apologies, all, comments were disabled for a bit

She doesn't fit in with Obama's no drama approach.

Obama had best give serious thought to wanting to emulate Lincoln.

Obama really seems hung up on the "Team of Rivals" concept. I mean there wasn't really a groundswell of folks pushing for Hillary to have any role, so Obama brought this all upon himself. I know Obama feels Hillary will be a team player, but when is the last time she was a member of a team? When is the last time she had to answer to somebody and potentially work on a angle she didn't agree with?

Richardson would have been a team player and had the experience for a seamless transition. Sen. Clinton ran a pretty bad campaign, it was chaos and leaked like a sieve. Is that what you want from the State Department?

Will Sen. Clinton name/hire her own staff or will Obama make sure he has some eyes and ears in a "Trust, but verify" sort of way?

ON hardball the other night, they had these two women debating Hillary as SOS and they both were very hard on her and almost paranoid about her motives. One even raised the prospect of Hillary running a "shadow government" from state.

Now, as a Hillary Hater throughout the primaries and much of the general, even I thought that was uncalled for. I mean, if anyone was going to be having those thoughts, it would be me. But i actually couldn't believe these supposedly sane, rational people were saying these things. It sounds utterly ridiculous.

And I don't know what it is, maybe they just need the prospect of the Clintonian soap opera to never end, but at some point, it all jumps the shark. and i think when you talk about "shadow governments" you've reached that point.

I really don't buy this notion that, as the dust settles, the two have markedly different visions with respect to foreign policy. I don't think the Globe article points to much difference between the two, except that remnants from the rhetoric of a primary battle are cited. President-Elect Obama selected a vice president who, like Clinton, voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In 2008, that vote in a real sense is less and less a reflection of policy differences going forward. Both HRC and BHO want us out of Iraq and sooner than later. I think HRC makes an excellent choice. I wonder if there's any accessible polling data reflecting how the American public is feeling about the selection of HRC at this point.

I don't know. I kinda like the idea of Clinton working for Obama. I mean, talk about "pitbull."

I agree. Let's all get our collective panties out of a bunch. The Clinton years were the most prosperous our nation has ever had. Don't fall for the media hyped Clinton drama, they've always had a hard-on for the Clintons.

Also, if Obama had followed the advice of many of us to go towards the slash and burn route during his campaign, he very well may not have been elected. Let the man put together his administration and then you can judge him on results or lack thereof. But for now, just chill out.

Starting to like this Obama guy. Perhaps I've misjudged him.

Just who did you think he was going to tap? Every qualified person is either a Washington veteran or lobbyist. He's pragmatic and he's not going rogue.

Smart.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily want to bet a LOT on the Clintons caring more for country than ego if it came down to it. -- No, correct that. I think they would be absolutely successful in concluding that what is good for their ego IS what is best for the country!

On the other hand, I think that HRC may be an excellent team player. Think about it. Would her life choices have been the same if she had been looking out for her interests first and foremost? No. She was Bill's "team" and stayed quite true to that role (too much so in the eyes of many...). It's not all selfless -- being a chief supporter of someone who succeeds makes her look awfully good, and I honestly believe that's what she would do re: a job in the Obama administration: try to be the best success possible by helping to make him the best success possible.

I wish, however, that the position being considered was something other than State, which overlaps so much with Bill's current activities and where, in the eyes of many, she will be always associated with him. HRC on her very own turf is a very good team player, I think, and a lot more competent than her campaign would suggest. (Although I agree that it would be a good idea for Obama to insist that one of his highly-organized ... and also loyal .. people be a chief assistant.

You know the nice thing, however? I suspect Obama is not paying a bit of attention to us or the media or the pundits in making these decisions but, instead, consulting his own master plan and instincts and listening to the counsel of those he's learned to trust and who know him best. I certainly hope that is the case.

FWIW, my choice for SOS would be John Kerry, but he's really needed as Foreign Affairs chair. Richardson is a good man but not quite as much gravitas and there are many more areas into which he could fit and be a tremendous asset. His experience as Governor shouldn't be put to the side.

I think Clinton would be fine but Richard Holbrooke would be better, tho. Slate pointed out that he's the one Hillary or Kerry would go to for advice anyway.

Two points for the people upset about Hillary:

* The Clinton years were prosperous and a veritable paradise compared to GOP misrule.

* Obama will be in charge, no matter who is picked.

This last point is important. I find the assumption that Obama will be some push over for the Clintons to be both wrong and offensive. Obama defeated two of the most formidable political machines around. He's no pushover, knows how to play hardball politics and wield power. Seriously, give the guy some credit. SoS is an appointed position who serves as the "pleasure of the president". Stop this paranoia about the Clintons and simultaneous and habitual underestimating of Obama.

Before Hillary Clinton can become Secretary of State:

1) Bill Clinton must provide a complete listing of all donors to his foundation and presidential library.
2) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton need to clearly indicate that any and all private financial dealings and other interactions with foreign leaders are now over, unless specifically authorized by the US government.
3) Hillary Clinton needs to publically discuss exactly what her approach to the job of Secretary of State would be and clearly indicate how she would be able to perform that job without any conflict of interest whatsoever.

If the Clintons are unwilling or unable to comply with the above requirements Hillary Clinton should not become Secretary of State.

Before Hillary Clinton can become Secretary of State:
1) Bill Clinton must provide a complete listing of all donors to his foundation and presidential library.
2) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton need to clearly indicate that any and all private financial dealings and other interactions with foreign leaders are now over, unless specifically authorized by the US government.
3) Hillary Clinton needs to publically discuss exactly what her approach to the job of Secretary of State would be and clearly indicate how she would be able to perform that job without any conflict of interest whatsoever.
If the Clintons are unwilling or unable to comply with the above requirements Hillary Clinton should not become Secretary of State.

It's kind of funny, isn't it, that the Republicans seem to be far more receptive to a Hillary Clinton pick than the Democrats? Of course, we seem to be looking for an excuse to give up on Obama before he even takes office.

I don't know. I think I'll just wait and see what happens,... and then give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's his Cabinet, so let's support whomever he picks. I find it hard to believe that he's completely lost his mind since November 4th!

This team of rivals is so much nonsense.

That Obama should emulate Lincoln and appoint his right wing opponents to important cabinet positions is being propagated by his right wing opponents. They lost the election and are now trying to manipulate his vanity by comparing him to Lincoln for their own politcal ends. But we live in a different world.

Lincoln's goal was to build a united front in the North to preserve the Union. His actions were sensible in that light. Every member of Lincoln's cabinet agreed on that goal. Obama won by appealing to those of us who want to see changes in the way things are done in Washington. Among other issues we oppose the foreign wars that have been promoted by the republicans and their right wing democratic supporters. Appointing republicans and Clinton retreads to Obama's cabinet will defeat those goals.