Read Chapter XV, Article 97 of the UN Charter. "The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

Procedurally, Clinton would need at least 9 of the 15 SC to say yes, with none of the P5 vetoing. And then a majority of the General Assembly (which is actually the easy part, as they are often just glad that the SC is able to get an agreed upon candidate and has essentially served as a rubber stamp).

By custom, the SG always comes from a non-major power, and usually a Third World country, at least since U Thant, minus the Kurt Waldheim abberation. I have a very tough time seeing China supporting Clinton. I doubt the US would even support him.

Having a Third Worlder serve as SG, while very difficult for the US at times, at least offers a solid facade of independence of the organization. Having Clinton, or any American, as SG would just confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt the UN is an American puppet, which is a quite commonly held belief outside of the US, especially in the devloping world.

Next read Chapter XV, Article 100. Very, very problematic for an American, personally and procedurally, especially a former POTUS and one who has a spouse with desires for that office, whose term, if elected, would overlap with his SG term.

With a foreign SG, areas where issues do not dovetail with our interests, we can thumb our noses at the UN without too much consequence and without having to do battle with an American MSM playing it up as a semi-domestic argument as well.

With Clinton there, the volume would be much higher (which I can agree might sometimes be good) and both Clinton and the MSM could play games in a heavy handed political way with them, sometimes in crucial Congressional votes or worse, during elections. Prime examples would be Kyoto and ICC.

And another situation, a hypothetical: Clinton having been SG during Anan's tenure. On major issues and wrt major scandals/embarassments, would things have been different? (Particularly if through no fault of Clinton's) If not, would there have been any consequences for the US?

I would want to think very hard on this and I would say that with Clinton or any American UNSG proposal.

Plus, the UN "popular vote" strongly favors a third world candidate, thus the SG tends to come rom a "non-aligned" nation.

It would certainly be interesting to see how much things have changed. Up to now, the UN has still pretty much followed the Cold War way of doing things.

Could be wrong, though.....

Oh, my, think how much more palatable bad UN policy would be if only an American with the misplaced charisma of Bill Clinton were selling it.