The Clintons continue to be a complex couple in national politics. Now there's the question of whether Hillary Clinton is the right choice for Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

Best analysis I've read so far: Tom Friedman's column in today's New York Times.

Assuming that her husband's associations wouldn't cause problems, Clinton is unquestionably qualified, says Friedman. But what kind of relationship would she have with the new president?

Would she have his unqualified trust and support? With Bush and Colin Powell, we saw what happens when a president and his advisers don't support the secretary.

Foreign leaders learn quickly how a Secretary of State stands with a president, writes Friedman. Given the intensity and the animosity of the presidential campaign, says Friedman, the question is whether Obama and Clinton can have the kind of relationship they need to have - "particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency."

See also: David Broder's Washington Post column, "A Force for Good - but Not at State."

Obama needs a Secretary of State who is a diplomat and "will carry out his foreign policy," writes Broder. "He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations."

And, writes Broder, one of the reasons for Obama's victory is his early stand on invading Iraq. "He was more right about that than most of us in Washington," says Broder, "including Hillary Clinton."