Does Selecting Clinton Mean Obama's Focused on Human Rights?

So Obama has officially named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state this morning in Chicago.

I've said previously that, all things considered, all the pros and the cons, I'm happy about this selection, and I don't have much else to say about it this morning that I haven't said previously, though I'll promote from comments my note re: why Clinton may have gone for the position:

It's easy to forget (because she doesn't look it) that she's 61. She might want to retire in the not-too-distant future. It takes a long time to work your way to the top of the Senate, even if you're Hillary Clinton. It takes one nod to agree to be secretary of state -- a position which has a general life expectancy of 2-4 years.

 

And something I've not seen anyone else say anywhere: How many gazillions of times have we heard that Clinton only got to be senator because her husband was president? After the primary, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue (though I've no doubt some will try) that she doesn't have the foreign policy chops for State. And if she gets (and takes) the position, it's in spite of her husband (and his current business dealings), not because of him.

She may well feel like it's something she's done totally on her own steam.

As well she should.

That's not a small thing.