Earlier this fall, Salon’s Andrew Leonard wrote in favor of this pick; Leonard’s been following Geithner for some time, dating back to a prescient speech the latter gave in 2006 entitled “Hedge Funds and Derivatives and Their Implications for the Financial System.” You can read more in this post, and in this one responding to the news.

Obama transition aides declined comment on the report; a longtime Richardson aide hasn’t responded to a voicemail message from Salon.

Update: Bloomberg News’ Rich Miller chimes in with his own report saying Geithner’s the guy at Treasury. Miller also adds another big name to the mix, saying former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers — who stirred controversy with comments he made about women while president of Harvard — will get a “senior White House role.”

What we do know so far is that a Clinton pedigree appears to be a major asset. Not only did Obama’s incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, make his bones in the Clinton White House, but also all six transition team leaders for the departments of State, Defense and Treasury served in the prior Democratic administration. Bill Galston, who was a senior domestic advisor to Clinton, points out, “One of the advantages that Obama has that Clinton did not have is a usable past. The Clinton transition went too far in excluding people with Jimmy Carter experience.”

Nowhere do things currently seem murkier than in matching names with top jobs in the foreign policy and national security arenas. The rumored front-runners for secretary of state have been two senators who have served with Obama and Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee: almost-2004-president John Kerry and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the Republican critic of the Iraq war. Kerry probably would have tapped Biden as his nominee for Foggy Bottom — and now the vice-president-elect presumably is trying to return the favor.

As for Hagel, Obama has long promised to give Republicans a prominent role on his foreign-policy team, saying in a Salon interview a year ago, “I think it is important for an administration to have strong, robust debates as long as everybody is on the same team … That’s part of the reason why I want some traditional Republicans to be involved in this process.” Hagel is certainly actively auditioning for the role of the Democrats’ favorite Republican, a position on the ideological grid once held by John McCain. It is not coincidental that Hagel has scheduled a major policy address in Washington next Tuesday titled, in slightly heavy-handed fashion, “Toward a Bi-Partisan Foreign Policy.”

Confusing everything is the persistent talk about retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, virtually the only Bush Cabinet member likely to emerge from the current administration with his reputation intact. If Gates stays even for an interim period, it is hard to imagine that Obama would also give a major post to a Republican like Hagel unless the president-elect has a very idiosyncratic definition of “change.” But there are hints that Gates would only stay on his terms, which include the right to choose his deputies at the Pentagon. There is also the perplexing timing of a speech that Gates delivered in late October (at a time when all the portents pointed to an Obama presidency) calling for a new generation of nuclear weapons. If Gates wanted to ingratiate himself with the incoming Democrats, preaching the gospel of new and better nukes seems a strange way to go about it.

Richard Danzig, who was secretary of the Navy under Clinton and an ardent Obama supporter early in the race, is the most likely Democratic alternative to Gates. In fact, the Army Times reported Thursday that “high-level Defense officials” are preparing to hand over the keys to the Pentagon to Danzig. At times like this, specialty publications like the Army Times sometimes have better sources in their subject area than the major newspapers and broadcast networks.

Transition, of course, would not be transition without the Hillary Clinton rumor of the week. Steve Clemons, who directs the American strategy program at the New American Foundation, says there are hints that Clinton may be under consideration for the secretary of state post, stressing that she certainly passes the experience threshold. “It would be an unbelievably brilliant move by Obama if she would do it,” he says. The Washington Post’s transition column picked up the same vibrations Thursday and floated an item.

While this remains a long shot at best, tapping Clinton to replace Rice would do more than simply revive interest in Dick Morris’ off-the-wall 2005 book, “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.” If Obama were somehow to give the top Cabinet post to his rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it would be, well, Lincolnesque. In assembling a Cabinet, Lincoln practiced a politics of “malice towards none” by naming William Seward, once the favorite for the 1860 Republican nomination, as his secretary of state.

But, if history is any gauge, these Washington games of telephone invariably end up with the wrong number in picking a Cabinet. That is why it would be folly to completely dismiss other candidates for secretary of state such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (the Democratic Party’s version of “always a bridesmaid”) and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (who was the only non-Chicagoan seriously considered for White House chief of staff).

Even when the press has the right names (after the appointments), it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions about the power realities within the new administration. In mid-December 2000, the New York Times editorial page finally found something to like about the new team in Washington: “President-elect George W. Bush’s intention to name Colin Powell as secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser instantly enhances his coming administration. They are seasoned, thoughtful practitioners who will bring international stature and extensive knowledge to the Bush administration.”

Transitions are a tricky business even for Democrats. Bill Clinton misfired with a series of initial picks, from the disorganized Les Aspin at the Pentagon to the out-of-touch Lloyd Bentsen at Treasury to the inexperienced Mack McLarty as White House chief of staff. That is why the mantra of transition reporting — as beguiling as the name game invariably is — should be “trust but verify.”

This year New Mexico didn’t deliver any mixed messages. On Nov. 4, Democrats dominated at every level. Barack Obama beat John McCain, Tom Udall took an open Senate seat that had been Republican, and Martin Heinrich and Harry Teague took two formerly Republican House seats. And every one of them won in a landslide, with margins of 10 percent or more; Obama prevailed by 15 points, Udall by 22. New Mexico is now bright blue, with Democrats in nearly every elected statewide office, control of the state House and Senate, and an all Democratic congressional delegation.

What happened? The long-promised Latino realignment may have become reality. Coveted by Karl Rove, courted by George W. Bush, the fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November. New Mexico is only the most striking symbol of a nationwide trend that helped flip as many as seven states and 85 electoral votes into Obama’s column. Latinos formed their largest share ever of the national electorate, 9 percent, and their numbers are poised to increase in every election to come. They also voted by their largest margin ever for the Democrats, 67 to 31 percent. If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.

In some of the purple and red states conquered by Obama last week, the degree to which Hispanic votes determined the outcome can be debated. Not in New Mexico. The bluing of New Mexico can be attributed almost solely to a change in the behavior of one demographic bloc. “If you look at the numbers, you’d have to say that it is because of the Latino vote,” Cuauhtemoc “Temo” Figueroa, the Obama campaign’s Latino vote director, says. “When you talk about New Mexico politics, it’s not an afterthought, it’s not an addendum, it is the discussion.”

In 2004, according to exit polls, Hispanics made up 32 percent of the electorate there, and broke 56-44 for John Kerry over Bush. But Bush, buoyed by the white vote, managed to win by 1 percentage point overall.

By 2008, the Hispanic share of the electorate had increased by a third, to 41 percent, and voters in the demographic were much more Democratic, going 69-30 for Obama over McCain. That change by itself can account for almost all of Obama’s advantage in the state, especially since the white vote stayed essentially the same (though whites’ share of the electorate was down by 7 percentage points) and the African-American population is small. This shift can also account for most of Udall’s margin in his Senate race, and for the Democrats’ wins in the two House races. It also means that the Hispanic share of the New Mexico electorate finally approaches the Hispanic share of the state population, which is 42 percent. (And this despite dire warnings from some quarters about widespread vote suppression in New Mexico.)

Experts who spoke to Salon also credited the Hispanic vote with delivering Colorado and Nevada to Obama. Colorado added a Democratic senator and a Democratic representative this cycle, while Nevada added a House seat. In both states, the Latino share of the electorate grew 50 percent or more from 2004 to 2008, from 10 percent to 15 percent in Nevada and from 8 to 13 percent in Colorado. Nevada’s Hispanic margins for Obama were especially lopsided, at 76 to 24, according to exit polls.

Fernand Amandi, executive vice president of Bendixen & Associates, a firm known for its polling of Hispanics, says that even Obama’s wins in Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia should be credited to this demographic cohort. Figueroa doesn’t wholly disagree — he says that the Hispanic vote was “pivotal” in Indiana and “pivotal and determinative” in Virginia.

But the numbers were most striking in Florida, because of the history and unique nature of Florida’s Latino electorate. For years, the state’s Hispanic community was dominated by Cuban exiles, the devout Republicans crucial to the GOP’s hold on the state’s rich trove of electoral votes. This year, for the first time since such things began to be measured in the 1980s, Florida’s Hispanics voted for a Democrat for president, and in large numbers too. In 2004, they went for Bush 56-44. This year, the result was almost the exact opposite; Obama took the community’s vote, 57-42, and won the state.

Amandi says this change was the “largest swing of any demographic group in the country.” He attributes it to the “rise of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote,” an influx of people from other countries moving to Florida. (The Obama campaign made a special effort in the Orlando area, the center of the state’s Puerto Rican community, a reliably Democratic bloc.) And as the exile generation ages and dies, the Cuban community is becoming less Republican too, Amandi says. Both trends bode poorly for the GOP’s prospects in a swing state with 27 electoral votes.

None of this means that Democrats can take the Hispanic vote for granted. In fact, the party’s success this year comes in large part because it began a concerted effort focusing on Hispanics. Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democrat Network, which has been studying the changing electorate and especially the impact of the Hispanic vote, says, “Increased turnout happened because Democrats finally woke up to this Hispanic opportunity … It’s really only in the last few years that Democrats woke up to this new reality. If you’re a Hispanic voter, particularly in the Southwest or the West, the Democratic Party sort of woke up and started to speak to you.”

Figueroa, too, credits the success to organization. “I think we’ve learned from previous elections and we’ve learned from this election now that if you spend the resources and you pay attention to the community, you can win,” he says. “The West in general is ripe territory for Democrats, and it’s an area where you see not only the party structure investing huge amounts of resources in the West but progressive organizations investing a huge amount of time and money.”

Assuming Democrats can keep up this momentum, a couple of big prizes await: Arizona and, yes, perhaps even Texas. The experts with whom Salon spoke were all but unanimous in saying that Arizona could be in play very soon, and that Texas could become a battleground within the next eight years and perhaps even by 2010.

“Whether in four years or whether in eight years, I do see potential there in Texas, because of just the sheer magnitude of the numbers, the Hispanic voters,” Figueroa says. “But I think what has to happen in Texas is they — ‘they’ meaning the party structure — has to show they can put together an operation that can win. And 2010 would be a great example to show where they’re at.”

If that happens, if Democrats can count on Hispanics to deliver the nine states, including those two, where their population is at or exceeds the national average, then the party would have a formidable advantage in every presidential election. Combined, those states represent 212 Electoral College votes. Add the dependably blue Northeast, and the Dems win the White House every time.

But just as Democrats can’t take the Latino vote for granted, so can they not depend on the opposition to keep screwing up. For all the abuse heaped on him, Karl Rove saw the Hispanic juggernaut coming and tried to get the GOP ready. Rove had visions of appealing to Hispanics and thereby ensuring a political future for his party. And it almost worked, but then his fellow Republicans went nativist and mucked it all up.

“If the party doesn’t embrace the kind of change that is out there in the way that our country’s demographics are changing… they’re going to relegate themselves to a permanent minority,” says Dan Gurley, the Republican National Committee’s field director during the 2004 election. “I think Karl Rove is absolutely right when it comes to where the party needs to be with the Hispanic community. I think he totally gets it, and the unfortunate thing is that a lot of people, a lot of the base of the party, don’t.”

There’s an old political cliché: Demography is destiny. The Latino share of the national electorate has increased a full percentage point in each of the last two national elections. It will only increase more quickly in the coming years, since so much of the Hispanic population, 46 million strong, consists of the U.S.-born children of nonvoting immigrants. The country’s changing demographics left the GOP with a choice — prevent Hispanics from forming a reliably Democratic bloc or face what could be decades of minority party status. For the moment, the Republican Party has chosen poorly. Now it’s time to face the consequences.

No state has seen presidential elections as consistently close as New Mexico the past two cycles — Al Gore won it by 366 votes in 2000, and George W. Bush took it back by 5,988 votes four years later, the margin still less than 1 percent of the total vote. Now Obama leads John McCain in most recent polls by a few points, but Democrats and Republicans alike say they think the final margin could be as tight as it has been in the past. Both campaigns are advertising heavily here; the Wisconsin Advertising Project estimated McCain spent $214,000 on TV in New Mexico the week after his convention, Sept. 6 to 13, while Obama spent $155,000 in the same time period. But with fewer than 3 million residents, grass-roots organizing might make more of a difference.

Latinos will almost certainly put whoever wins over the top; the state’s electorate is about 40 percent Hispanic. McCain and Obama are each blaming the other for failed immigration reform legislation in Spanish-language ads here, though both of them are making some dubious claims in the messages. (In New Mexico, with a large native-born Hispanic population whose roots date back to the 16th century, and where many Latinos watch English TV, immigration may not resonate as much as economic issues.) “The Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada is gonna decide this election,” Gov. Bill Richardson told the crowd before Obama spoke. “And Hispanics are gonna vote for Barack Obama, right?” Obama’s campaign had made an effort to connect with the local Latino crowd: A mariachi band played before the rally got started, and inside the security perimeter vendors were doing a brisk business in tamales, flautas and burritos. It might have worked. “He represents the middle class, he’s a minority,” said Tommy Martinez, 23, a school counselor from Española who just registered at his new address to make sure he could vote in November. “McCain just seems like he’d be more of the same.”

Obama’s visit this week, and what he did while he was here, underscored the way this election could be different from the last two. Instead of focusing on Albuquerque or Santa Fe — the state’s biggest cities by far, and the home to most of the Democratic base — the campaign headed north in search of the small-town Latino vote (though Gov. Richardson did host a $28,500-per-person fundraiser for Obama back in Albuquerque later Thursday). On his way to the rally in Española (at which he arrived nearly two hours late), Obama stopped in Bernalillo, population 6,600. “We are committed to aggressively reaching out to rural voters,” the campaign’s state director, Adrian Saenz, told me.

That’s because the rural parts of the state are where Obama has the best chance to find more votes than John Kerry got last time. Polls show Latinos in New Mexico (and in other battleground states) are backing Obama over McCain by enormous margins, so Obama’s campaign is focusing on turning out as many of them as possible. The relatively densely populated northern part of the state — where some counties are more than 60 percent Hispanic — is the top target. “There’s real pressure on what you do in the Hispanic community,” said Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, who worked for Richardson’s presidential campaign. “Every extra point that we can get in terms of either turnout or voter preference … cushions against that more conservative Anglo population.”

Already, Obama has 34 offices open around the state. “We only have 33 counties in New Mexico,” marvels the state Democratic Party chairman, Brian Colón. Places like Hatch, N.M., which officially calls itself a village, and where only 1,644 people live, have field operatives and volunteers working there, contacting residents and finding potential supporters. “What we’ve built in these battleground states is what would be considered a very large Senate or governor’s race in these states,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, told New Mexico reporters this week.

Four years ago, in contrast, Kerry never had more than five offices. (McCain’s campaign, working with the state Republican Party, has five open now, and the party spokeswoman, Shira Rawlinson, says more will open soon.) Saenz, who worked on Hispanic outreach for the Democratic Party’s field organization in 2004, says there’s barely any comparison between the two efforts. “We’re a lot further ahead organizationally,” he said. “Our staff was on the ground and our offices around the state were up and running a lot earlier this year than they were in 2004.”

So far, though, that work hasn’t yielded immediate results. As of last week, there were about 13,000 more Democrats registered to vote than were registered in 2004 — an increase of about 2 percent, more than enough to make up for the margin of victory four years ago, but not enough to make the state seem like a safe bet for Obama. Two weeks ago, the campaign had Richardson kick off a “30/30″ drive to register 30,000 more voters in the 30 days before the registration deadline of Oct. 7, and officials say they’re on pace to meet that goal. Early voting, which begins Oct. 18, could account for more than half the ballots cast, which would make it easier for both campaigns to focus on finding people they’re counting on by Election Day.

What Obama’s campaign seems to be modeling itself after, consciously or not, is Bush’s winning effort here in 2004. “We had success in 2004 because we, frankly, put together a more well-oiled turnout operation than Kerry,” said Scott Jennings, who ran the state for Bush in that campaign but has since moved back to his native Kentucky (after a stint in the White House). “We really just didn’t confine our campaigning to the most populous area, which is Albuquerque. We turned out the vote in those rural areas.”

What New Mexico and neighboring Nevada and Colorado represent, for Obama, is an alternate route to victory in November. If he holds all the states Kerry won four years ago, wins Iowa (where he’s up big) and wins two of those three Western states, he’ll be the next president. “For the Hispanic community, I want you to start actually voting your numbers,” Obama told the crowd in Española. “Start flexing your muscles. Right here in New Mexico, you’ll be the difference maker. Don’t stay home — just remind yourself, ‘Sí se puede. Yes we can.’” Chances are he’ll be back to help make that happen.

Just Tuesday, Obama had querulously complained about having to “hire the vetter to vet the vetters.” With Johnson gone, Obama suddenly has to grapple with a two-person search committee (Caroline Kennedy and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder), which seems a big wheel short of a full tricycle. Whoever becomes the new vet in town for Obama can step right into the middle of heartbeat-away hunt without missing a trick. For the search for a vice-presidential running mate is the American version of Kabuki. Like traditional Japanese drama, the who-for-No.-2 hunt boasts a familiar dramatic arc played out over these five acts.

ACT 1: Thinking Outside the Box

After Obama’s search committee (including Johnson) made the rounds of Capitol Hill Tuesday, North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad was on the indiscreet beat as he confided to reporters that about 20 names were on the second-banana list including several that were (you guessed it) “outside the box.” This is the moment when presidential nominees invariably dream about pushing the envelope by expanding the pool of potential Throttlebottoms. The thought is always the same: Why should we limit ourselves to familiar politicians in trying to find a vice president?

The McCain campaign reflected the same impulse a few weeks ago when it set off a brief boomlet for former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as a potential running mate. There are no obvious titans of business for the Democrats (unless you count New York’s palpably restless Mayor Mike Bloomberg), but the party remains smitten with the idea of a beribboned military figure. With Wesley Clark looking a tad shopworn, the latest wild-card entry in the rumor mill is retired Marine Gen. James Jones, who (like Clark) is a former NATO commander. Never heard of Jones before? That is just symptomatic of a hidebound refusal to (cliché alert) color outside the lines.

About this time in the veepstakes, there is often a flurry of talk about erasing party lines in the quest for an unconventional path to an electoral majority. McCain himself was on John Kerry’s 2004 short list. And this time around, Joe Lieberman (McCain) and Chuck Hagel (Obama) have the requisite crossover appeal. But there is an even bolder way of reaching out to the other side — taking an esteemed figure from the media. In the old days, first Walter Cronkite and then Bill Moyers were mentioned by that powerful offstage figure called the Great Mentioner (a wonderful title invented by columnist Russell Baker). Tom Brokaw and — maybe even in the right light — Tim Russert might fit that familiar-but-above-the-fray profile today.

ACT 2: Soothing the Constituency Groups

There is a reason why all veep picks in memory have been safely within the ideological mainstream of their parties: No first-time presidential nominee has the political clout to opt for an off-the-wall pick without risking an uproar at the convention. While McCain has not explicitly promised to cleave to the GOP party line on abortion in choosing a V.P., the issue looms like a neon “A” over the heads of pro-choice long shots like Lieberman and color-coded former Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. In picking a veep, deference must always be paid to the party’s voting base. That is why the McCain campaign likely will tack (Christian) right for a while and hint that Mike Huckabee and Sen. Sam Brownback have the right stuff to take up residence at the Naval Observatory.

The Democrats, in case you have not noticed, are the party of affirmative action in all things. That is probably why Bill Richardson got so tired of being trotted out as the Great Hispanic Hope for vice president that he ran for the big job this time around. Obama’s potential problem, in case you have not noticed, is with women voters who went over the hill with Hillary. Which is why (as the Obama high command internally debates the political merits of putting Clinton on the ticket) there undoubtedly will be quasi-public auditions for such alternative choices as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

ACT 3: Pondering the Politics

In fantasy, vice-presidential nominees are chosen for their ability to step into the Oval Office in case of … nah, it is too depressing to put into words. But, believe it or not, at some point in the deliberations the campaign pollsters come in with their PowerPoints, their survey cross-tabs and highlight videos from the focus groups. In other words, the debate suddenly switches to which veep candidate might potentially add 2.73 percent of left-handed junior-college graduates in a swing state like Ohio or Florida.

That is why it required a Shermanesque declaration for Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland to take himself out of the running this week — and even though this is not the first time Strickland has said he’s not interested in the job, do not dismiss the possibility that Obama might beseech him to reconsider. And while former Bush budget director Rob Portman comes equipped with the kind of economic pedigree that McCain craves, he also boasts the right address — having represented Cincinnati in Congress for seven terms. In similar fashion, it would take a major scandal for someone elected statewide in Florida (GOP Gov. Charlie Crist or Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson) not to get a long look for vice president.

ACT 4: Channeling Peggy Lee

By now it is mid-July and the press corps is getting testy about the protracted V.P. shell game. Meanwhile, Obama and McCain are probably both pretty burned out after running over the same names again and again. Forget about pushing the envelope, now the candidates just want to mail it in. No matter how much they try to summon up enthusiasm for the person who will play president-in-waiting, they keep coming back to that emblematic ballad: “Is That All There Is?”

In these wearied moments, as the convention looms, there always remains the chance that the presidential nominee will make an impetuous choice (Dan Quayle, please pick up the white courtesy phone) at the last minute. If voters are sometimes saddled with buyer’s regret, imagine what it must have been like to have decided to put Tom Eagleton or Spiro Agnew on the ticket.

ACT 5: Rolling Out the Running Mate

No ceremony in American political life has a richer subtext than the celebratory union of a presidential ticket. Ritual requires not only a political alliance but the sudden discovery of deep bonds of friendship between the two candidates. Often the story lines become gooey (the Clintons and the Gores reveling in each others’ company on 1992 campaign bus trips) and long-standing rivalries are temporarily airbrushed away (Kerry and John Edwards in 2004), but the rituals of insincerity must be slavishly followed. For such are the ironclad rules of the vice-presidential Kabuki that will dominate the political headlines for the next two months.