First, we get:

"Sen. Clinton should quietly obstruct and undermine Obama's presidency."

Class, pure class. You're suggesting she should do as much damage as possible to the country to hurt Obama and increase her chances of winning the next election. That's exactly the sort of principled stand that will bring people over to your point of view. Do you believe your "destroy the country" philosophy fits all Hillary supporters?

BTW, she can do far more to fuck up the country as SoS, but she'd have to sign her name onto all the wars she starts in order to kill American soldiers, rather than, as you suggest, doing it anonymously and with maximum cowardice (what a leader!). But she could definitely fuck it up faster and more comprehensively.

Next, we get:

"Hillary Clinton should run for governor of New York."

Hey, apparently it's your state, so do what you want. You do realize that's a real job, requiring real management skills, don't you? The kind of skills Hillary has demonstrated time and again that she does not have? It's an incredibly difficult job, and it's easy for people to judge one's performance at it, which can't be good for her. In the Senate, you don't have to do a god damned thing, which is perfect for her skill set.

She and Joe Lieberman are good friends. Fortunately for the DLC, Lieberman would still have the perfect position from which to hurt Obama even if Clinton leaves the Senate.

You do remember that Hillary just sort of sits there in the Senate and doesn't do much for anyone, right? And that this is perfectly ok in the Senate?

You do remember that she only took the seat as a presidential stepping stone, right? And that she no longer has any reason to stay there and longer, since she doesn't really care about New Yorkers?

Maybe she should run for governor of Alaska. If Sarah Palin can do it, someone I wouldn't let run a coffee shop, then obviously the job is trivially easy (get money from oil companies, spend it and distribute the remainder to the people.. done), and we already know Alaskans have no standards.

But it doesn't matter. The drama clearly means she decided to take the SoS job. I'm thinking Thursday afternoon for the announcement, maximizing media exposure and drama. Apparently, Hillary thrives on everybody standing around saying "What does Hillary want?"

That particular drama, by the way, is her signature. It's what makes it plainly obvious that she's behind the leak of the offer.

It's not surprising that you wouldn't notice, because you're not sensitive to it. To those of us who found Hillary increasingly annoying during the course of the primaries, there's no mistaking those particular fingernails on that particular blackboard.

Chris Cilizza has the details over at WaPo: http://twurl.nl/hjrn54

Obama has reneged on every promise he has made during his campaign but it's Hillary's fault.

Bill Clinton, the only Democratic president to actually stand up to the Republicans and face them down over the federal budget is the one who started the Democrats decline? Kudos to him for "trashing welfare" (now the Democrats are pushing corporate welfare instead) and giving us the lowest crime rate in 50 years.

It's quite simple......Obama believes in winning at all costs but many of us don't believe in the "ends justifies the means" philosophy or his religious dogma.

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire) - Barack Hussein Obama

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who put civil law above religious law?

Not only might the delay be due to Hillary, but from what I've read, the initial leaking that Obama was/is interested in having her serve as S.O.S. may have originated from that end. Unfortunately, while I support the choice, and think she'll be a fine Secretary of State, we are reminded yet again that with the Clintons, drama is inevitable. And now, if this doesnt work out, the Taylor Marshes of the world will cry that sexism on the part of someone has to be behind it, when it could simply be that Senator Clinton decides that she doesnt want the job, or that it would be too complicated to deal with conflicts of interests regarding her husband's work. My one concern with the choice of Clinton is that once Obama starts out along this road, it becomes way too much hassle to even deign to take another route.

Clinton showed how she would have governed by the way she ran her campaign - it was disorganized and wasn't thought through all the way until after she got spanked in the post-Super Tuesday contests.

Obama thought the whole campaign through from Iowa to Super Tuesday to Puerto Rico and beyond to the convention and the general election.

We got the better organized, more thorough person as president.

NewYorkNY, unfortunately, suffers from some identity issues. She has previously favored us with a lengthy and rather ridiculous lamentation that she felt alienated from everyone that she knew because she didnt revel in Obama's victory as being a significant one for African-Americans, since Obama is not (so far as we know) the direct descendant of slaves. Since she claims to hail from Gotham, one would think that she would be familiar with the names "Louima" and "Diallo" and know that one need not be a direct descendant of a slave to bear the burden of slavery's legacy. However, she is, in the popular parlance, a hater. I know that as a Black person, I wont waste my time with her misguided racial foolishness, and I'd suggest you do the same regarding her desire for governmental disruption. Think of her rants as the typed equivalent of pigeon droppings.

The same Hillary that pandered to the worst of all ponderables and promised to go "nuklar" on Iran when she ran for Prez?

Uh...uh-huh...