I was just talking about that with a friend.  I agree; I think Clinton would be a bad choice.  My friend thinks Richardson would be the best choice too--I think Hagel or Kerry would be better, but for totally arbitrary reasons.

Daschle is another option.  I don't know much about him.

CNN says Clinton and Richardson are the top candidates:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/14/transition.wrap/index.html

The New York Times goes so far as to speculate that Richardson will be the final choice because of complications with Clinton's background, but that Clinton's interest in the position has risen because of the low chance that she will get a position of influence in the senate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15obama.html?hp

What do you think the differences in style and policy would be between Clinton and Richardson as secretary of state?  What changes do you think it would cause in the way Obama's administration is run?

Looks like it'll be Clinton.

wow Hillary looks terrifying in that picture

I don't know much about Daschle either. Could you explain your arbitrary reasons please? I'm curious.

I think Clinton would be more aggressive than Richardson, needlessly so even. Richardson obviously has more experience and would be more reliable, given his extensive background in diplomacy. I also think that Clinton and Obama would come into conflict occasionally, because, quite frankly, I don't think they like each other, or truly agree on several issues. Granted, the Secretary of State is only a government representative, but still... I don't like the idea of her - this powerful, controversial (even more so than Obama, I think) woman in the pilot's seat of American foreign relations. Clinton would step on toes, which is not what we need.

To me, Richardson is the obvious choice - career diplomat; quiet, moderate liberal; not a politician - somebody that will complete the task at hand efficiently and without undue news coverage, somebody with an extensive knowledge of international relations. As I said before, I also think he would excellently handle one of the "forgotten issues" - South America.

Besides, I really don't want to work for Clinton five years from now, if I follow that career path.

Yeah, Clinton will inject her own opinions more than she should, and she carries a lot of political baggage.  Nonetheless, the Clinton name is generally respected around the world, so who knows...

When I said "aribtrary reasons" I meant "for no good reason."

There's a lot more about Obama's complete cabinet out now:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/16/transition.wrap/index.html

I've decided I think Clinton will say yes, although Bill is always a problem.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/clinton.cabinet/index.html

Yeah I think she will say yes but eh I just don't see her as secretary of state.  I think it would be wierd to put a failed former presidential in a high ranking positions.  I feel like they would be working more for their own intrests.

i dont know i think hillary would do what she thinks is best for america but what she thinks is best for america may not be what obama thinks

clinton would be good, even republicans say so, maybe that even shows bipartisanship

Everybody is saying that Clinton "looks good" because they don't want to be accused of undermining Obama. I think it's important to see through that - Republicans are going to be very careful about what they say for the next few months, in order to stay as under the radar as possible.

Hillary and Obama have vastly differing views on many subjects, among them foreign policy. Period. I think those different opinions would lead to problems with American interaction with other states. Period. That's it. Will he pick her? It would be the politically correct thing to do, in modern America. Is it the right thing to do? No. If you don't know anything about Richardson, look him up. He is vastly more knowledgable that Clinton could ever dream of being. He is the right choice. If Obama chooses Clinton over him, I will be incredibly disappointed, because it will be a decision based solely on what looks good on the surface.

greenhattedamigo, I agree with you for the most part.  But in today's chaos, Obama might well feel that it is better to make the choice that will instill confidence and look unifying than to make the choice that would actually have better advice.  Think about it: Obama never makes hasty decisions, and it's not like he won't call Richardson every time something important comes up.  Richardson won't be in a place to enforce policy, but Clinton certainly has the personality for that, if she can stick to message (which I think she can).

All the same, I'd rather have the better man, or woman as that may be, in office.  Public impression only goes so far.

yeah but it might not look so good if bill has donations from sketchy places

I guess its really just Bill that is holding her back from getting the job.

Bill Clinton's private interests are a concern. But I am still unwilling to shake off my conviction that Hillary Clinton is the wrong person for the job. I am not saying I'm unbiased in this opinon - I have never been a Hillary fan. When people were predicting an overwhelming primary victory for her in the Pre-Primary season around this time last year, I was predicting Obama. This is simply because I don't think Hillary's brand of politics is going to be popular for mainstream America. She has been successful in the Senate because that is more behind the scenes in American politics. I don't think she would hold up well under public scrutiny. Will that scrutiny come? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I think the Richardson option is better (a) because he would actually do a better job of following and implementing Obama's explicit direction and (b) he is less likely to bring public outcry on himself. He is a quiet person that tends to stay out of public limelight. That is what we need right now. Someone who does the right thing without being loud about it. Could Hillary do that? Yes. Will she? I think the probability is less likely than it is with Richardson.

In related news, the NY Times has done a report on Obama's likely staff picks/options.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/the_new_team/index.html

Looks like Daschle is out of the running for the State job.

An interesting perspective:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/clemons.hillary/index.html

CSM thinks Clinton would be a great pick as well.

Interesting indeed. Both pieces argue valid points, but I still disagree.

Clinton is the public-appeal choice. Richardson is a much better choice of the two, but there are other options. From what I've seen in the Times, Clinton is my least favorite pick right now.

It looks like analysts are favoring her though. I don't know. I still don't like it.

So far, I like Emanuel, but I'm not a big fan of keeping Gates in the DoD chair. I'd like to see another shakeup there. I do like the CIA Director possibility though (can't remember his name at the moment).

Richardson is by no means a much better choice.  He's simply a somewhat better choice.  Clinton has dealt mostly with domestic issues in Congress, but she's also very much on top of her foreign policy and has her head in the right place.  I think she'd be good enough.  The problem is that she attracts nearly as much attention as Obama, which is not what Obama needs when he wants to run his whole government himself and overhaul the way it's been done in the past.

I don't know, I guess I'm warming up to the idea of Clinton.  Less than ideal for sure, but she won't do a bad job.

Well, obviously the decision has been made. Personally, I disagree, but it wasn't my choice to make - I think Richardson would have been better.

We shall simply have to see how things play out.

Yeah its gonna be interesting. I feel like shortly after the inaguration its going to get a lot more boring...unless the foretold international crisis made to test Obama occurs.