Would this be amazing?-ZOMGYES!!!

1- It would certainly heal some of the hurt feelings & anger during the race for democratic nominee.
2- I have total faith in Hillary when it comes to foreign affairs and human rights issues.
3-It would be amazing to have 2 consecutive women in such a high ranking position. Especially two women who are politically so different.
4-Though I always appreciate high-ranking women, I think she is surely a good change from Condi.
5-I think Obama & Clinton would work well together and that they compliment each other nicely.

There, those are 5 good reasons to be excited.

I find her views on nuclear weapons are a bit retrograde, which worries me. Also, Danyell, I'm not sure where you get the idea that she'd work well with Obama. All reports are that they have utter contempt for each other.

Rachel Maddow broke this wonderful news to me last night and I was ecstatic. Hillary does a lot of important work in the senate, but I think the Obama administration would benefit from her white house experience, signature practicality and commanding presence.

I love that picture...that's a lady who means biznass.

I appreciate Vanessa's narration of Hillary's inner monologue.

I would absolutely love to see this happen, I remember this being the rumor that Obama had promised her some kinda bad ass position, whether it be supreme court judge or in the cabinet.

I think Rachel Maddow made some good points on this last night.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27707767

It's a great move politically, but it is problematic that she campaigned on foreign policy that is in many ways the opposite of Obama's policy. Would she change her positions to serve the president or would they have an ideological conflict? What does either say about her as a politician?

She's certainly capable but I'm not sure this is the right role for her given her campaigning.

As an aside, I am a huge Obama supporter, but that is an awesomely presidential looking picture of Senator Clinton.

I think Hill would be an amazing Secy of State, but is 8 years in a cabinet position worth a lifetime career as a senator (a very powerful one?)

This was something that really got my goat during the primaries. I heard many people suggesting that Obama should "reward" Hillary with a position on the Supreme Court, or something. Also, I heard a lot to the effect of "Hillary lost, what is she going to do now?"

Hillary Clinton is a super powerful senator, and the people of New York seem to love her. She can do all of us a lot of good as senator in 8 or 12 or 16 years, when conservative f*ckwits might be back in power.

I think Hillary would be great in this position, and you have to remember a couple of things. The things that are said during a campaign have to be left behind in order for everyone to move on. That's just how it works. And there is such a thing as mutual influence and compromise. Maybe if Obama does choose her for this role his choice can be interpreted as an acknowledgment that having opposing voices working together makes a team stronger and smarter. I'm not sure I would characterize their feelings toward each other as "utter contempt" since this was more or less the product of a grueling and intensely competitive primary season.

Like many, I originally thought that Hillary would be a great choice for Supreme Court justice. However, the reality is, Hillary is 61 years old...if Obama's justices are to have any lasting influence, they NEED to be much younger (regardless of sex) to serve longer. I suspect that as ambitious as Hillary is, she's going to want to just kick back and vacation in Cabo eventually (would YOU want to be working at 71 years old? Yeah, me neither).

Yes, New Yorkers love her, but again, a senate seat can only offer so much. I think she would be PERFECT as Sec'y of State...even if she serves only one term, she will have a MUCH greater effect on the politics of the United States than simply serving as Senator.

(See, Sarah Palin? This is what a REAL woman looks like!)

I have mixed feelings, though ultimately she can choose where her career goes. All the comments on here make good, valid points.

Anyhow, this picture is AWESOME. I love that with pearls and pink lipstick she still exudes strength, determination, and intense authority.

And, yes, THIS is a woman in power, not Palin.

Well, as a New Yorker I hate the idea of losing her. She's done some very good things around job creation in parts of the state that have been hurting pretty badly (they love them some Clinton in Binghamton and the southern tier) and she's also done some very good things to help keep NY family farms in business. I've tended to think of her as more of a domestic policy person and certainly in terms of progressive politics she's been much better than Obama on domestic issues while being far more hawkish than Obama on international ones. I think she's terrific in general but I don't like that hawkish streak.

I think she would be a great, and even practical, choice for Sec. of State, ideological issues aside. I really do believe that she and Obama are mature enough as politicians and as human beings, and devoted enough to making the next 4 years good and productive, to be able to work out any conflicts and work together on something like this if they think they are the best people for the job and thus have an obligation to the country to make it work.

I think it's great that she is being considered, whether she takes the job or not. I agree with a lot of the comments so far - that she already has a lot of power and job security as a senator. But I also think this would be a great role for her.

And further more, I was recently griping to my spouse about that absolute lack of women in the names being knocked around in the media for Pres-Elect Obama's cabinet. HRC is just one of the many smart, capable, and experienced women who would be an asset to the Obama administration.

I'm kinda surprised and a bit disheartened. I wish it was someone like Kusinich who is someone who seems really interested in working for Peace and not for their own best interest. Also, she voted for the war...wtf!? Although I supported Obama this election I'm not to pleased with his Clinton era hand me downs. I didn't want Clinton part Deux for Obama.

Starting separate subthread: I've heard Janet Napolitano's name floating as a top-tier candidate as Attorney General. I don't know how she'll ever outshine the abject uselessness, toadying, and disrespect for the rule of law practiced by AshcroftGonzalezMukacsey, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

No, I think this would be a terrible choice for Secretary of State. Her foreign policy, frankly is scary.

She is unabashedly pro-Israel, despite Israel's continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

She has called Iran a sponsor of terrorist groups, and that she would not hesitate to use force if it seemed Iran would get a nuclear weapon. Keep in mind Israel has enormous stocks of nuclear weapons.

She voted for the Iraq war, a testament to her judgment (or lack thereof) and her war-hawk stance.

She also voted for the Patriot Act, and voted to make flag burning a crime.

Is it good to have more women, in general, in positions of power? Yes, absolutely. But if Hillary Clinton were a man, and had the same positions she has now, what would our reactions be?

I agree with you GayRightsFAIL. I was really disturbed by Hillary's stump speech during the bombing of Lebanon. Instead of voicing concern that civilians were being attacked she crowed some nonsense about self defense. I would be disappointed to see such a hawk as Secretary of State, especially in these times. You can't be a champion of human rights and a champion of war at the same time.

I feel like there are better positions for Hilary. I voted for her in the primary and really like her, mainly because I thought she had better ideas on health care and the environment, and had a more diverse staff re:women. The part of her platform that gave me pause was her hawkishness (which, to be honest, I wasn't clear on whether it was her policy or her advisors telling her to get tough), and that was the thing that made me like Obama. If he puts her in a position that determines foreign policy, we get all the troubling aspects of her hawkishness, with the less awesome Obama centrism on health care. I think supreme court could be better.
I've also been disappointed with Obama's Clinton redux staff picks so far. And if he appoints Larry Summers, I will be so disgusted.

Huh... See... No... No good. I don't want her involved in foreign policy at all. I am in agreement with Bubblewrap. Her stance during Israel's war with Lebanon is typical of her willingness to defend cultural hegemony through violence. In the words of another great politician: "Theenks but noo theenks." (sorry...couldn't resist.)

She'd be terrible. Nearly all her policy expertise and experience is domestic, not foreign, and Secretary of State is not a position in which it's acceptable to "learn on the job." She's far too focused on political expediency in foreign policy, not in the way that's sometimes necessary to be practical but in terms of wanting everything to be resolved quickly and easily. She's not much good at diplomacy or negotiation, when you get right down to it. Another well-qualified female Secretary of State would be terrific, but the key is well-qualified. HRC isn't.

I was hoping for this ever since she lost the primaries. And I was predicting this ever since the DNC. It's arguably a better position than VP. Hell, it IS a better position.

Honestly, I think she'd be a better Attorney General than Secretary of State.

I don't know. Hil is a very independent lady, and the Secretary of state has to, in the end, follow the policy the President tells her to pursue. I don't know if Hil would be comfortable with that. She's had a lot of freedom and power in the last several years. She may not be interested in playing second fiddle to a man again.

It would be good in that it would help Obama's cabinet become of a cooperative of smart individuals from all ends of the political spectrum and offer a spirit of bipartisanship to her many supporters. But my enthusiasm ends there.

Of all the issues she and Obama differed on during the primaries, foreign policy was the strongest. I was already tilting toward Obama because he had opposed the Iraq War and, as my senator, she had voted not only for the Iraq War but against the Levin Amendment. The very moment I decided I was safely in his column and strongly opposed to her presidency was in May 2007 when he offered to meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions and she refused. Shortly afterward she voted in support of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Then in the last few weeks of the primaries, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran were to attack Israel. Can she now sit down with Iranian leaders and say, "Sorry, that was just me trying to win a nomination, no hard feelings"?

Secondly, she is NOT the most powerful member of the Senate, nor is she the most powerful female Senator. Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Mikulski have all served longer than she has, and they along with Debbie Stabenow, Claire McCaskill, and Amy Klobuchar actually lived in their respective states for more than four months before being elected to represent them. I see lots of fellow New Yorkers here praising her work in the Senate and I agree that on domestic policy she has done a very good job. What I do not like are the references to her as an exceptionally powerful or special politician who "deserves" something better than simply representing the voters who elected her. The past two years have made it undeniably clear that she only moved to New York to plot a quick path back to Washington. She lost a primary and simply returning to her Senate seat should be good enough for her.

It would be good in that it would help Obama's cabinet become of a cooperative of smart individuals from all ends of the political spectrum and offer a spirit of bipartisanship to her many supporters. But my enthusiasm ends there.

Of all the issues she and Obama differed on during the primaries, foreign policy was the strongest. I was already tilting toward Obama because he had opposed the Iraq War and, as my senator, she had voted not only for the Iraq War but against the Levin Amendment. The very moment I decided I was safely in his column and strongly opposed to her presidency was in May 2007 when he offered to meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions and she refused. Shortly afterward she voted in support of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Then in the last few weeks of the primaries, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran were to attack Israel. Can she now sit down with Iranian leaders and say, "Sorry, that was just me trying to win a nomination, no hard feelings"?

Secondly, she is NOT the most powerful member of the Senate, nor is she the most powerful female Senator. Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Mikulski have all served longer than she has, and they along with Debbie Stabenow, Claire McCaskill, and Amy Klobuchar actually lived in their respective states for more than four months before being elected to represent them. I see lots of fellow New Yorkers here praising her work in the Senate and I agree that on domestic policy she has done a very good job. What I do not like are the references to her as an exceptionally powerful or special politician who "deserves" something better than simply representing the voters who elected her. The past two years have made it undeniably clear that she only moved to New York to plot a quick path back to Washington. She lost a primary and simply returning to her Senate seat should be good enough for her.

i agree, she is not a powerful senator at all and moved to NY to get back into DC. Which is why she would take just about anything from Obama to end up in DC.

I don't see her as a good fit for Sec of State. The good thing is she may not last in the position longer than 4 years. I want Richardson