J.G. Thayer and Jennifer Rubin  have both weighed in on why Hillary Clinton should take the Secretary of State (as it seems increasingly likely that she will). I dunno: seems kind of crazy to me, for anyone with as much long-term political promise as her, to put herself into what will almost certainly be a major step down.

Here are the two career paths that lie before her: (1) She remains in the senate, becoming over time a national leader in the legislative branch (which is actually quite important), angling over time for super-powerful committees and eventually maybe becoming leader of the democratic caucus. This is a whole career of serious influence over American law, policy, judicial appointments, and budget allocation. And a much better position for running for president again in the future.

Or (2), she becomes secretary of state, a position which is by definition subordinate, requires her publicly crediting the President for all her achievements, making her power dependent on the grace of the president (remember how close Condoleezza Rice was to Bush when she started, and how much she ended up having to battle with Defense and others in order to set foreign policy by the end?), and worst of all, being held accountable for any American foreign policy failure, including those over which she has no control. If Iran goes nuclear under Hillary’s watch, or there’s another 9/11 style attack, if Russia or China get really nasty — what will become of her long-term political aspirations?

The Secretary of State position is amazing for one’s speaker fees and book revenues, and it is possible to achieve a great deal during one’s tenure there, but politically in the long run it is usually something of a dead end. If she wants to convince people to put their trust in her for the presidency, she should remain in elected office, keep her independence, prove her effectiveness, retain her dignity, build her power over time.