwise a potentially dangerous adversary) for the roughest four years we've seen in a while.

I can't really see the sense for Hillary though.

In theory she'd be better off becoming governor in New York. Thing is, Albany is not a dazzling metropolis, to put it mildly, or national power center (I lived there for some time).

Hillary would likely loathe the job. Her game is played in Washington, and that's where she wants to be. But she's there now, as Senator, so I'm not too sure what she gets for going to State. An eight year secretary of state? I don't think so. Four years? Then what? A four year presidential run? She don't need no four years. She doesn't need to establish her brand.

So there is no political gain. Does she want to jet around the world that badly? Maybe. But I doubt it. So then I would have to conclude that she has an agenda best served by her being Secretary of State, and powerful friends of the Clintons who want her to pursue it. Just exactly what that agenda might be, I couldn't say. But I've got some suspicions.

Of course not!

I wrote a diary about Yucaipa during the primary wars. For those who skipped the diary, here is the summation:

I know we Democrats are suppose to be best buddies again, but if Hillary wants a seat in Obama's cabinet then Bill Clinton needs to come clean about these business dealings.

On a related note, Dr. Marshall has some questions regarding the Clinton Foundation. LINK

IMO, Obama will do better if he has a SOS without so much baggage.

But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie

Discussing politics without the baseline assumption that the stupid and evil thing will be done no matter what.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Richard Holbrooke (from Wikipedia)

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

and 100's of millions of dollars. that is what hillary clinton had going for her before she had to step aside.... it would be foolish for obama to marginalize her. i assume she still has relationships with a large constituency of democrats from the power brokers to the money people to the intelligentsia to all those voters that backed her. obama likely is consulting her, as he should. i have no idea whether a sec'y of state is being offered or would even be appropriate though.

If she eventually wants to try for the big chair again (probably in 2016, at this point) SecState isn't a good place to prepare for it--the last former SecState to be elected President was the hapless James Buchanan. Obviously, if she wants to pursue a long term Senate career, giving up seniority isn't going to be helpful, even if she can win her seat back later. Taking SecState would only make sense if it was a stepping stone to something else--say, replacing Biden on the ticket in 2012--that she might not get otherwise.

All this breathless gossiping seems to be emerging from the pro-Hillary camp and is endlessly repeated by the Usual Suspects. It's probably not coming from Hillary herself.

Several salient facts:

Hillary Clinton worked her ass off for Obama after losing the Democratic primary battle. She knows she's on Obama's Accounts Payable.

The Clintons are in big money trouble. When Obama gets his ass in the sling, and he will, for the current jubilation and mass self-congratulatory frottage will come to an end, Obama will turn to the Clintons for support. Then Hillary will get her pound of flesh and she'll take it in cash.

If Hillary becomes Secretary of State, following in the tradition of Madame Albright, where would Bill Clinton fit into that mix? The private talks between Obama & Co. and the Clintons has the hallmarks of big merger talks. Bill Clinton is the shrewdest politician in a century. Even with his zipper problems, he's survived catastrophes which would have laid a less adroit man in his political grave: viz. Elliot Spitzer. The Hausa say where you find the snake you will find his wife, well in this case where you find the snake it's the husband you'll find.

For some reason, I am put in mind of William the Conqueror's conquest of Britain. All his life, William was at the mercy of competing factions. Though everyone remembers the Battle of Hastings in 1066, his most significant battle was at Val-ès-Dunes against rebel Norman barons in 1047, sealed by the Truce of God. These same rebels would form the core of his army of 1066. There wasn't anyone with any power William wouldn't make an ally, and he had his reasons.

After his invasion and the defeat of Harold Godwinson, William set about to pacify Britain. The barons who had fought William in Normandy were rewarded with as much land as they could hold.

All metaphors fail at some point, and this one is no exception. Obama is keeping his political enemies at bay by giving them as much power as they can control. He will systematically gut the old power structures, not as Bush and Cheney did, but by creating fealty in his subordinates, harnessing their own ambition to his own ends. Hillary will be no exception.

Having Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State may look like a brilliant stroke of political inspiration, but it's hard to see where either Clinton or Pres. Obama really benefits.

First will Hillary (and to a lesser extent, Bill) gain much in way of power/prestige (outside of free publicity) as SoS - more than she would remaining in the Senate? Or really get into carrying out someone else's policies? Also, would she be willing to run of the risk of getting "fired" - over some major FP debacle, God forbid - a year or two down the road? And thus end up with no Senate seat or Cabinet post?

And as for Obama - is he really contemplating outsourcing the execution of US foreign policy to the Clinton Machine? Rather than some of the no-doubt plentiful candidates for the job who would be beholden to him first and foremost, rather than his main political rival?

Still it is a masterful bit of political jujitsu from Sensei Obama: Sen. Clinton turns his offer down: no loss, no gain (save for positive press). She accepts (tho it's hard to see the upside for her) - even more positive press: and his principal rival is then on the payroll. Smart.