In the 1800s, Secretary of State was regarded as the heir apparent to the presidency, and six Secretaries of State did become president. Others won their party's nominations (even if they didn't win the general election). The only reason that changed is because Presidents started appointing foreign policy gurus that the public never heard of to Secretary of State, rather than big name politicians. Hillary is a throwback to the old school of Secretaries of State, in that she's not a foreign policy guru, but a big name politician (with foriegn policy smarts), and as such could springboard to the Presidency, as her forebearers did. She can't do that by turning against the current administration, that would only ensure that Palin or Romney would win. Hillary's not that stupid. She has to wait until Obama's not running (i.e. 8 years, or 4 if Obama decides not to run for reelection).

Senator is not a springboard to the Presidency. Only three sitting Senators have ever been elected to President: Kennedy, Obama, and Harding.

VP is a springboard to the Presidency, but many times by way of assuming office when the President died or resigned. Not that many sitting VPs have actually been elected to President.

Governor is certainly a springboard to the Presidency, but there are 50 governors at any one time, and only one VP or Secretary of State, so that increases the odds that a governor will win the Presidency at any given election year.

Of the above positions, Hillary wasn't going to be a governor, could have remained a Senator (but sitting Senators generally don't get elected President, and Hillary was sick to death of the Senate), wasn't picked for VP (due to concerns of power sharing, “government in exile”, etc), so Secretary of State is the best place for her, and it suits her talents, and could be a springboard to President as it has in the past. Herbert Hoover used Commerce Secretary to springboard to President, so Secretary of State (the top cabinet position) could easily do the same.

Anyway, we don't know what will happen in the future. Maybe Biden will decide to retire and Obama will pick Hillary for VP in 2012, then in 2016 Hillary would be heir apparent even by mondern standards. Or maybe Biden will stay on and run against Hillary in 2016. And maybe other Obama cabiniet officials will run in 2016. I could see a race between Hillary, Biden, Napalitano, and Sebelius. Maybe even Locke (Commerce Secretary, former governor of WA (and he's a Chinese American, which might attract liberal primary voters that are attracted by ethnic diversity)).

Lastly, the notion that Hillary is being marginalized is poppycock, spread by right wingers that want to sew discord between the President and Secretary of State, PUMAs that are still bitter about the primaries and the general election, and a few MSM elites that are bored and have to find something to write about so they resurrect the Obama vs Hillary “story” which they find to juicy to resist. Everything you hear from inside the White House and State Department disputes the notion that Hillary is marginalized, as well as everything you hear from former Secretaries of State, and what you hear from Hillary herself, and what you hear from foreign policy news reporters like Andrea Mitchell.

And the talking points of the right wingers, PUMAs, and bored MSM are always the same. They're all regurgitating talking points from a single story written by POLITICO hack Ben Smith, who isn't a reliable reporter at all,but a tabloid political pundit, writhing political tabloid pieces that POLITICO specializes in.

For example, “Hillary is being overshadowed by envoys”. Hello? Hillary is the one that suggested that envoys be used, and made the appointments and/or suggested the names to be appointed. The use of envoys wasn't an idea Obama came up with to marginalize Hillary. Second, the envoys don't get covered by the media at all anyway, so how can they be overshadowing Hillary? This talking point is lame and is an insult to our intelligence.

And this talk that Hillary didn't accompany Obama to Russia? Well she was going to, but broke her arm, and the trip was scheduled to take place at the very time Hillary was scheduled to have her cast removed. Another lame talking point. If not for her broken arm, Hillary would have gone to Russia, the G8, and Ghana with the President. (Russia, we know she was scheduled to go to; I'm not sure about G8 and/or Ghana.)

And Hillary didn't accompany Obama to Saudi Arabia? Obama wasn't going to go to Saudi Arabia at all on his Cairo trip, but Saudi Arabia felt slighted, so a the last minute a one day courtesy stop to Saudi Arabia was scheduled. Hillary was already scheduled to be in Honduras for an OAS meeting, where she dealt with the Cuban mess (Chavez demanding that the OAS invite Cuba back into the organization unconditionally; Hillary and her assistants successfully blocked that initiative, despite everyone but the US being in favor of it). The day after Obama visted Saudi Arabia, he went to Cairo, where he was joined by Hillary (who left the Honduras OAS meeting early (her assistants continued dealing with the Cuba mess), just as had been scheduled from the beginning. Another lame talking point by PUMAs, right wingers,and bored MSM.

PUMAs and right wingers should be ashamed of themselve for spreading BS regarding the relationship between Hillary and Obama. But of course, PUMAs and right wingers have no sense of shame to begin with. As for Peggy Noonan, Tina Brown, and Margaret Carlson, well they are better than this POLITICO style rumor mongering. They need to stop mindless speculation.

Too bad, because while the starry-ened few who still unthinkingly adore Obama expect Obama already to be re-elected (no Dem vote fraud pre-election and lib-media propaganda can guarantee that in as large and sophisticated a nation as this, even less than in Iran), Obama could build an even bigger presence possibly for himself in nation-wide politics and for longer, by actually taking time off (as he can't run for a third term, just because some of his fans might say so as fans did for Bill Clinton), given his young age for a President currently. The obvious leading Dem candidate to retain the White House for the Dems in 2012 under such a scenario is obviously Hillary Clinton. It probably would be her last chance, anyway. And she already is qualified (Senator as a “springboard” position some of us knew all along was why she ran to “represent” that state, now augmented by one of the two most important Cabinet positions that qualify one for the Presidency other than the three traditional positions*, namely Secretary of State, which she is, and Secretary of Defense; these two qualified Colin Powell earlier for the Presidency).

* The normal three traditional “springboard” positions effectively qualifying people for the Presidency and seen as fit for use for that purpose are: Governor of a state, the Vice Presidency, and Senator. We should look also to the Secretaries of State and Defense (the diplomacy and the military are our two arms in the rest of the world). There is no Secretary for domestic affairs; I would prefer this role be performed by the Vice President, analogous to the “chief officer” [and second-in-command] on a ship or chief of (own) operations in a business enterprise. Perhaps someday this could become a new Cabinet-level department if we had more faith in government and ability and competence in revising and improving it.

I am still very disappionted with how liberals and MSM treated Hillary during the Dem nomination process. I never would have voted for her, but I respect her.