The Washington Post has got to be kidding me. The idea that Senator Clinton might be considered for Secretary of State in the Obama administration must be a joke, right? Why? Well, let's search our memories a bit. What was a significant point of difference between Clinton and Obama during the primaries? That was a long time ago, but if I recall right, one big difference was Obama's willingness to meet with "anti-American" leaders and Clinton's criticism of such willingness as naive and irresponsible. And now Clinton would implement Obama's foreign policy? Or make it?
Worse, if this happens (and right now we're only speculating wildly on small evidence) it would stink of political calculation at the expense of diplomatic competence. I recall myself sneering at Clinton's boasts of her foreign-policy credentials, which seemed to consist of acting as hostess for visiting leaders and giving an ineffectual yet insulting speech in China. Putting her in charge at State might be a Clintonian plan to burnish her resume for 2016, or an Obamite plan to reduce the likelihood of a 2012 primary challenge -- or even a scheme by New York Democrats to kick her upstairs so that Gov. Paterson can fill her seat with some ambitious character like Andrew Cuomo, and thus eliminate a challenge to himself come 2010. Whatever the ulterior motives, such a move to place Clinton so close to power would be the opposite of change, perhaps even the opposite of hope.