There are three great reasons why Hillary should not be Secretary of State.

The first is simple. More than ever before, in the next eight years we will lead a liberal leader in the senate to advocate for government programs in health, welfare and family support (domestic violence, child care, paid family leave). While Obama is good on these issues, he is government lite, as are most of his advisors from the Bill Clinton years. Even if Ted Kennedy were likely to remain active, which it is not, Hillary is the only left of center leader we have. And we need her there.

The second reason is that Hillary will make a great President in 2016 and is far and away the only potential liberal leader who would do so. No Secretary of State has become President in almost 200 years. And, because the position requires continual travel and obedience to party line, there is almost no chance Hillary would emerge from this process in a position to run.

The third reason is that Hillary would make a lousy Secretary of State compared to alternatives such as Bill Richardson with real foreign policy expertise. Hillary is a great spokesperson. She is a forceful and principled negotiator. But she does not have either the knowledge base of a Rice or a Kissinger or the diplomacy skills of Hull or Marshall. Secretaries of State need to be quiet, eternally patient, strategic and able to suffer fools with apparent grace-- Hillary has none of these characteristics.

I can think of few political mistakes that would be greater than for Hillary to take this step.

I'm a Clinton groupie and have been since I was at a conference on domestic violence in Russia and was told she had made personal phone calls to help two women in trouble there. Apart from everything else, of course.

But there is every reason to oppose Hillary's decision, starting with the fact that no Secretary of State has become President in almost 200 years. No question both the appointment and vetting Bill publicly like this sends a message of where the Obama team wants Hillary, starting with the word "Secretary," namely out of the country and in a position where she cannot publicly question, let alone challenge, domestic policy, her really strong suit. There are also the minor issues that, while Hillary may be more principled on foreign affairs than her erstwhile rival, she is no foreign policy wonk, not even close, has virtually no foreign policy experience and is a lousy negotiator. Oh yes, and is hated by Dr. Powers, the brilliant Harvard prof who remains Obama's lead on foreign affairs (as she should be). So, yes, she will gain a world stage and thousands of photo opps and will be a quick on-the-job study. She will bring women and children's rights to the center of foreign policy, which is a good thing on balance, though probably means little practically given our closest allies at the moment. But she will not and cannot be a great Secretary of State as she would be, or now would have been, a great President when Barack's days are done.