Our friend Ben Smith writes about an intriguing, if completely unlikely scenario: Eliot Spitzer as a replacement for Hillary in the Senate.

Now, Spitzer-stalgia isn't entirely unknown among New York Democrats; you hear the whispers with some frequency, especially among the more bloodthirsty, crush-your-enemies partisans.

Intriguingly, Eliot also seems to believe it's time to step back into the public eye. At least, that's what one could reasonably deduce from his long-form Op-Ed in today's Washington Post.

That said, let's not forget why Eliot left. It wasn't because of moral revulsion over his socks and the unusual use to which he put them; it was because he had zero political capital and backers left. That's not the best foundation to prevail in the unseemly horsetrading that would accompany securing that choice spot.

Second, who says Hillary wants to move to the cabinet, as Secretary of State or in any other capacity? Consider the history: The Secretaries of State of every administration since Reagan's have served only one term. Condoleeza Rice, one-termer; Colin Powell, the same; Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher; James Baker; George Schultz and Alexander Haig. From Hillary's perspective, which is arguably the only one that matters on this subject, taking that job - and serving at the pleasure of the President - is career suicide.

I don't think she'll do it, and she'd be right not to. Hillary's place is in the Senate as the foremost advocate for healthcare reform.