This HRC for secretary of state stuff… A savvy friend of mine suggested that floating her name is a visible sign of respect to Hillary from Obama, rather than a real offer. Naturally I don’t know. I haven’t ever heard her name mentioned from Obama’s people on their SecState short list. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a recent development. I have my doubts for the obvious reasons — their relationship is too tense, and she has too many loyalists who’d undermine Obama — but on the merits she’d be a great secretary of state. Not good. Great.

I talked with Megan Carpentier about my reasoning there on Crappy Hour today:

… she has a massive international stature, she’s fluent in the details of strategy and the larger picture, she knows how to be persuasive and she learned about management — what works & what doesn’t — in the WH.

What I should also have added is that she has a backbone of steel. If there was any way to actually ensure she wouldn’t establish her own independent power center at the State Department, this would be a great pick. But there isn’t, so I’m doubtful it would happen. Obama has said he wants a team of rivals, sure, but there’s a big difference between encouraging debate and tolerating subterfuge. If HRC wouldn’t necessarily subvert the Obama agenda, her pathological band of loyalist-incompetents would.