That being said, I am unhappy with this talk of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. A commenter on another blog summed up part of my issue with the choice,
So sick of her and Bill and their inner circle and their supporters and the histrionics that seem to follow the Clintons wherever they go. We finally elected an adult who manages a team of adults and I don’t want these egomaniacal drama queens anywhere near the White House.
And not just her drama, do we really want the head of State Department accompanied (figuratively) by a galloping playboy slurping up money worldwide, whatever the purpose?
The other part is that the position requires management of a large staff of skilled and intelligent people. Look at how well she managed her campaign staff; at all of the infighting, squabbling and fighting for power in that relatively small group that she failed to quell or keep out of the press. Can she do any better with a larger State Department? Do we want State staffed with the best people, or would we welcome the Clinton proclivity for staffing with loyalists?
It would be pretty hard for Obama to pick someone who did not support the Iraq War, but does he need to pick someone who supported it in quite such a high profile way, and for so long? Someone who has never admitted the error of that support and never apologized for it?
Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, but the best reason I see for the choice is that it effectively prevents her from running against his reelection in 2012, and that does not reflect well on him.