I've flipped on Hillary for SoS; I now think he should go with a quieter choice like Holbrooke.

[Unsane]

My change of position was sparked by an article by David S. Broder of all people. An excerpt:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802882.html?sub=new

What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America's interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.

I feel like a quiet, competent civil servant like Holbrooke could carry out Obama's policies. I'd like to think the tansition team is giving him a look.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I want someone in plain brown wrapper also.....

as I want the busines of work getting done; quiet but honest diplomacy.

[AtomicKitten]

2. I agree Obama doesn't need conflict (Kabuki Theater) in such a sensitive position.

[Beausoir]

3. David Broder is always a great person to sway your opinion if you are a Liberal.

[Skwmom]

4. Holbrooke is a Neocon so why would Obama select him?

[DFW]

5. I think Hillary would have filled the role admirably, BUT:

I also feel she needed to step up and say yes or no when it was put forth.

Indecision does not become her. If she hasn't been able to decide to take the
position now, she should stay in the Senate. Let either Kerry or Richardson do it.
Holbrooke would probably be OK, too, but I'd rather someone with a higher profile.
After our miserable cast of characters under Bush Lite, we have some reassuring
to do on the world stage. Holbrooke is competent, but we need someone who is not
only competent, but would also honor other countries by just noticing them. When
Clinton appointed Walter Mondale as Ambassador to Japan, our prestige there rose
greatly, as it honored the Japanese to pick a former VP as our envoy to their
country. So, too, would a Secretary of State be especially effective who is not
only competent (e.g. Holbrooke), but would bring prestige to any country and world
leader he or she visited. Hillary Clinton would have filled those requirements just
fine, but the indecision is detrimental to a good start. Pick Kerry or Richardson.

[Metric System]

8. But she hasn't officially been offered the position!

[DFW]

10. I know, but.........

I think it was the old "feel-around" game: if I would, might you possibly, if only, and then if you might possibly, in the case that I were in the mood etc etc etc. Both of them know how to send signals without saying it our loud.

[pa28]

6. Holbrooke would be a great choice.

He's always struck me as standing very tall in the cotton. Somebody respected to re-establish ourselves in the eyes of the world.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. You can't re-establish anything by replacing shit with more shit

Holbrooke is a PNAC & PPI (Whitewashed DLC version of PNAC) neocon. He would be worse than Hillary.

Richardson is clearly the best available choice for the job.

[Beacool]

9. Well, there are only two people who will decide the outcome

and Broder and you are not one of them.

:shrug: