I agree with you but not exactly for the same reasons. I believe he is proactively steering his administration away from a configuration that would result in a groupthink phenomenon. His picks show a good amount of prudence to be sure. We are going to be in Iraq when he takes office, and we may go to Afghanistan, Gates is really the only choice unless he declines or resigns, which I doubt will happen. Hilary is a political move I believe. What is interesting is she has to say yes or lose face. The gravy on top is she is probably qualified and will probably do a good job in any case.

Ba dum bump, Ching…….

In short:  Obama deserves the kind of leeway and respect his office commands.  The kind of respect his predecessor never got.

And yes, I take some glee in the fact that Obama let the netroots think he was 100% on their side on Iraq, and just proved that he really is not and has no plans to be.

Both make me very happy. The second is much more childish than the first, but hey, I’m happy both ways.

Of course, resume is no guarantee of performance. Rice, Powell, and Albright all had excellent resumes, and all of them were mediocre at best.

Of high-profile Democrats, the first name that leaps to mind as having a better resume to be Secretary of State would be Bill Richardson, who’s been a cabinet secretary before and was our ambassador to the UN for two years and was heavily involved in the Palestinian peace process.

Another strong-resumed candidate would be Wesley Clark, who was supreme allied commander of NATO for four years, although he has significant drawbacks as well (the Kosovo Airfield Incident doesn’t reflect well on him, and he’s been on the bench for eight years).

There are probably several other good candidates Obama could have picked whom I haven’t heard of because they haven’t had big-name political careers on top of their diplomatic experience.

Yes, senators and first ladies do pick up diplomatic experience. That’s why I said Clinton strikes me as someone who could probably do the job competently. She just doesn’t jump out at me as "Wow, that’s a great pick".

Other than a former secretary of state, what type of person would you consider most qualified?

There’s lots of ambassadors.  I would go with John "the ‘stache" Bolton, myself.  I bet DKos would meltdown.

well, almost all of her positions from law partner to first lady to senator all involve some amount of both diplomacy and managerial duty.  

Other than a former secretary of state, what type of person would you consider most qualified?  Is there someone Obama obviously looked over that makes Clinton’s appointment look obviously political rather than just that Obama thought she’s the best person for the job?  Obviously every political appointment is going to be based in part on politics (both of your guesses at Obama’s motivations are probably part of the whole truth), but it doesn’t strike me as a purely political pick.