If your point is that “pundits talk too much and know too little,” then point taken. But seriously — Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? A person whose training (lawyer) is decidedly not relevant and whose husband, as president, sent America on Iraq-style engagements (Bosnia? Balkans?) that, while more successful, were just as unjustified and wrongheaded? Who (as Hitchens rightly asserts) was not afraid to tiptoe near the racial faultlines?

Also, I might humbly suggest, if you have time, that you read up on the neoconservatives (aka neocons) and their view of America’s role in the world… once you’ve done that, take a look at the most prominent of the neocon pundits and notice how “mature” Obama has been, how “reassuring” that he’s nominated Clinton (who they know holds the same general views as they do on foreign policy), not to mention Gen. Jones.

To your other point: There are other names in the foreign policy world, I’ve read about many of them and many seem far closer to what Obama indicated were his views (as opposed to what actually are… I thought Larison made good points months ago vis a vis Obama’s pandering and I think it’s being confirmed as we speak). But the HRC talk started so long ago, and she’s such a “celebrity” that any other name was destined to take the sidelines in any discussion.

I, for one, am not speculating here, just commenting on what has been done and what the records of these people are. Gates is probably a good pick, Jones I have no idea. But Clinton is a pandering joke to appease her (and get her out of the Senate) and ex-prez-hubby, and Obama voters have every right to be at least a bit offended at it. I think.

Nothing has happened yet. This type of speculation is as uninteresting and uninformative than the nonstop speculation during the “Favre Controversy” on sports channels a few months back (and still today).