Look at the Secretaries of State for the past four two-term Presidents. In each case, the second-term appointment was the far more effective one -- Rice vs. Powell (Bush), Albright vs. Christopher (Clinton), Baker vs. Haig/Schultz (Reagan), and Kissinger vs. Rogers (Nixon/Ford).

But...

Hillary Clinton is a unique force in American politics. She has the ability to defy history and create her own precedents. While recent history might suggest that she is doomed to the ash heap of failed presidential contenders, she just doesn't fit the mold -- for anything.

In addition, Clinton made a play to shape healthcare reform in the Senate and was rebuffed; the seniority system there proved too much even for her (so did Ted Kennedy). She would have been relegated to standing behind Kennedy at press conferences, which is not her style. As Secretary of State, she will be holding her own press events (and you can bet she demanded that as a condition of accepting the post), she will be on television even more prominently than Condi Rice has been, and she will be able to take credit for any major developments on the world stage -- which, after eight years of Bush, can only serve to make her look good.

She is constitutionally prohibited.

Article I, Section 6, clause 2 states: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." Since the salary of top-level cabinet members was raised in 2007, during her current term of office, she is prohibited from taking the job.

But...

Don't think this situation hasn't arisen before. In the past, Congress simply lowered the salary for whatever position was being filled back to its older level, so that there was (sort of) no increase in "Emoluments" to run afoul of the constitution. Chances are, that's what they'll do for Hillary.

The salary level? It's now $191,300, about $5,000 over what it was just a couple of years ago, and over $25,000 more than she gets as a Senator. Not that it matters (because she's probably still making a lot more from sales of her books), but she can afford to give up the five grand.

...perhaps Obama is planning on doing something like, oh, taking Mid-East Peace seriously instead of just taking a token run at it at some point during his term like some other presidents. And Hillary decided the chance at having her name on THAT if they pull it off was worth losing the chance to have her name on Healthcare Reform. Just maybe.

I don't think this aspect of Hillary's appointment (that it neutralizes Obama's main party opposition) has been overlooked at all. In fact, it's been prominently highlighted in most news analyses since the State appointment was first speculated.

But consider this: While Hillary now exposes herself to the possibility of getting fired, does anybody really believe that Obama would be able to do so without a huge cost? Picture Obama firing Hillary Clinton. Unless he had a REALLY good reason to do so, he risks a huge backlash among Hillary supporters and independents. Warren Christopher? Who cared about him? Firing Hillary is a far bigger deal - and I'd go so far as to say that she's practically unfireable. The risk is mostly on Obama's side.

Bush faced the same problem with Powell - Powell wasn't on board with Cheney and the neo-cons, but he was too popular to fire. Instead, Bush merely sidelined him. That's what Obama is more likely to do with Hillary if he ends up disagreeing with her views. He'd force Hillary to consider quitting on her own, or stay on in a weakened position. The danger, however, is that Hillary (together with Bill) has far more power in the party base than Powell had in his, and could easily stir up her own support if she was viewed as the wronged party.

I believe that Sen. Clinton and then Sen. Obama spoke about having her on the ticket. She had a few options; To be on the ticket or have what ever she wanted, as long as you campaign for him. Hillary is a strong, capable leader and She was not about to play second fiddle, but was also not willing to leave the fight.

Their plan was for Hillary's camp to say "she was never vetted" because Obama could take the hit and she wouldn't have to say no, which would have been detrimental to Obama in the general election. Both discussed the problem that "not asking/vetting" would pose in regards to the 18 million that voted for her... hence the many events Hillary did for Obama, this would shore up any doubt of Obama for her supporters.

Since then, Hillary has been offered a special post on Health Care in the Senate and there is speculation of her becoming the next Sec. of State. To Become the head of the Dept. of state is a huge step for anyone, but will most certainly be beneficial to Hillary's political aspirations. What was one thing that she was hit for during the campaign? Lack of foreign policy experience. If she is Secretary of State for 4 to 8 years, and with her experience after being Secretary of State, she will be almost unstoppable in 2016.

Yeah, because they so overwhelmingly backed her during the election that they swung the Democratic nomination and the presidency her way. Oh, wait a minute...

The punditocracy & the so-called PUMAs claimed throughout the election that HRC's alleged "base" would not support Obama. "OMG, she has such a following!" "Look at her following!" they would say. PUHLEASE! Unfortunately for HRC, that flawed logic did not pan out in the actual election, as, low and behold, her alleged base did in fact support HIM...overwhelmingly.

And, I can't recall any poll that ever showed a significant number of Independents supporting HRC. Hell, a majority of Democrats didn't even support her. At the end of the primaries, who made up HRC's "base"? A few bitter alleged women on the Internet who successfully punked McCain into believing that there were a bunch of them that would swing the election his way? Because, as we know, that didn't happen. For pete's sake, the black guy won Indiana! It seems to me that the actual results of the election showed that Obama didn't lose too many demographics to McCain & I doubt in four years that those voters will go astray unless Obama totally screws up the agenda & governs like a Republican. And firing HRC, should he actually bring her on board, won't change that.

In fact, Obama should NEVER have offered that unqualified, vitriolic, polarizing drama queen a position in his cabinet with her slimy, embarassment of a husband & he will get everything he deserves from bringing her on board - including whatever minor, momentary backlash that may come when he ultimately has to fire the both of them!

Hillary will be 69 years old. How'd that age thing work out for McCain? No amount of time in the Senate or in the administration will ever get her the nomination or the Presidency.