Now if only the rest of the netroots would follow. Between Leiberman and Clinton, it's like reliving FISA all over again. I have no patience for petulance and the exaggerated position blog commenters take in their own superiority complexes. As a longtime Obama supporter, there was no one more opposed to Clinton in the primaries than me. But I'm over it. They were fighting for position on the same side. This ridiculous notion that Clinton is a "rival" is absurd. For crying out loud, even David Axelrod once worked for Clinton. Obama and Clinton are on the same team. Always have been. The primaries found them, logically, jockeying for the winning position. But the primaries are over. Together they're quite a team.

And, finally, this idea that "change" is equal to cabinet choices - absurd! Change was always about the issues, not about the people. In the post-election season Obama has already doubled-down on closing Guantanomo, stopping torture, pursuing green initiatives, restoring habeus, and pushing forward with healthcare. Folks, meet change.

I saw your interview on Chris Matthews and I was so happy to hear someone say what I've been saying for several days. I wasn't a Clinton fan during the primaries and I did not want her for VP, but I believe that a lot of the drama that is around is created by the media and her "haters." I am not so biased that I can't admit when someone is being treated unfairly. Obama is being treated unfairly also. On the one hand they place extremely high expectations on him. Then in the same breath people like Matthews and Bernard insult him by saying that Clinton will go rogue and promote her own foreign policy agenda behind his back. Mr. Broder had the nerve to say that Clinton would be his mentor. Excuse me! But did these people just call Obama incapable of leading? incompetent? weak? What kind of message does this send to voters? Thomas Freidman wrote in his NY Times column that if foreign leaders see an inch of daylight between them, game over. Well, I wonder where foreign leaders would get the idea that Obama and Clinton differ so much on foreign policy? Hmmmmm?! Because really, I agree with you, they don't. Even foreigners understand when politics is just politics. Just yesterday I posted a comment on TPM that Hillary Clinton had to appear hawkish because she is a woman and a Democrat - both groups falsely seen as weak on foreign policy.

For months Secretary Gates has been using his shills in the Pentagon probably during their days jobs to float his willingness to stay on...for either new occupant. One wonders if Mr. Gates thinks that his ability to manage the slave trade to Camp Justice (Gitmo) and sustain the high productivity output of those special courts operating there contrary to the Constitution would specifically endear him to the beneficiaries of an election that was a final victory against of the enslavement of people by the United States.

No disrespect intended towards Senator Clinton, but throughout her public life, it has always been apparent that domestic policy was her first love. Within that sphere she would be stellar, I'm sure.

Trouble is, anything short of V.P. or Sec. of State wouldnt be enough of a "prestige appointment"- meaning her podigious ego is, implicitly at least, part of the decision matrix.

To paraphrase a line from an old movie, Obama, because of his ethnic baggage, has to do it "twice as clean" as a white guy in the same position- meaning every one of his cabinet picks have to be brilliant, and free of any hint of patronage, cronyism or political log-rolling.

On a more personal note, HRC forever tainted her image in my mind with that ludicrous bullshit about braving "sniper fire" in Bosnia. It takes that unique, over-the-top brand of Clinton psychopathy to try and float such a mind-boggling lie, particularly when there were cameras and eyewitnesses at the ready to refute her.

The day she can square away that truly bizarre episode is the day she gets serious consideration from me regarding one of Obama's most critical cabinet positions.

I wanted Hillary and Obama so my feelings are not much different from Joan's. The problem is that all the pundits want to predict the future--place their bets and show how bright and right they were after the transition is complete. I am just sitting back and enjoying the show. No one is more prepared to be Secretary of State than Senator Clinton. If she does not have the answer to some diplomatic problem, she would know exactly who might have that answer. She has contacts throughout the world that are astounding. She would have a more than able and competent staff to help her. But it is quite a show with the Chicago gang, the Clinton gang, the Democratic Hill gang, the media gang, etc. This is real democracy in action.

Hillary Clinton's clearly qualified, and Obama's a strong enough personality to make clear who's in charge. She's not going to "go rogue," to use an over-used buzzphrase.

And as far Clinton re-treads go...where exactly will the President-elect draw experienced hands from to serve in a Democratic White House? Ask Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter how well having a completely green team worked for them. I want to see Obama cultivate new blood, but he's correctly assessed that he needs to hit the ground running, and for that he needs people who have been down this road before.

Hillary can have Secretary of State. She'd be the third woman in that office (Albright and Rice having worked their way up the hard way), so I won't have to hear Hillary babbling about having "made history" (though I'm sure she'll find a way to claim it's historic anyway). It would be galling to see a true historic first claimed by a woman who rode her husband's coattails. Give her State to get her out of the way so another Democrat can have her Senate seat, then try to get the media focus on the women senators and governors who actually worked hard all their lives to get where they are. It would be nice to see Salon write more articles about women political figures other than Hillary (I like McCaskill and Duckworth).

The Senate will probably be delighted to see her go. Apparently, she's not happy about their rules of seniority and feels she should be fast-forwarded into plum committee chairs ahead of those who've served longer. Also, it'll get her to stop nagging Kennedy to let her screw up health care again.