I've noted before the election that if you look at the body language between Obama and Clinton you have to be struck by how incredibly comfortable and close they seem. But who knows? As Thomas Friedman suggests, they'd better be tight or it's not a good appointment.
Friedman rises above the riff raff on the issue of Clinton as Secretary of State (riff raff meaning strays like Dick Morris for example LINK -- not meaning to insult dogs here) pointing out that as long as the world knows that Clinton speaks for Obama and that he has her back, she'll do great. He says that what distinguished James Baker as a great Secretary of State was that the world knew he spoke for Bush41. By speaking to Baker you were speaking to Bush41. With Powell, as a different example, the world didn't know if Bush43 would backstab or second guess. Clinton-Obama had better be Baker-Bush41 not Powell-Bush43. The past would suggest more of the Powell comparison, but the body language? LINK