A Potential Secretary Of State Clinton May Not Be The Best Idea (Though It's Not Her Fault).

Now that Senator Hillary Clinton's hat has been thrown into the ring as a possible future Secretary of State (I, amongst others, suggested her as a possible Secretary of State this past summer, though I ultimately endorsed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the role), a certain amount of grumbling has emerged from various sectors of the blog-o-sphere. Much of this grumbling has focused on Senator Clinton's apparent unwillingness to take marching-orders from, well, anyone, really. This line of thought suggests that she would make a fine national chief executive but a less-than-stellar employee of anyone else who might be the national chief executive, no matter how suited she might be for the role of Secretary of State, or for a related role.

I disagree with this viewpoint, mostly because Senator Clinton has shown herself to be quite capable of backing-up Senator Obama on the campaign trail. Yes, she'd rather be the head of the executive branch, and, yes, her background suggests that she'd be well-suited for that role. Yet she has transitioned to the role of "Official Obama Supporter" in a rather seemless fashion. (Her husband, by contrast, has found her transition to be far more difficult to stomach.) So, from that standpoint, there is a lot to recommend her for the post of Secretary of State.

Yet I do have a problem with a potential Secretary of State Clinton in that I simply question whether she is "too big" for the role. Given that the Secretary of State needs to do a lot of her or his most sensitive work in a somewhat quiet, somewhat "under-the-radar" manner, would a Secretary of State Clinton be able to detach herself from the international public eye enough to spend considerable periods of time in a "subtle" context? (I'm obviously aware that some of the Secretary of State's time is spent very much in the public eye, as well.) And would a Secretary of State Clinton be able to keep the focus on President Obama's policies, as opposed to her own fame? At this point, I'm simply not sure.

Please notice that I am not "blaming" Senator Clinton for her status as a "political rock star." Besides, I think she's earned the international attention. But, in a sense, her ueber-fame is a bit limiting in that her options are somewhat more limited than those of someone like, say, Chuck Hagel or Bill Richardson or John Kerry, etc.; there are only certain jobs that she may not have "outgrown." The role of Secretary of State is indeed a very, very important one, but an ideal Secretary of State needs to be highly experienced in diplomacy, highly respected in international circles, and, quite frankly, less than internationally enthralling. Senator Clinton certainly fulfills the first two requirements, but not the third.