I think choosing Hillary would be a mistake. Not because of Bill. The new administration can choose to use him or not, regardless. The "two for the price of one" stuff is ridiculous: they are not exactly chained together. Equally, if Hillary were the best candidate for secretary of state, it would be absurd to deny her the offer because of Bill's post-presidential connections. Scrutiny in future is really all that is required there.
No, the problem is that she is not a well-qualified candidate. She is not by any stretch of the imagination a foreign-policy expert. I don't think I would call her a born diplomat. And her loyalties, to put it mildly, might be divided. Her first priority would be to advance her own presidential ambitions, not to help make the Obama presidency such a success that those hopes die. The "team of rivals" idea is wonderful so long as the rivals are fully invested in the success of the enterprise. In this case, it seems doubtful. Could Hillary defer to Obama, and carry out his instructions to the best of her ability? I doubt it. And it would not help that everyone would be watching for the first sign of friction or insubordination. The soap-opera dimension would be highly counter-productive.
I find Tom Friedman persuasive on this:
Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they're talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president. And when they think they are talking to the president, they sit up straight; and when they think they are talking only to the secretary of state, they slouch in their chairs. When they think they are talking to the president's "special envoy," they doze off in midconversation.
What is Obama thinking, I wonder? That the party would be delighted? Yes it would, but so what: the election is already won. Or is it something to do with keeping your friends close and your enemies closer? (LBJ put it less delicately of course, but the metaphor does not really work in this instance.)
Before Hillary Clinton can become Secretary of State, the Obama administration will certainly insist on a number of conditions which could include:
1) Bill Clinton must provide a complete listing of all donors to his foundation and presidential library.
2) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton must agree that any and all private financial dealings and other interactions with foreign leaders will not take place unless specifically authorized by the US government.
3) Hillary Clinton agrees to publically discuss exactly what her approach to the job of Secretary of State will be and clearly indicate how she will be able to perform that job without any conflict of interest whatsoever.
If Bill and Hillary Clinton are unwilling or unable to comply with whatever the Obama administration considers necessary, Hillary Clinton cannot become Secretary of State. The ball is in the Clinton’s court.
Bill Richardson is a better choice for secretary of state. He has a masters degree in International Affairs. He was involved in several diplomatic efforts as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Bill Clinton sent Richardson on various foreign policy missions, including a trip in 1996 in which Richardson traveled to Baghdad with Peter Bourne and engaged in lengthy one-on-one negotiations with Saddam Hussein to secure the release of two American aerospace workers who had been captured by the Iraqis after wandering over the Kuwaiti border. Richardson also visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests and met with Slobodan Milosevic.[6] Due to these missions, Richardson was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times. In 1997, Clinton appointed Richardson as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. As ambassador, he represented the United States in UN proceedings regarding the Palestinian National Authority and the State of Israel.
"2) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton must agree that any and all private financial dealings and other interactions with foreign leaders will not take place unless specifically authorized by the US government."
We already know #2 isn't possible. Bill used his influence to help someone from Khazakstan get a spot with OSEC last year or so, in return for something. I can't remember where I read the details.
Aren't appointments subject to congressional or senate approval anyway? Does anyone really care? Is having friends and influence a good or a bad thing? I think we saw from the election, no one cares too much.
**I'd disagree a little on this comment from Thomas Friedman: "and when they think they are talking only to the secretary of state, they slouch in their chairs."
I'm over in the Netherlands and when the LA Times ran an article trashing NATO allies this year, the Foreign Affairs minister was angry and called in the US ambassador to explain Bates' comments. I do think it's a matter of culture, how ambassadors and the state department are consulted and used.