Hi, I'm the contrarian voice today

Drezner 1, Helman 0.

Dude, there were millimeters, at most, between their substantive positions.

Thanks, Dan.

I made the same point yesterday to an email group I'm part of (where I am the extreme left wing, to my great amusement). I woke up to the Globe story and thought, "OMG, I'm going to have to defend myself on this one." But then I saw your quote and thought, "No problem. I'll just drop the DD-bomb on them."

Countries will be more appreciative of a visit by Hillary Clinton than they would if Bill Richardson of John Kerry were coming to town.

John Kerry? Isn't that setting the bar pretty low?

Sen. Clinton's "rock star quality" as a "diplomatic force multiplier"? What does that even mean? If President-elect Obama is looking for a Secretary of State with rock star quality, he'd save himself a lot of trouble by appointing an actual rock star to the job.

Bruce Springsteen would be ideal. He tours the world anyway, at least I think he does, to begin with. He's widely known overseas, and as widely popular. He is a reliable liberal Democrat, and his entourage of roadies, personal retainers and various hangers-on can't possibly be as large or as troublesome as Hillary Clinton's.

Barack Obama may have allowed the idea of inflicting Hillary Clinton on his defenseless new administration to gain so much momentum that he'd have difficulty changing his mind about it even if he wanted to. If he doesn't, he'll regret it. We know the qualities that have distinguished the most successful modern Secretaries of State -- experience and skill with the art of diplomacy, a strong preexisting relationship with the President, clear ideas about what the State Department ought to do and how it ought to do it, freedom from the need to service a domesic political constituency. Clinton doesn't have any of that.

What she has is celebrity. Politically, she has punched her ticket adequately by winning a Senate seat in a Democratic state prone to enthusiasm for celebrity candidates, but Clinton is mostly famous for the office her husband held and she campaigned for. None of the most successful modern Secretaries of State came from a background remotely similar to hers, and all of them had one very large asset that Clinton does not: they could be fired.

OK, it is difficult to imagine President Truman firing George Marshall. The point is that should Secretary of State Clinton not work out for some reason -- say, for example, her passion for loyalty from her subordinates or her contempt for her critics get out of hand as they have in the past -- President Obama could not get rid of her without sending an important segment of his party into a spasm of outrage. What is the payoff that justifies taking that risk?

It would be one thing if Obama just wanted to delegate foreign policy to his Secretary of State, the way George W. Bush delegated so many policy areas to Vice President Cheney; in that case, Obama's policy would become whatever Clinton decided it should be. No one thinks Obama wants to be that kind of President, though. I'm frankly surprised that he even appears to be considering this loopy idea.

the worst of it for this obama voter is that clinton (i won't call her hillary), whose relative hawkishness was her biggest selling point for me, may be the least bad of the choices floated so far. kerry? albright, who chased after yasser arafraud when he walked out of whichever peace talk it was? ugh.

Oh please, the supposed differences in foreign policy between these two liberal illuminati were mere stagecraft for effect. Yes, I can well imagine how nauseating each must be to the other during this intrigue of whether or not Hillary will actually take the post and whether it is genuinely being offered or if this is more stagecraft.

The schadenfreude at watching the original members of the ObamaNation squirm at the prospect of Hillary as Secretary of State is nothing short of delightful.

"clinton (i won’t call her hillary)"
You just did. If you want to emphasize her last name, use H. Clinton.