...Hillary Clinton lost in the primaries.
By merit of coming in second place and having garnered as many votes as she did, she is not entitled to a reward of a cabinet post, Secretary of State, the highest cabinet post in a presidential administration instrumental in executing foreign policy. This post should be given to a person deserving by merit of their knowledge and experience in foreign affairs and diplomacy. And we know this. So why isn't anyone saying anything?
To start, for the sake of argument and disclosure, I personally believe Bill Richardson would fit this post well. He has a master's degree in international affairs, has served in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has served as a U.N. Ambassador, to name a few credentials.
To this, most would suggest Clinton has experience by merit of her history as First Lady and work in the Senate. At the time during the primaries when this argument was made, the context was in comparing Clinton's foreign diplomacy achievements to Obama's lack thereof. The context is different, today. The context (or the question, rather) is whether this experience is sufficient for the post of Secy. of State.
She never served in a foreign relations committee, nor was she given specific foreign diplomatic tasks and responsibilities by her husband during his presidency, for which she was held answerable. If the only experience one can point to is her supposedly bringing peace to Ireland and supposedly, it is a stretch to argue she fits the post, and a dangerous posit to say there is no one else more qualified. P.S. She voted in favor of the single biggest blunder in American foreign policy of our time, the Iraq War. (Others such as Biden did as well, but they've at least had the fortitude to say they've regretted their vote.)
The message that such an appointment would send is that it it is not merit, but political stake and influence that will decide who is the most fit for the highest, and arguably most important cabinet post.