My theory is they leaked it in order to test the reactions to the appointment, which I think was the reason for the Rahm Emanuel leak before the election, and probably the Larry Summers leak, too. The response to Emanuel wasn't that bad, so they went ahead with it.

Based on that theory, if people really, really don't want Hillary to be SOS, it might be a good idea to start ridiculing this appointment now.

But that's just it: why not Defense? Assuming that she has the chops, which people seem to think she does, why wouldn't he offer her that over the State Department? We've heard rumors that Michele Flornoy is an outside contender for Defense, so perhaps he's really looking to make a statement by putting a woman into a high position.

I must say, I conclude the opposite from you about the leaks of Clinton at State. By putting this out there when nobody really expected it and then taking it away, it'd be extremely odd as a tactic for dealing with Clinton supporters.

Al Giordano believes the leaks are from the Clinton camp:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/freak-show-behind-clinton-secretary-state-rumors

I was also skeptical of this selection when I first heard the rumor, for the same reasons you mentioned above.

Though the same argument could be made against Joe Biden for VP. Biden voted for the war and is the epitomy of "stale Washington foreign policy" but Obama selected Biden for his foreign policy experience.

I love the idea of Hillary as Secretary of State (though I like her as Secretary of Defense even more) and I would be quite irked if I was lead to believe this was a token offer. However, with Hillary being in Chicago yesterday and her people deferring back to the Obama camp on the subject, leads me to believe this is a genuine offer and that she is likely the frontrunner.

I think Obama is putting together a great cabinet from what I hear.

Though once again, a lot of Obama supporters are going to have to eat crow that they change they believed in was just political manuevering.

Save her for the Supreme Court so that she won't have designs on 2012.

A lot of news outlets are now reporting that Hillary indeed went to Chicago to meet with Barack, so I'd say this is more than just a rumor.

psmith, the post you linked to is premised on the idea that George Stephanopoulos is a "member of the Clinton faction of the Democratic Party" which is pretty obviously not true.

Psmith

Politico and Andrea Mitchell, who broke the story, reported that various top Obama sources leaked the story.

I don't think she would falsify her source, but I'm not an expert on journalistic ethics.

She would be executing Obama's foreign policy, not her own. She would be giving the voice of establishment foreign policy in cabinet meetings, but what is wrong with that?

I think she'd be great as top diplomat, since she's obviously quite well known and highly respected globally.

Hillary as SecDef: think, the Hillary Nutcracker.

Obama's campaign was predicated on the idea that [Clinton's] foreign policy judgment proved pretty bad.

But wouldn't this also rule out John Kerry, the top contender for the job?

Also, am I wrong, but Clinton's got a possibility of at least another 15 years of service left in the Senate. The Senate has always seemed more prestigious to me than a cabinet position. I can see why someone like Kerry with 20+ years would effectively "retire" and take a cabinet position as the cap on a long career, but I don't see why someone would leave after only 8 years. It's not like you can come back after you leave.

Yes, yes yes! SecDef would be perfect for her. It would be gender groundbreaking in a way that SecState wouldn't (Albright, Rice), it would be fantastic to see a woman in charge of that male-dominated bastion, she's got the chops and she's totally qualified and finally...

it would drive the wingnuts absolutely insane.

that has to be worth something, right? :)

The Senate has always seemed more prestigious to me than a cabinet position.

Completely disagree. Secretary of State is vastly more prestigious. You hear a lot more about Condi Rice than you hear about your average Senator on a daily basis... especially Senators of the ruling party.

I too was curious about the leak, which seems deliberate. Hillary Clinton will be a competent Sec of State but I don't see her fitting into Obama foreign policy agenda. Another to keep in mind is that Obama may need Bill Clinton's help in the sealing Middle East peace and it would be rather awkward if the wife is Sec of State.

I think this pretty much rules out Bill Richardson. Clintonites would be incensed if "Judas" were to get the job over Hillary, especially if Hillary were considered a top contender.

Jesus Christ, how is Sec. of Health and Human Services "insulting"? For the last 9 mos all we've been hearing from her and her supporters has been her passion for health care reform and all other things domestic. And now she's up for State?! What about Sec of Education, given that this was her intellectual field?

What about Attorney General?

I'm not sure why people think there's a disconnect b/t BO and HRC on foreign policy when both seem wedded to the Establishment preference for hegemony and "full spectrum dominance." Let's (maybe, gradually) get out of Iraq so we can "surge" into Afghanistan? I wish Obama was as committed to a fundamental re-think of our approach as some think he is, but he ain't. On this view, HRC and BO aren't that different, so why not have someone at State who's competent but no a boat-rocker? And the transformative alternative is who? Kerry? Holbrooke? Get a grip.

Health and Human Services, which would fit Clinton's best issue, would be an insulting offer.

Totally -- I mean, if you're being considered for a glamorous position in charge of blowing up brown people, what could be more insulting, more of a big step down, than to be given a job promoting their well-being.

....her [Clinton] blunder into, among other things, supporting the war in Iraq ...

I love the purity of the ObamaFanBoyz when it comes to the Iraq war vote. Did you support Kerry in '04 since he also voted for the war? Did you vote Obama/Biden in '08 because Biden is a major Iraq war booster, second only to Lieberman? It seems that on this issues as so many others, your hypocrisy is boundless. Your fawning support for your precious leads to foolish contradictions and the collapse of your credibility on the issue such as health care. Perhaps you could note your candidate's pro-war voting record until 2007 when he decided to use it as his campaign issue. Perhaps you could note Clinton's anti-war stance began in 2006. Perhaps you could note Clinton's clear commitment to begin withdrawal immediately while Obama equivocated. No, I doubt it. What seems to be the problem is Clinton's refusal to grovel abjectly to the ever so pure ObamaFanBoyz club. I hope she declines any position in the Obama administration.

The people on this list voted against Kyl-Lieberman in 2007:

Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

As you can see, Kerry, Dodd, Biden are among the Senators who first voted for the Iraq res. who voted no on Kyl.

HRC voted in favor of it.

Obama was not there for the K-L vote, but I knew of his strong "con" position both long before and after the Iran-related shenanigans [see his 2nd Charlie Rose interview in 2006]. Apparently the K-L vote ended up being rescheduled for much earlier than planned, w/ Obama given very short notice before it happened.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html

It's called acknowledging and learning from your mistakes, and it marks the diff on foreign policy not necessarily between BO and HRC, but between HRC and everyone else ...

I should add, Obama was campaigning in NH when the vote was called ...

Not sure why so many people are talking about some huge disconnect between Obama and Hillary as regards foreign policy. As far as I can tell their only significant difference was their initial response to the invasion of Iraq. But they are obviously on the same page now, and anyway the list of potential cabinet members who opposed the war at the outset is pretty damn short, so likely whoever it is will end up being someone who initially supported the war.

What are the other differences? "Preconditions"? That was just campaign b.s. (on Hillary's part), and a fairly minor thing to disagree on. It's not like Hillary is passionately opposed to talks without preconditions; she just saw a supposed "gaffe" by her opponent and jumped on it.

Raids into Pakistan? Can't remember what Hillary said about it during the campaign but it's basically a moot issue anyway, because everybody supports it, including Bush and McCain (McCain just didn't want to "talk about it out loud" in a debate; everybody knows that top secret foreign policy plans should only be discussed with random people at pizza parlors).

That leaves ....?

Jeebus

Actually I think you have the preconditions debate backwards. Early on in the general campaign Obama "softed"/"clarified" his positions to be more along line Clintons. Preconditions necessary to meetings. I believe Biden holds this position as well.

To be fair, the argument was always mostly semantics. No foreign leader, American or otherwise, will ever meet with the leaderof any foreign country without preconditions. Of course this operates on a sliding scale. What we expect from a meeting with the UK is different than what we'd expect from a meeting with Venezula.

Jeebus

Actually I think you have the preconditions debate backwards. Early on in the general campaign Obama "softed"/"clarified" his positions to be more along line Clintons. Preconditions necessary to meetings. I believe Biden holds this position as well.

To be fair, the argument was always mostly semantics. No foreign leader, American or otherwise, will ever meet with the leaderof any foreign country without preconditions. Of course this operates on a sliding scale. What we expect from a meeting with the UK is different than what we'd expect from a meeting with Venezula.

Mike --

Your argument is specious. Supporting Kerry vs Bush in 2004 was the anti-war position. Supporting Kerry in the primaries was not, and most people online were supporting Dean or Clark.

Actually I think you have the preconditions debate backwards. Early on in the general campaign Obama "softed"/"clarified" his positions to be more along line Clintons. Preconditions necessary to meetings.

Obama supports meeting without preconditions; McCain spent much of the debates hammering him on this position.

Obama introduced his "no preconditions" position in the primaries, somewhat inadvertently in a debate, and Hillary pounced on it. So theoretically someone could say that they have a difference of opinion on this issue. But I doubt it really matters that much to either of them.

I would assume that Hillary's support of the Iraq War (and for militarism more generally) disqualifies her from being Secretary of Defense-- Obama needs a dove in that position, not a hawk.

State is a good position for her.

She has also had some relevant military experience, when she was ducking bullets on the tarmac in Bosnia. Though that experience is not as impressive as Rahm Emanuel's (fictitious) experience in the israeli defense forces.

dove for Defense and hawk for State? How stupid are you?