It seems that the selection of Hillary Clinton Secretary of State is a fait accompli. But at least the new President can't claim that he wasn't warned. You'll regret it. This will probably be Barack Obama's first and possibly worst mistake as President.
This from Ken Silverstein of Harper's Magazine:
1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
4. The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
This from the controversial British intellectual, Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't pull punches or attacks the left and right:
Listen to Dick Morris--he knows the Clintons. And he is a FOX News analyst. Why would he be ridiculing the choice:
Hopefully, it's just a rumor started by the Clintonistas, but is Barack Obama seriously considering appointing Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state? If he pulls the trigger on that appointment, he will deserve what he gets.
[...]So when Clinton faced a Democratic Congress on taking office, he could not count on their support. Neither can Obama. So Clinton had to toe the liberal line in order to round up the votes he needed to pass his programs in the Congress that was nominally under his control. So will Obama. Ultimately, Clinton became the hostage of the Democratic majority in Congress, and they became his jailer. He was forced so far to the left that he told me, in 1994 (after losing the congressional elections), "I was so far to the left I didn't recognize myself." Neither will Obama.
Why would a top Republican support the idea if it didn't benefit his party. They support the idea for the same reason Republicans wanted Hillary to be the Democratic party's presidential candidate: she is a polarizing figure, and the Clintons are easy targets:
"It seems to me she's got the experience. She's got the temperament for it. I think she would be well received around the world," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "So my own initial reaction is it would be a very good selection."
Here's another Conservatives take on the idea:
Far from becoming a loyal soldier in Obama's ranks, ready to do his will even at the risk of her own popularity, she would be absolutely bound to view every action she took as his secretary of state in the light of her own perceived necessities as a future presidential candidate.
What's more, her own large group of political supporters and managers will remain in existence, ready and eager to promote her interests, even at the risk of damaging Obama's. The media would be awash with anonymous stories describing her differences with the president, and recounting her allegedly desperate efforts to prevent or rectify his "mistakes." Clinton herself would not be the source of these stories, and might even sincerely deplore them; but they would emerge from her huge coterie of supporters and be designed to make her look good -- certainly better than Obama.