In the early days of the Republic, Secretary of State was a stepping stone to the Presidency - much more so than Vice President. It's the only position I can think of that gives you both executive and foreign policy experience, outside of the White House itself...

Well, it's a pretty sweet gig, and let's face it, running in 2012 or 2016 are pretty slim chances for her. She can stick it out in the Senate for that time, and perhaps longer, but to what end?

If you see the Senate as a stepping stone to something greater, and see your sell by date for that something greater quickly approaching, there are numerous reasons to take a high ranking policy generating position within the current white house.

She is not without experience in foreign affairs, and taking this position will put her in a spot to make a mark on the Obama administration.

And if in 2016, she does opt to make a go for the run. Adding the foreign policy successes of negotiating the victory in Iraq (as it will be described by Democrats starting in 2009) and perhaps the victory in Afganistan put her in the cat bird seat as far as qualifications go.

If you see Senator Clinton as tactical and makeing her move politically the Senate has served its purpose, and now she needs to make her foreign policy chops somethingmore than hosting teas with other first ladies.

More likely however, is just the fact that she really wants to do well for her nation and would see the opportunity to formulate policy and be a voice of reason to Obama a great place to serve.

Here is a reason: She is smart and she would do a great job for her country.

It's hard for me to believe how cynical people can be, always looking for some ulterior motive... What if she is simply ambitious AND patriotic and wants to answer the call to serve her nation and bring her best efforts to a critical issue: rebuilding our relationships with the world; ending two wars; lowering tensions in the Middle East; negotiating a Middle East Peace agreement ...

I would imagine the hard call for her is whether she'd rather take on the State job, which would be very prestigious, or take on Health Care, which is her unfinished business and on which she and Obama are more in agreement than any other issue.

I say yes. I cannot think of anyone more suited for the position of Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton. Obama would be lucky to have her in this important diplomatic role; and he would be foolish not to give it to her.

Hillary has been, and is, a hardworking and devoted Senator but it is time for her to work for the country and the world, and move beyond the state of New York.

Please Obama, do the right thing and pick Hillary. She will not let you down.

Speaking as one who really wants to see Bill Richardson as SoS, and Hillary Clinton as Senate majority leader, this worries me. At this point, I'm hoping that the conflicts with Bill's clientele cause President Obama move on to (the other) Big Bill.

I mean, she ran for the senate seat as a stepping stone to running for president in 2008, and that didn't work out for her, so why not try for SoS where she may actually accomplish something. She can fly into Baghdad and have real snipers shooting at her!

Better than having her sit around the senate bitching about video game warning labels not being verbose enough....

Actually, I suspect Senator Clinton would make an excellent Secretary of State. It would also be a very positive signal to the rest of the world. The Clintons enjoyed popular support around the globe. However, I think this means lots more of her Mars Attacks! voice. Arrgh! I don't know if I can take it. ACK-ACK!

I'd much rather she become the Senate Majority leader. We need someone with smarts, balls and a spine, which are all qualities Harry Reid lacks and which Hillary possesses in spades.

Having a Clinton in the senate is as close as you want that family to the levers of power. Bill had his chance and blew it utterly.

One thing that concerns me is that a lot of names being mentioned for various posts are either senators or congress people. Who takes their place? Is it good for a future of Democratic majorities to have lots of unknown freshmen in congress?

I didn't vote for Obama so that the Clintons could be given more executive power. If I wanted Hillary anywhere near the Whitehouse, I would have voted for her in the primary.

Make her the next Supreme Court justice. She's got the intellect and I've heard these positions have excellent job security, so giving up her Senate seat shouldn't be a problem.

I'll confess, I for one am having trouble keeping up with all of this "change"!

I mean, we've got Biden, Holbrook, Rubin, Gates, Albright, Emanuel, and maybe even Hillary Clinton!

All of these spanking new faces.

I'm getting dizzy with all of the "newness" that Obama is delivering.

(I think I need a lie-down.)

Totally agree -- if all these senators join the executive branch, Congress is going to have to meet in the White House.

However, maybe this says something about how screwed up the balance of power is after 8 years of Bush -- no one wants to be in the legislature anymore. But the legislature is supposed to be the stronger branch -- the more important branch -- in our system. When our best would rather be an assistant to the President than make law themselves, you know we've gone wrong as a country.

From my perspective, the "why would she take it?" question isn't the same as "should she be considered". I don't think it's a question of her not doing a great job in that position; or of the only calculation being that of political advantage to *her*. For me, it's a question of: where can she do the MOST good? I see her as qualified for a number of different very important positions, from Senate Majority Leader to various cabinet posts. But she can only fill one position, so I'd like to see her and Obama consider carefully before selecting which one.