Too Many Chefs at State?

I'll outsource my thoughts on Hillary Clinton at State to David Ignatius:

The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper “Le Monde” carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: “Happy New Century!” You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.

Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options.

My thoughts exactly. I've often heard that there tend, historically speaking, to be three mission types at the State Department: 1. The White House-driven model, 2. The grand 'emissary' model and 3. The autonomous secretary model.

Can President Obama maintain his foreign policy vision (model #1) with such a dynamic, strong and equally ambitious figure (model #3) in Foggy Bottom?