HILLARY AND STATE

Nancy L. Cohen writes on the Huffington Post:

If we shift the angle of vision from the habits we formed during the campaign, Hillary Clinton emerges into view as an inspired choice for secretary of state and a potential agent of transformational change -- exactly what President-elect Barack Obama is seeking. Obama will not choose Hillary to make party peace, nor to bring warmed-over Clintonism into the inner sanctums of the new administration. He will not choose her because she is a woman. If Hillary is the one, she will have been chosen because she has shown visionary leadership on two of the critical international (and moral) questions of our age: climate change and the human rights of women.

If we were picking a secretary of state based on his or her position on climate change, the logical choice would be Al Gore. And women's rights issues will not be at the forefront of international relations in the next few years. And the only thing transformational that Hillary would bring to the post is ... well, she won't even bring that, considering the gender of the person now holding the post, not to mention Madeleine Albright. Ms. Cohen wants a woman. Well, okay.

Ms. Cohen does go on to say:

Others legitimately call attention to her record in the campaign (bad), her record and rhetoric on classic international issues (mixed), the experience and prestige she would bring to the position (mixed). Right. Clinton was a war hawk, and her international attitude is very much tied to Davos and big finance. She'd transform Obama's image, that's for sure.

Which brings me to my point. What Clinton wants or believes in should be irrelevant to her post. There are two tests for the position of secretary of state: what can she bring to Obama in the way of extensive international knowledge, and will she obey Obama's orders? I don't know that Hillary is particularly reliable on either - but I would approve the appointment on the condition that the moment she steps out of line, Obama cans her ass.