home

Hillary's Confirmation Hearing Tuesday

Bumped - BTD

Update (TL) 8:47 am MT: Hillary just finished her statement. The Q and A is beginning.

The hearing on the confirmation of Sen. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is tomorrow before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's expected to be a one day hearing with a vote on Thursday.

By nearly all accounts, Hillary Clinton is on a fast track to confirmation for the premiere position in the cabinet of President-elect Barack Obama. Not only has committee chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) scheduled a vote on her confirmation for Thursday, but its top Republican, Dick Lugar of Indiana, said he would vote for her before she was even officially nominated....After meeting with her last week, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) called her nomination "a net plus for the administration and the country."

Go Hillary. This is a no-brainer. We're fortunate Obama chose her. Here's to a speedy confirmation.

< Pols Are Pols . . . | Are Fox Sports Announcers Dignitaries? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I am so proundly optimistic (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by eric on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:45:33 PM EST
    about how she will be received by other heads of state.  It will be a great thing.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    that Pay for Play may be an issue for the confirmation?

    AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by wasabi on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    Clinton wrote letters to the Health Secretary to advocate for prompt approval of the HPV vaccine and Plan B.  The other areas where she was active were for comapanies that did business in New York State.
    Pay-for-Play?  No.

    Parent
    You, my fine feathered friend (2.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    Are oh so close to breaking up the fawning. Please allow the fawning to continue.  

    Parent
    Senator Clinton (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:46:42 PM EST
    is the best person for the job.  She will bring a level of common sense into the state department we have not seen in quite some time.

    I also feel that with her experience of being in the White House for 8 years, and knowing many world leaders, she will open doors and create dialogue that no one else can do...especially at this critical time in our country's foreign affairs and place on the world stage.

    Go Hillary!

    Yes she will! (5.00 / 17) (#5)
    by mg7505 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    I can't remember how long it's been since Hillary's being in the news made me feel so much genuine, unadulterated happiness. That picture says it all. Of course, the scars from the primaries will never fully heal, but here's to one of the best leaders in the modern era. Go Hillary!

    thanks on the picture (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:02:24 AM EST
    I waded through almost 200 of them before choosing it.

    Parent
    Yes, I am (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by JThomas on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:21:43 AM EST
    ready to see her back on the scene after her break from the public eye as she prepared for her new job.
    I find her to now be a reassurring figure in a world gone mad for some reason.

    Parent
    Ahhhh . . . . , Crap! (5.00 / 17) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:42:32 PM EST
    This brings tears to my eyes*. I've been so glad to hear the positive response to her nomination, and I think she's a great pick for the job. BUT! she's a damn fine Senator and I always felt she had my back on issues close to my heart. If we get a good appointment here, it will be easier to be less unsettled about this. But regardless, I feel she accepted the nom as a position where she could make the most of her talents and help the country. But, damn, gonna miss having her as my hard workin' Senator.

    *It's that girl thang. She turned out to be my hope for a different gender pres . . . never expected that one, lol!~

    Anybody know what time (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:00:15 AM EST
    the hearing is?  I've got errands to do, but can do them either morning or afternoon.  I sure would like to hear it.

    The C-Span website TV schedule has it (none / 0) (#20)
    by splashy on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:36:59 AM EST
    Depending on where you are in the country.

    Parent
    Hillary's work on the International (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:36:52 AM EST
    stage with women's issues is well known.  Having her as a representative of the US government should help bring women's issues to the table. With almost 1/2 of the world's women living in virtual slavery (poverty and religion) that should help.  I read recently that in the past the SOS spent time on military and political alliances and trade agreements. Hillary will no doubt bring women's conditions to the table as well when she takes over on January 20th.  In a way I am slightly relieved that she is not the president elect even tho I supported her.  It is nice to hear all the caterwauling directed at someone other than Hillary for a change.

    I'm not counting any chickens (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    until they're hatched...so to speak.

    Trade agreements (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:13:56 AM EST
    How much impact does a SoS have? That was one of the reason's early on that I supported her for. She had the most comprehensive proposals as far as safety and accountability were concerned, imo. And I know she's tuned into the issue. One of the reasons I wanted/liked her in the Senate.

    Shoot, this was in reply to HS #9 (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:15:27 AM EST
    Dick Lugar, Johnny Isakson, yes, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:29:46 AM EST
    I'm sure there are a lot of Republicans who will be happy as a clam to have her out of the Senate. But having said this, I am still very happy that she will be able to make a difference on an international level.

    I have never heard (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    Republicans complain about her as a Senator. They praise her for always being prepared and civil, but a strong advocate for her positions. Right winger Sam Brownback and a couple of others even apologized to her for things they had said in the past. So, no I don't think they will be happy she isn't there.


    Parent
    i am afraid it may be some of the dems (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by sancho on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    who are happiest to have her out.

    Parent
    Yes, DKOS is ignoring the hearing... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by mogal on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    which I find interesting.

    Parent
    But not surprising (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    It's been a good twelve months (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Lysis on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    Since I considered anything tangentially related to DKos interesting.

    Parent
    The top recommended diary (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    talks about how wonderful it is that clueless newbies come to Daily Kos and learn to stop believing pernicious myths like "Bill Clinton was a good Democratic president."

    LINK for anyone who doubts my paraphrase.

    Parent

    Well, that was a mind warp! (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    TocqueDeville didn't exactly sign up yesterday (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    As a rant against cultism, I don't hate that diary. He just has different opinions than we do.

    Parent
    Shrug (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    People are entitled to whatever opinion they like - they can believe Clinton was a worse President than GWB, if they choose - but the fact that it's the top recommended diary speaks volumes.

    Parent
    Well sure (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    But that's dkos for you.

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#125)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    it is from the left who are masters of the circular firing squad.

    Parent
    this should end up (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:55:31 AM EST
    being a coffee klatch. who's bringing the bagels, cream cheese & lox? really, what is it about her that they don't know by now, her shoe size?

    unfortunately, the obama administration's gain is the senate's loss. i hope whoever is chosen to replace her is even half as smart and experienced.

    Hillary bashing (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by ellen on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:43:33 AM EST
    Keith Olbermann is up to his Hillary-bashing again.  Last night, he compared Bush's farewell speech to Nixon's farewell and Hillary's crying in New Hampshire.  I posted a comment on his board, but he obviously failed to display it.  The man is relentless.  His guy won -- really, he did!  I wish someone would document this gut's record on Hillary.  The psychological issues must be profound.  

    And Hitchens (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:04:12 AM EST
    has a new hit piece on Hillary's confirmation at Slate. That guy is a toxic bag of hatred. Olbermann too. It's always tempting to conclude why they get off doing this, but it would be too nasty for this blog.

    Go Hillary.

    Parent

    Hitchens? Spare me! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    I actually gave the middle finger (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Lil on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:40:07 AM EST
    to the screen when he made that comment last night.

    Parent
    What a jerk. (none / 0) (#131)
    by sallywally on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    What about the other network folks?

    I want to hear what Rachel Maddow says...is she still one of the Clinton haters?

    Parent

    Shuster (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    David Shuster was close to foaming at the mouth at there being a problem confirming Hillary.  I have come to dislike this man very much.  He comes off as embittered at being called a sexist pig, when in fact he was being one.  I think he blames Hillary and all Hillary supporters for "getting him into trouble" with the network.  What a jerk.

    Parent
    And I need to add (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    Shuster has Hitchens as a guest. I could only stomach about 3 seconds of Hitchens and Shuster going after Lanny Davis who was explaining the foundation and the good it does.

    Shuster and Hitchens. Two total jerks.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:14:08 AM EST
    This suggests we may not be far away from the announcement of the next Senator from NY, too.

    and the suspense builds... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:08:18 AM EST
    Are there any new rumors out there?

    Parent
    Haven't heard anything (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    I believe Caroline Kennedy met with the governor last week, but news-wise she hasn't really been picking up any momentum.  Intrade still rates her as a 75% chance to get the seat, so that's the conventional wisdom.

    My personal favorites remain Carolyn Maloney and Byron Brown, the mayor of Buffalo, but they're obviously long shots in this process.

    I don't know when the full Senate is scheduled to vote on Hillary - presumably within the next few days - but that's probably when we'll hear something.

    Parent

    I'm with you on Carolyn Maloney ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    but there are many elected NY politicians who would do a great job.

    Parent
    And if Paterson goes the newbie route... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    lets hope he goes with Fran Drescher instead of Kennedy.

    Parent
    Full vote for Hillary (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by Amiss on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    is Thursday according to C-Span. Other votes will be Wednesday. Looks like they are dividing them up, so not too many on one day.

    I am just so proud of Hillary and the way she handles all of the crap, I dont know if a lesser woman could and still be the force that she is. She has my admiration and respect for all that she does for so many thankless folks.

    Parent

    Like all those folks (1.00 / 6) (#107)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:12:55 PM EST
    here in Western, NY she helped bring Walmart jobs to.

    They should all drape their cardboard facsimiles with garlands of flowers -- daily.

    Parent

    Man (5.00 / 7) (#114)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:26:37 PM EST
    Haters will hate, won't they.

    Parent
    By the way (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    Folks can judge for themselves whether this is a good example of Hillary bringing nothing to upstate NY but Wal-Mart jobs.

    Parent
    Good (1.00 / 4) (#166)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    All that is is proof that she knows how to do what she was elected to do -- once in awhile, when she really puts her mind to it.

    Parent
    Hate this (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:14:56 PM EST
    Man, why is it always about "hate" when it involves sharp criticism of a person or institution we're emotionally attached to?


    Parent
    Probably because (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:18:47 PM EST
    you post a neverending succession of hateful comments about Hillary at this site.  Just a guess.

    Parent
    Probobly because your (1.00 / 5) (#167)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    neverendingly f.o.s; as most starry-eyed devotees are, to some degree.

    Parent
    Rep. Greg Meeks is getting a push (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    from the black press (do I have his name right?), so that there actually would be two black Senators.  Any thoughts on him?  I recall seeing him on the screen several times in the primary, and I was extremely impressed and hoped to see him rise.

    Parent
    Gregory Meeks (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jedimom on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:41:06 PM EST
    Meeks is he real deal IMO. After his unfortunate CMTE comments moons ago about FAN FRED being under fire from the right due to the GOP unfortunate tendency to try and limit minority programs as racist..then when FAN FRED tumbled he was the ONLY Democrat who sat on that CMTE and supported FAN FRED blindly, which most Dems did, he was the only one to apologize for that and for his comment..

    as to what he is doing now, he personally has attys, credit counselors, RE people in his office weekly to meet with constituents in Queens who are in danger of foreclosure and he calls their banks and tries to help them stay in their homes (Maxine Waters CA is doing this also)..he is very hands on for his constituents, and the rare pol who will admit his mistakes but not give up the good fight after being wrong on one aspect of the issue....


    Parent

    I don't know much about him (none / 0) (#102)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    I'd note that Byron Brown is an African-American as well.

    Parent
    There were several names (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    in the black press I read, and Brown was another, but Meeks seemed the most accomplished in the group -- or perhaps it was just my memory of him as so good on issues, on the screen, and in his loyalty.

    But, btw, my fave for her record also is Carolyn Maloney.

    Parent

    Scheduled for Thursday.... (none / 0) (#171)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    day after tomorrow.

    Parent
    Thursday (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jedimom on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    Thursday night is also the Bon Jovi fundraiser, IO will be there, yay happy dance!! I am going to thank HRC for taking on this role and being the wonky goddess I think she is....

    Parent
    Can't go so I sent her (none / 0) (#181)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:01:14 AM EST
    a check to help out, since I hadn't quite maxed out.

    Parent
    Love Hillary (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by EasyE on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:02:38 AM EST
    Still kinda wishin she were President.....

    Here is link on video confirmation (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:57:51 AM EST
    Slam Dunk (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:05:00 AM EST
    Cakewalk. She'll be greeted with flowers and candy.

    I greet her as a liberater (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:20:20 AM EST
    that's for sure

    Parent
    Liberator?... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    Not if you are tyrannized by drug laws she ain't...no liberators are allowed within 5 miles of the dome.

    Parent
    Amazing woman (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    Once again Hillary has blown me away.  I will always admire and appreciate her compassion, her intelligence and her ability to make others see the issues of women and children as important to ending poverty and wars.

    Voting in favor of pre-emptive war.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    is a funny way to go about ending them if you ask me....but in Washington I guess war is peace, ingnorance is strength, and freedom is slavery.

    Parent
    According to Joseph Wilson (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    Powell and Bush both personally assured the Senators that they wanted to resolution so they could use it as leverage to get Saddam to let inspectors back in, not to start a war.

    Parent
    Personal assurances from Bush... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    well that was their first mistake right there.

    Not that I buy it...a handy excuse for a vote that left many bloodstains.

    Parent

    Powell was the one (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:17:41 PM EST
    that carried the credibility. Once the proposal was made public voting it down would have been a strong signal to Saddam that he would not be held accountable for anything. And they did have reason to fear he had WMD - he admitted after his capture that he deliberately gave that impression to make Iran afraid to invade him.
    Also at the time I don't think most people thought Bush would be so blatantly dishonest about starting a war. Hindsight is 20-20.

    Parent
    Yeah... (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    Saddam was sitting in one of his palaces sweating a US congressional vote as to whether the world would hold him accountable or not.

    One thing for sure I've learned hanging at TL, if Hillary decided to become a Brooklyn Bridge saleswoman she'd break sales records.

    Parent

    Have you read her floor speech on this? (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    I was going to bring that up - thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by allimom99 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    After his capture (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    he told questioners he allowed the inspectors in only because he was convinced that we would invade if he didn't. He did this even though he knew it would expose his weakness to Iran.

    I am not a big Powell fan but I assume he was dealing in good faith when he assured Senators that the resolution was for leverage. Facts are facts.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    you and the other "Hillary is a war monger" need to really grow up and get over yourselves.

    The Senator from NY had no reason to believe giving a vote to pressure Saddam to allow more inspections would be used by Bush to invade Iraq.
    As you may recall, being from NY, the place where 3000 innocents were killed, she was indeed representing the will of her constituency.  They wanted answers.  She was trying to get them.  You and the other narrow minded, tunnel vision only see nasty motives.  That's your problem.  Hillary has a lifetime of trying to improve the lives of not just Americans, but people world wide.  
    You see one moment in time. I see a lifetime.

    Parent

    And her taking all that (1.00 / 3) (#168)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:47:21 PM EST
    money from the regime-change-or-bust Board Of AIPAC never entered it at all.

    One moment in time -- that helped expedite that murder, traumatization and displacement of tens-of-thousands.

    Everybody has an off day, I guess.

    Parent

    Hillary has many good qualities (none / 0) (#151)
    by CST on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    But no matter which way you parse it, voting to invade Iraq was a bad moment for her.  And it did NOT represent the wishes of her constituancy - unless you consider the whole country her constituancy (which I think it was at that point b/c she was planning her run for the presidency), I haven't seen a single poll that indicates NYers themselves were for the invasion of Iraq - and plenty of reasons to believe otherwise.

    Hillary is great for many things, she made a mistake, just like most other Dem senators.  Time to admit it was a mistake and move on.

    Parent

    She did not vote to (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:31:19 PM EST
    invade.  She voted to give the president the power to do what needed to be done IF inspectors were not allowed and if WMDs were found.  Like all of us, she was lied to by Bush.  Did she make a mistake in trusting him. Yes.  Did other people make that mistake? Yes.  Making Hillary into a war mongering hawk because of one decision was political spin. I didn't buy it then; don't buy it now.

    Parent
    No one (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by CST on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    Called Hillary a "war mongering hawk" but you.

    People are criticizing her vote to authorize the "use of military force in Iraq" (sure sounds like invade to me), which is a perfectly legitimate criticism.  Yes many other people made the same mistake, and should also be criticized for it.  But it WAS a mistake.

    Parent

    Absurd (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    Anyone who voted yea on that resolution knew that they were giving BushCo a green light to go after Sadaam.

    Do you live in a vacuum? Do you think that Hillary is also naive and somehow unaware that BushCo had been wanting to take out Sadaam well before they were even BushCo?

    Bush was champing at the bit, Hillary was an enabler. Her floor speech was pure politics her vote was a green light for war.

    To fantasize that Hillary was shocked that Bush went to war based on the AUMF is to make believe that Hillary was living in an idealistic bubble and unaware of PNAC and BushCo's extremely clear intentions.

    Parent

    No but you (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    apparently live by spin meisters' words.  Enjoy your own little vacuum.

    Parent
    Spinmeister? (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    Which spinmeister is that? Poor Hillary thought that Bush was an honest man, full of restraint. What was he called in Texas, the texacutioner?

    Clearly Bush was out for vengence. Any idiot could tell that he was lying about everything regarding any restraint to invade Iraq.

    Where were you? Hiding under a rock? Did you believe Bush too?

    lol

    I have zero doubt that had Obama been in the senate he would also have tipped his hat to AIPAC and BushCo on this. The US was out for muslim blood. Hillary voted against the good people of NY, who for the most part had their eyes wide open, and mouths agape at Hillary's collusion.

    Parent

    kdog, that old canard is beneath you. (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by andrys on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 05:07:28 AM EST
    The Iraq War Resolution was a vote to give power to the president to go to war if Iraq did not let UN inspectors in at that point so that the world could search for weapons of mass destruction.  The UN inspectors were allowed in.  But Bush went to war anyway.  

      As for your claim re Hillary voting for pre-emptive war, please note the speech that Clinton made when she voted on that resolution, along with Kerry, Edwards, et the majority of Dems.  

      It includes this:

    "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

      Since you try to be fairminded, please do me the favor of reading a few other things I learned about this, including things Obama said.

      By the way, that repeated unsupported charge reminds me of the news people who repeat the falsehood that she said she'd obliterate Iran.  In that case, she was answering an interviewer about what she would  do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel.

      She said that if the leaders were planning this, once they had the materials and know how, then they should "remember" before doing this that we have the power to obliterate them and this should prevent them from doing anything like that, as it would be a tragedy if they did, and of course it would be.

      A nuclear attack on Israel would be at least that.

      Obama knows all this, which is why he's chosen her.

    Parent

    The more honest informed (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    non-grandstanding answer would've been that theres little danger of that occurring as long as a MAD situation held between the swimming-in-nukes
    Israel and Iran.

    In that sense, Israel already has the power to "obliterate" Iran all by itself. Though apparently, no one's allowed to publicly talk about that.

    Parent

    Im still struck though (none / 0) (#198)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    by the off-the-rails arrogance of a nation thats sold weaponry around the world like a crack dealer
    -- including missles and anthrax to Saddam -- dictating which countries can and cant defend their borders.

    Parent
    uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, (none / 0) (#169)
    by maladroit on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    but didn't our Presidential nominee in 04 do the same thing? and his VP nom? and the current VP elect? I would think you could be a little more evenhanded in distributing the dislike on the AUMF vote. Also, perhaps reading HRC's floor speech on that vote?

    I absolutely disagree with HRC's vote, but for chrissakes, the woman gave her reasons already, the ramifications were probably not what any of the aforementioned people wanted or expected. and remember, we hadn't truly seen the finest of Bush's lying and conniving self at that point in time - and I think it's absolutely reasonable for those within the country (including electeds) to belive that the president has the best of intentions for the country. Does that justify invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? of course not. should they have taken a step back to consider that little nugget? ABSOLUTELY. but for the love of god, get over AUMF. BUSH is the person you should be upset about for taking advantage of the situation and the subsequent madness.

    It's this kind of hard-line "well-if-they-aren't-perfect-progressives-they-must-be-republicans" that makes the Dems our own worst enemies sometimes. Though the ability to disagree with one another and stay somewhat cohesive is pretty awesome.

    sorry for the ramble, i'm tired and burned out from work so i hope it makes sense, at least a little. :)

    Parent

    How cool is that First Lady Senator and now (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by thereyougo on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:54:40 AM EST
    State !  Obviously I would have wanted her as president, but, hey, not bad. She's tireless and committed to our nation. She is an inspiration to all of us.

    Her speech at the beginning of her confirmation speaks like a true team member. Obama sounds like he's taking sound advice and taking the cream of the crop to fix the nation.

    She'll do our nation proud. :-)

    And so it begins (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    D!ckheads at Faux News, I mean right wing pundits, are already sneakily attacking her.  They can't call her Sen Clinton, it's Mrs. Clinton them, lest anyone forget who's she's married to or think she has her own life accomplishments.  And of course the whole focus of their report is Republican Sen Dick Lugar's question about conflicts of interest due to donations to Bill Clinton.  Wah wah wah stupid whiners at Fox Fake News need to get real.  

    I loved what she had to say about Obama's mother being a pioneer in micro-financing and both of them scheduled to attend the International Women's Conference just before Ann Dunham died.  That reinforces both Hillary's commitment to feminist issues as well as her shared goals with the president elect.


    Faux News are best buddies (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    compared to the liberal" New York Times.

    I'm sorry I don't have the link right now, but just in case you feel a need to vomit, check out this past Sunday's editorial regarding her "obvious and troubling conflicts" with Bill's humanitarian work.

    The demands they make for disclosure of his contributions show seriously demented minds at work. According to them, time honored disclosure procedures and interrogatories, plus Obama's volumnous vetting process, isn't nearly enough when it comes to those two Vituperative Villians, Bill and Hillary Clinton.  

    They wear their CDS proudly and with squinted eyes, they "know" that Kenneth Stark would've "gott'm" if only he had a couple of more decades and few more billions of dollars to work with.

    Parent

    Wonderful session b/w (5.00 / 13) (#44)
    by NJDem on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:44:51 AM EST
    Boxer and HRC about the global abuse of women and girls, particularly re: human trafficking and sex slavery--as HRC just said, "it's not custom, it's not cultural, it's crimminal."  

    Just to hear so much of the hearing's discourse about the 'other' half of the world's population has been reassuring...

    awesome (5.00 / 14) (#49)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    I so appreciate her unwavering focus on these issues that have been completely neglected by most politicians and diplomats.

    And for all those who pooh-pooh the importance of having diversity in the cabinet, in congress, and elsewhere - this is a perfect example of why it's necessary. So that issues important to everyone will actually get addressed.

    Parent

    Amazing Moment (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by nell on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    I wanted her as President, but if she can't be President, I will be thrilled to watch her as Secretary of State. She didn't equivocate at all, she didn't try to excuse in any way shape or form practices that harm women, and she soundly rejected the argument of cultural relativism. I am so glad she is back on the national stage...

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 8) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    And someone ought to educate Ms. magazine that this is what a feminist sounds like.

    Parent
    That will (none / 0) (#83)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:13:28 PM EST

    That will make her mighty unpopular with some of out Middle Eastern "friends."

    Parent
    Oh no (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:12:19 PM EST
    That must mean we have to NOT stand up against human trafficking, right? Hopefully, Hillary is not that cowardly.

    Parent
    Well Molly, I was thinking more of ... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    Go Hillz!!! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by WS on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:50:01 AM EST


    DeMint told her (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    to do what she needed to do to silence her critics.....I bet I have a different interpretation of this than he intended. Beware Tweety and Keith!

    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    I bet my interpretation is close to yours.

    Parent
    Wonder if they'll dare interview her.... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by sallywally on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    have to suck up their stupidity and treat her like who she is - namely, someone far more intelligent, informed, dignified, and accomplished than they.....

    Parent
    That's always the way they (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    interview her.  Olberman then turns around and savages her when she's not sitting there.  Tweety, on the other hand, after interviewing her began vacillating back and forth between admiration and respect and CDS crapoia.  Today, though, he was so blown away by her Senate appearance, I swear he had another thrill going up his leg.


    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CST on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:16:14 PM EST
    Tweety just likes drama of any kind, and will make it up if he has to so he can talk about it. I think he gets a "thrill up his leg" for anything he considers a news story.

    Even when he's bashing her for causing "drama", I get the feeling that's Tweety's favorite aspect of Hillary as well.  So it makes sense that he would vacillate.  The thing he denigrates her for is the same thing he loves about her.

    Parent

    Bingo (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    You get it.  Not many do.

    Parent
    gyrfalcon, re Matthews today (none / 0) (#184)
    by andrys on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 05:36:28 AM EST
    Well, yesterday - I'm writing early Wednesday morning.

    From Sam Stein's column on the hearings:


    "I've never seen anybody know so much about so much,"
    Chris Matthews, a sometimes-critical voice on the Clintons, would gush on Hardball later that day.
     

    Funny part was that Matthews said this over and over again and kept calling it a tour de force.

      However, afterwards, Republican Vitter, who prefers madams and their staff, started in on her with a demand for a  'Yes' or 'No' answer immediately -- unhappy with her half a sentence that she began before he asked that her response not be taken from his "time"

      Matthews was all atwitter about Vitter's challenges and that was all he could talk about after that.  Before that, he was stunned by what he was hearing.  After that his eyes glowed with more $-interesting news, which was all about Vitter vs Clinton.  Lugar had said he'd support her nomination though.  I do think she should consider reporting the more-than-$50,000 contributions to the charity fund quarterly rather than annually, even though Obama had agreed to yearly and there is no legal requirement for more.

     

    Parent

    Not suprised ... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    but impressed by her command of the nature, complexity, and ground-level functioning of the department she will head.

    The Senate seemed pretty easy on her.  Even the Republicans didn't seem to be spoiling for a fight.

    Some of the 18 million-plus (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    who voted for Clinton were Republican crossovers, I bet, so those Senators might want to be very nice.  Some may need every vote they can get in the new political climate.  Well, at least they'll be nice in this venue.  I'm sure that the CDS sniping will not end off camera (or here:-).

    Parent
    Real stars do shine (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Missblu on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    That nimble mind of hers just bounces from topic to topic carefully delineating ideas without notes it seems.  Yet there is that great laugh and smile of appreciation when complimented.  You will be great Hillary. The world has been given the gift of your brilliance that is so needed.

    We need a swift and well coordinated (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    response to any Republican senators who vote against her confirmation.  A citizens' grassroots response such as phone calls and email blasts to their offices.  Even repubs are likely to see the benefits of Hillary at the helm of State.  I doubt MoveOn or other large netroots groups will take this on, but we could certainly set something up and forward the info to MoveOn, Democracy.com, TrueMajority, Codepink, Democracy for America, as well as Republican mailing lists and blogs like Huffingtonpost, Kos, Political Cortex, etc.  A strong response to the few jerks who vote against "the perfect person for the job at this time" will create a precedent for other Obama initiatives down the pike.  

    I could set up a website for this action.  Anyone else want to help make this happen?  Any suggestions on other groups to contact to get the word out?


    Good idea (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by JThomas on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    but not going to be necessary...Hillary is a slam dunk confirmation.
    She is dazzling them all, even Tweety who has been effusive in his praise of her command of every nuance of the State dept. and of her passion for womens issues,ect.

    Lugar asked her to supply a few more written answers but he was very generous in his praise of her.

    Bottom line..great selection by Obama...she is going to be a powerhouse SOS.

    Parent

    Totally not needed (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    committee will almost certainly be unanimous, and the full Senate may be, as well.

    Her former colleagues on both sides not only respect  her, they like her personally.

    Parent

    During her Q & A, Chris Matthews opined (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by wurman on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:11:32 PM EST
    that a bandwagon effect may be squelching the GOP detractors.

    Another commenter noted that the Republican National Committee whipped out some FaxKrap about really old rightwingnutz issues.

    The consensus seemed to be that the paradigm has made a massive shift & staying stuck on the old non-issues will lead to absolute irrelevance as the Obama administration moves on to pragmatic realities instead of dealing with DoA culture wars.  Sec. Clinton seems to be moving rapidly along that trail, herself.

    PS: she smoothly responded that the senators would have answers to their 300 questions tomorrow.

    So funny at the Big Orange (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    only a very small sentence or two at the very bottom of the front page diarists on Hillary, David Vitter and Bill Clinton.  HA! HA!

    And VItter was the only one (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:42:32 PM EST
    who was giving her a hard time. That big, bad foundation. Trying to help the poor combat disease.
    I was glad to see Hillary finally pushed back and made a strong statement about having this issue vetted by the appropriated agencies and none found any conflict of interest. That it conformed with all the regulations about spouses' of government employees jobs. So all this obsession is about appearances, not reality. She also made a point that neither she nor Bill get money from the foundation, that it has a very low overhead, etc. It's not like Bill is raising personal money.

    Bill Nelson said it best when he pointed out that the Clinton Foundation and its work only enhances her prestige around the world.

    Of course Tweety just had to break into the coverage of the hearings to try to push this story. There was talk about how she was being asked to control her husband and that we all know how that works, yadayadayada.

    Parent

    Good sharp (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by JThomas on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    exchange between Vitter and kerry over Vitter carping at Hillarys answer to Vitter query.
    Vitter asked HRC about the Foundation..and when she started to go in depth about its activities,Vitter tried to cut her off because it was going to take up his time..kerry jumped in and defended HRC saying you cannot ask a question and then not let the respondant answer in full...
    Now, going back and forth a bit..Vitter is trying to bulldog the Foundation issue.
    HRC parrying very well..no shock.
    She continues to cite the agreement between the Obama team and the Foundation while Vitter will not let it go.
    HE is a giant jerk.

    He is acting like a bit of an (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    a**, isn't he!

    Parent
    Chris mentioned Vitter's prostitute / re-election (none / 0) (#80)
    by mogal on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:02:47 PM EST
     problem before he started his questioning. Thus making him look like more of a a**.

    Parent
    I heard that. Too funny (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    in an alternate world, it would have been a hoot for her to turn around and start questioning him  ;)

    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#82)
    by JThomas on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    turning into a Hillary lovefest. Webb loves her.
    Kerry commented that there is no clamor for a second round from the committee.
    Jean Shahnean only gets to ask a question in the second round? Low person in the senate really is in the basement,clearly. Webb joked about finally having someone with less pull than him being a comforting thought.
    This is all over but the shouting.

    Parent
    Not Much Differences (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    Between GOP and Dems when it comes to foreign policy. Besides Hillary is one of the most bipartisan Senators out there, contrary to her recent image during the primary as divisive.

    Parent
    Very Exciting (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:10:33 PM EST
    To see Global Warming front and center. US will lead the international community on this at long last.

    Nice Jab At Vitter (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    For being an empty partisan hack.

    Kerry Slammed Vitter (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    But obliquely as his Chair required. Everyone in the room knew who he was talking about when he mentioned the empty politicized claims, not from Lugar, but from, cough cough "others" aka Vitter.

    Well digby does not have to hold back, nor does she:

    Whenever I see some little diaper wearing toady like David Vitter get all filled with righteous indignation about conflict of interest and setting precedents I just have to laugh. George W. Bush's entire family was a walking conflict of interest for eight years --- his father even accepting money directly from the Saudi Arabian government for his own personal use. It was assumed that Poppy was clean because well .... he was one of them, if you know what I mean.

    more


    Parent

    Sell drama to sell soap - what happened to what (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by mogal on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:56:06 PM EST
    used to be called journalism?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: (4.92 / 14) (#1)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:39:33 PM EST
    She's my girl!

    Madame Secretary (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by noholib on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:49:14 PM EST
    Great pic of Hillary! The world is a mess, but hopefully, it will be wonderful to see and hear her again. Here's to Madame Secretary, our next SoS.

    Parent
    Nice To See It Starting (4.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:25:26 AM EST
    I am sure Hillary will be great.
    Here are the two main themes of HRC's prepared statement tomorrow, as provided by one transition official:

    A renewal of American leadership, and
    A revitalization of diplomacy to promote our security interests and advance our values

    more Laura Rozen  

    And a list of 47 good questions to ask her:

    No. 23 seems like a fair question (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:41:11 AM EST
    for a confirmation hrg. for Secretary of State.  Some of the other quesstions ask her to bind a President who has not been sworn in.

    Parent
    Uh ... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:43:04 AM EST
    many of those are questions for Obama.

    There's no confirmation hearing for POTUS.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    These are exactly the questions a Secretary of state should be asked. And I would love to hear the answers to most of them. Great questions imo.

    What do you think that the SOS does?

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    Hillary is not a Condi Rice.  She's a leader, not a yes man.  She's already indicated she'll operate in complete concert with Obama's goals, ideas and objectives.  And why not?  They're her goals and our goals as well.  

    This is her chance to take the reins and show what kind of leader she really is.  The more she responds to questions that could be directed at the president elect, the more she shows that they're a united team and a force to reckon with.  In essence, she increases the effectiveness of the office of Secy of State by taking these top level questions head on and answering them in terms of what she and Obama intend to do.


    Parent

    Yes, and shows her as an unparalleled (none / 0) (#136)
    by sallywally on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:32:29 PM EST
    presidential prospect. She'll be able to show that quality throughout the next four (or eight) years.

    Parent
    Apparently she supplied answers (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    to over a hundred questions prior to today. Those answers may be available somewhere. Sen Kerry spoke about them before the break, so if there's a transcript, he may have said if they are. You may find some answers to these questions there.

    Another Sen submitted some questions today that she needs to answer by tomorrow, which I thought was kinda crappy.

    Parent

    Crappy? (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Why would that be crappy? Seems like the more we hear from her the better armed we are for holding her feet to the fire.

    Parent
    Because he didn't submit them (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    when the others did, but this morning during the hearing where she is scheduled to be all day. I think Kerry said they need answers by noon tomorrow. Judging from her testimony, she has been meeting and speaking with the members over the past week or 2, so it's not like he hasn't had ample opportunity to get these questions answered in one way or another.

    Interesting what you pick up on in my comment . . .

    Parent

    Yeah, people are so dopey (5.00 / 10) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    ......to feel a little joy in finally having a policy intensive advocate of the people in a position of power.

    Comparing the feelings of those of us who have waited so long for this woman to get a platform from which to shine with those of adoring groupies worshiping a vision is kind of cute.

    Keep it up, everyone needs a little chuckle now and then.


    Parent

    Hold her feet to the fire? (2.80 / 5) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    LOL, that's a good one Squeaky.  When has that ever happened around here?  Hard to hold someone's feet to the fire when they walk on water.  

    She's not even confirmed yet and people here are saying she's no Condi Rice, but Obama, not even POTUS yet, is already the second coming of George W. Bush according to some.  Funny how that works.

    It's also funny how it is basically the same people who decry Obama supporters for being blind in their allegience to him that exhibit the exact same symptoms when it comes to Hillary.


    Parent

    I think Hillary has some (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    solid reasons for being so well liked. The right wing was so terrorized by the "strong woman" that they set out to destroy her. And according to gallup polling her positive ratings across all groups generally hovered around 50% for the last 16 years. About 70% of the Democrats, 55% of the indies and less than 35% of the Republicans liked her. The constant drumbeat of lies from the media and GOP did their work well.  When she entered the race her negatives were pretty fixed. Her performance and her ability to capture one half of the Democratic voters was a feat that she correctly pursued. IMHO she proved herself to be capable, intelligent and honest and won over many people who had been blinded for so long. Now finally, it is okay to laud her.

    Parent
    Now Finally? (2.00 / 1) (#139)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:02:38 PM EST
    That is hilarious, you have been lauding her since you started commenting here, as have many others.

    Nothing but praise, in fact.

    Parent

    I was referring to the Republican (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:09:53 PM EST
    senators as well as the gallup polling of this month which put her poll numbers above 70%.  She has won over independents, and some Republicans as well as a lot of white males.  Look up Gallup for January 2009 on these poll results. Except for the MSNBC boyz other news reports are quite positive.  That is new!

    Parent
    Not New (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    Hillary has done extremely well with her GOP peers in the senate. She has gained tremendous respect across the aisle, not to mention that she is one of the two or three Dems allowed to participate in the Family's weekly prayer meetings.

    The whole story about Hillary being divisive, polarizing contentious,  was a myth created for this election.  


    Parent

    Actually the myth was created long (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:36:36 AM EST
    before this election. Just read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock for the origins of the myth. Hillary won the grudging support of some GOP senators for her grasp of issues and her preparation on them.  The prayer breakfasts were derided by the liberals but reading her story, I found that she was a very spiritual person who like we Presbyterians believe in living our beliefs by acting on them.  Russ Feingold was quoted as saying that when he traveled overseas with HRC he came away completely impressed with her knowledge and understanding of the region and her knowledge of the people, many of whom knew her personally.

    Parent
    You're right, hairspray (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:27:47 AM EST
    She was being called polarizing and divisive way back in the 80's at least - I remember all the right-wing narratives against her (and they were exactly the same as the left-wing narratives used against her during this primary). She was also a feminazi, of course - from way back when! Maybe she'll be that again when she tries to fight against human trafficking and runs up against that particular machine.

    Parent
    I saw a Frontline (PBS) (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    program on trafficking of women from Moldova and the Ukraine into Turkey for prostitution.  It was riveting.  I hope that our state department will use as many tools as possible to break this up.  Of course it is poverty of women that is the root cause of this.  Barbara Boxer of California is very much a spokesperson for this issue. Women everywhere should be rising up about this.

    Parent
    Indeed. And men, too, of course. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    Adoration Society (1.80 / 5) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    All Hillary would have to do for this crowd is look longingly at the camera. The double standard is over the top.  Love does that to people.

    Parent
    Those who suggest that showing respect (5.00 / 9) (#127)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    or admiration for Hillary Clinton is the same as insisting she can do no wrong are usually the same people who routinely insist that nothing she does is right.

    Parent
    Those who suggest that showing respect (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    or admiration for Barack Obama is the same as insisting he can do no wrong are usually the same people who routinely insist that nothing he does is right.  

    /That street runs two ways, not one.

    Parent

    Huh? (1.00 / 2) (#135)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    Are you talking about this site or some other site? Clearly the cultists are here acting exactly as the other sites cultists are acting.

    Have you ever held Hillary's feet to the fire on any issue?

    Parent

    Democrats showing pride in the performance (5.00 / 7) (#153)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    of a Democratic leader, of obvious talent and competence, with a long record of devotion to important Democratic issues, isn't, in my book, "cultish" behavior.

    Personally, over the years, I've taken issue, on many occasions, with the actions and policies of both Clintons (I found Bill especially deficient in terms of civil liberties). But, disagreeing with them, at times, in terms of policy or finding them less than perfect personally, doesn't preclude respect and appreciation for their many accomplishments, personal talents and devotion to public service.

    I've also found good reason to be critical of Obama during his briefer time in the public arena, and will probably find more reasons in the future. But I also appreciate his many talents and personal qualities, approve in the main his approach to policy, and am overjoyed by the historic precedent set by his election.

    As a citizen, its both my right and responsibility to apply critical judgement to the actions of, and demand accountability from, political players. But I don't routinely presume blanket evil or bad character on their part when I disagree with or disapprove of their policies, strategies, etc. I expect politicians to perform as mere mortals, not heroes. I don't expect any will ever perform in perfect accord with my perhaps less than perfectly correct desires -- and to date, none have.

    There are many, many reasons for Democrats to be proud of Hillary Clinton. And, of course, reasons to be critical.

    Parent

    Pride Hath Obscured Questions (1.50 / 4) (#157)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:35:12 PM EST
    For most of the fanclub. Yes it is great to have one of our best at SOS, but to just standby gobsmacked filled with pride seems ridiculous to me. These are politicians, not gods.

    Parent
    Well, considering the boat loads of ludicrous, (5.00 / 7) (#159)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    dishonest, over-the-top and at times downright pornographic criticism this particular political player has been heaped with and risen above over the decades, a little compensating fan love is well in order.

    Parent
    Seems Disgusting To Me (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    As much as I like Hillary, I see her as a pol. But I get it, and am hardly surprised. Were this a special moment for admiration that would be one thing, but this seems more like an ongoing cause.

    Parent
    Special Moment (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by daring grace on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    I agree with you wholeheartedly about the adulation which I find distasteful no matter who it is directed at. I fully supported and support Obama but his imperfections as a candidate and soon as POTUS are still very apparent to me. I've never felt the kind of feeling for any pol that many here feel for HRC or many other places online feel for Obama.

    But don't you think this hearing--with HRC getting to show her stuff in this initial showing of what she'll be doing as SOS is a 'special moment'?

    Parent

    No I Don't (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:44:28 PM EST
    This was a confirmation hearing. Q and A, tough ones and ones that explain what we have to look forward to in the next admin.

    When she is confirmed that can be the special moment for her fanbase to go limp.

    Parent

    Her substance, not her ribbons, made me a fan (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    Gotta say, though, as an admirer of HRC, the breadth and depth of her policy knowledge is precisely what I admire about her -- and seeing a display of that breadth and depth (and proving that it's possible to have both) is what makes me "go limp," as you put it ... not the bestowal of laurels that will follow.

    So yeah. I'll swoon (if one wishes to be hyperbolic) at the woman herself speaking in her own voice and displaying her talents... the power structure voting to confirm afterward doesn't provoke the same reaction in me. The vote is a no-brainer; after a display that swoon-worthy (!), what else would they do?  One (the testimony) is "See how impressive she is?" the other (the confirmation) is, "See what they gave her?"

    Your mileage may vary, of course.

    Parent

    Sorry To Hear (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    Going lockstep, aka suspension of disbelief,  with any pol is bad business. That is what Dobson et al depend on.

    Parent
    Lockstep? Hardly. (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    Who says I'm going lockstep? It's not like I didn't watch and decide for myself. Frankly, your apparent assumption that I'm an unquestioning drone is a bit offensive to me.

    Parent
    No Assumption (none / 0) (#195)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    Just responding to your swooning statements. I see no place for it in politics. Admiration is fine, swooning is for fanclubbers.

    Parent
    Please reread. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    If you'll reread my posts, you'll see that I quoted you on "going limp," and deliberately called out the "swooning" as hyperbolic. My own statement of admiration for HRC was exactly that, in my own words, admiration. It's not like I have a Tiger Beat poster of her on my wall, for goodness' sake. I just like listening to her talk policy, and I absolutely love that she put women's rights so far forward, both in her opening statements and in the Q&A session.

    As far as this being the time to show admiration vs. the confirmation vote, try this comparison on for size. It's like seeing a great movie that later wins an Academy Award. To my mind, the time to show genuine appreciation is when you see the movie, and it impacts you. The red carpet awards show is, I guess you'd say, the "fan" stuff, when you just squee that your fave movie won.

    Parent

    OK, Disagree (none / 0) (#197)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    And, just to be clear I have great admiration for her, but I was horrified by some of her answers regarding continuing the WOT, and particularly the war in Afghanistan. Seems to me that the point of the confirmation hearings is not about swooning over her Q and A skills, prodigious memory, and grasp of a tremendous range of foreign policy issues, but to find out where we are heading as a country as regards foreign policy.

    Had Kerry been swooning he would not have put the question to her, WTF are we doing in Afghanistan, it seems like we are making the same mistakes we should have learned about in viet nam.

    Parent

    It's pretty standard for ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    some Senators to ask for additional questions to be answered in writing at confirmation hearings.

    Nothing new or "crappy" about it.  Just the way these things are done.

    Parent

    Thanks. Haven't watched one for (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    awhile. It just seemed odd on top of all the she had already done. Kinda like the boss having info on a project but doesn't give it to you until 3 or 4PM and it needs to be out the door that night. Obviously I'm pre-conditioned to have a "crappy" response  ;)

    Parent
    It was DeMint (none / 0) (#62)
    by Amiss on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:36:36 PM EST
    wasn't it?

    Parent
    I thought it was Vitter (none / 0) (#101)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:06:50 PM EST
    but I could be wrong.

    Parent
    He was asking for more stuff (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    about the foundation. I was surprised he didn't ask her for more tax info . . . .

    Parent
    Prepared Questions (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:36:57 PM EST
    Yes, I know, they are on the link I provided above.

    Parent
    C-Span isn't live feeding well (none / 0) (#28)
    by NJDem on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:37:49 AM EST
    can anyone give updates?  Thanks in advance!!!

    Try to the msnbc link via the NYTimes website. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:15:53 AM EST
    Thanks--it's working much better! (none / 0) (#38)
    by NJDem on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:24:07 AM EST
    The NYT is also live-blogging--not that they'll be a shortage news about her performance today...

       

    Parent

    That was sweet that (none / 0) (#32)
    by NJDem on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    Kerry invited Chelsea to sit with them as an honorary intern b/c Hill said she hated that she was sitting behind her and couldn't look at her face.  What a grilling so far!! :)

    and kerry (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    went on and on and on and on...

    Parent
    Those rooms tend to be pretty uncomfortable (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    She's sounding a little harsh this AM (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:20:35 AM EST
    but I think this is going to be a cakewalk.

    Harsh? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by mogal on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    I thought she sounded great. Please explain.

    Parent
    Andgarden is an ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    amateur drama critic in addition to other things.

    ;)

    Parent

    First Condi, now Hillary. (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    Has a woman as SOS become the paradigm?

    Pardon me (5.00 / 9) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    First, Madeleine. Then, Condi. Then, Hillary.  With some guy named Colin sandwiched in there somewhere.

    Parent
    You beat me to it -- thanks (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    as Madeleine Albright was a marvelous SOS.

    Rice was the first African American woman SOS.

    Powell, of course, was the first African American SOS.

    But while we're at it, let's remember the real pioneer as the first-ever in the Cabinet who was not a white male:  Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor for FDR for a dozen years, after a long career in labor -- influenced by her being nearby and then at the scene of the terrible tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911.  That led her into heading up the New York State commission that changed workplace laws there and led the way across the country.

    And Perkins was nearby that day because she was working in NYC for the Consumers League, founded by the great group of women trained at Jane Addams' Hull House since the turn of the century -- in Chicago, where Clinton was born.

    All part of a great tradition of public service -- for and by a lot of people who look more like America than the Cabinets did for a century and a half.

    Parent

    Thanks for the history. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by hairspray on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    I read that story years ago and was duly impressed.  In fact, there is a building in D.C. (I think it is the building that houses the Labor Department) that is named for her. Don't you wonder why women seemed to be making strides during the '30's and then along comes World War II and Rosie the Riveter with more strides.  After the war was over, it was back to the kitchen ladies.

    Parent
    Yes, the Labor Dept Bldg (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    is named for her.  But no, women did not make strides in the 1930s -- no one did, but of course, those at the bottom of the laborforce ladder did worse.  Women, minorities, etc., even were left out of most of the New Deal programs (so I am watching closely to see if those sorts of programs start again to see whether that bias happens again).

    Women did make strides in the 1920s thanks to leaders like Perkins.

    As for why women seemed to be making strides in the 1920s -- or for that matter, in the 1820s, as they did with the first women's schools to train them for the first profession open to them, teaching -- and then why they went backward:  Well, that's exactly why.  For every era when we move forward, we then face massive backlash.

    That's the historical reason why.  As for the psychological reasons why society keeps screwing itself by pushing back more than half of its population, well . . . I can't state the reason why here without getting the usual cranks.  

    But I bet you know the reason why. :-)

    Parent

    Wasn't Perkins the Secretary in 1930's? (none / 0) (#176)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:26:52 AM EST
    The old movies of the 1930's depicting women like Roz Russell and Katherine Hepburn as career women who were independent made me think the thirties were a period of awakening.  Of course I know how bad the depression was as my mother lived through it as a young woman and certainly any job promotions were given to men as head of the household.

    Parent
    Yes, in the Cabinet in '33 (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:23:13 AM EST
    as one of FDR's first appointees.  And she was the only one in the Cabinet with him to the end.

    But by '33, even though a few women like Perkins found new careers in the New Deal, the strides made by most women were over.  I'm making a distinction -- that one or a few succeed does not mean that all do.  

    And sometimes, that one or a few are allowed to succeed can be used to mask that most do not.  So, for example -- and Clinton would be the first to say so -- we cannot allow her success today to take our eyes off what happens to many women in this economic recession.  

    Fortunately, Perkins' successor Solis in the Labor spot looks to know that. But let's also keep in mind that Clinton and Solis comprise half of the four women in the Obama Cabinet.  That's as many as were in the Bush Cabinet -- and it's 75 years since the first woman in the Cabinet.  

    Parent

    Wow, so right! Doh! My appologies. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    Now that I'm thinking about it... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    ...maybe it's a good sign that I didn't remember - maybe it's a sign women in such positions is becoming unremarkable.

    Parent
    No, it's a HAT TRICK. (none / 0) (#86)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    if you recall, Madeleine Albright was the first woman SOS.

    Parent
    White men no longer have a lock. (none / 0) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and now Hillary Clinton. It would seem just about all the ceilings, glass and otherwise, have been broken for this position.

    Parent
    Go Kerry (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    That is one of the elephants in the room for me. THe paradigm of the WOT is a BushCO fiction. That idea has to be dismantled.
    Likening our Afghanistan debacle to the Viet Nam war is good.

    At least one democrat is challenging Obama and Hillary's swallowing the WOT whole, and continuing the aimless war in Afghanistan.

    She Punted (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    MSNBC is focusing on the conflict of interest (none / 0) (#110)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    "problem" and Vitter's pushing her on this matter. Tweety interrupted coverage after Vitter so that he could gin this up. Ann Kornblut said she didn't think this would be the headline from the hearings but it was clear that that is exactly what Tweety wants. He wouldn't let it go and now MSNBC is pushing the story.

    MSNBC starts with the headlines (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    it wants and then finds the "nooz" to fill in below.  I had editors like that, and it's best to leave such jobs fast, as reputations can be ruined.  (See Tweety, Chris; see Olberboy, Keith; see Shuster . . . well, just see 'em all there.)

    There's a name for that sort of journalism done backwards: sensationalism.  I fully expect MSNBC to continue down the National Enquirer path and lead with three-headed babies of Martian mothers and celebrity crap.  Oh wait, that's what Olberboy already does.

    Parent

    They all do that (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Lil on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:14:21 PM EST
    Look at Huffington's headlines.

    Parent
    Huffpo is hardly "all" (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:42:13 PM EST
    and no, there still a few good information sources.  (I tend to focus most on a few good magazines these days for print media and on a few good services online for specialized readers.)

    Many, and especially cable nooz, squawk radio, etc., have gone over to the dark side.  And sadly, too many blogs have done so as well, squandering the opportunity to counter the squawk with serious citizen journalism.

    So then, it is the extent to which media of all sorts veer to sensationalism -- and I see MSNBC as having veered farther than most counterparts to the point that it has become emblematic of the problem.

    Parent

    Tweety interrupted (none / 0) (#116)
    by JThomas on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    earlier to give Hillary glowing praise for her knowledge about the vast State dept empire.

    They are looking for any glimmer of actual news or discussion points out of a slam dunk hearing.
    The Vitter exchange was the only even vaguely interesting ''news'' out of the whole day.

    Guess what, the media including Matthews are going to try to create news out of anything they can,not just HRC. It is their job..to sell the drama.

    Parent

    No it's their job (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by BernieO on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    to report and analyze the news. Now that the hearings are over Tweety is not praising her. He is focusing on the contribution issue.


    Parent
    Absolutely not (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:48:30 PM EST
    What planet are you from?  We might wish their job was reporting the news, but c'mon.  They're hired to make money for the people that pay them.  Hence, we live in a world with crappy news service.  Oh well.

    Parent
    Worrisome...Hillary looked (none / 0) (#174)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:42:55 PM EST
    really, really tired to me.  I don't remember ever seeing those huge bags under her eyes before...

    Well One Explanation (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:04:32 AM EST
    She is not campaigning any more, and can look how she looks. Also I am sure that she has been doing a lot of reading, and meetings.

    Parent
    There was a comment towards the end (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:40:23 AM EST
    of the morning session when Kerry was giving the deadline for the new written questions to be answered, I missed the exact wording, but the gist was about how they (included her "people") had been pulling long hours to get the main round of questions (I think it was the questions) done. Anyways, then you have all the times she or one of the senators would mention a meeting and/or phone conversation on issues in the past week or so (including weekend) plus the statement she read at the beginning. Oh and wrapping up old biz in the Senate (she's working on 2 Equal Pays and the HHS rules OTTOMH) and prepping for her new position.  They've only been back a week . . . I think I have bags under my eyes now!

    Parent
    Lots of Questions (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 12:58:16 AM EST
    With big answers. A huge memorization task, plus putting it all together, yes it is no wonder she looks tired. It must be nice for her to be able to look tired.

    Kerry's questions (PDF) are formidable in themselves. I assume that they were meant to cover everything.

    Parent

    Yes...I agree...no doubt (none / 0) (#182)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 03:07:46 AM EST
    it's been exhausting...but so is campaigning.  And there IS such as thing as concealer!

    Just sayin'... she looked really, really beat.  Hope she gets some rest soon.  Has she had a vacation since the primaries began?  If so, I don't remember it.

    Parent

    'Smart Power' and Hope (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    .
    .. as The Cable noted yesterday, the framing of "smart power" was, so far as we can determine, actually introduced into the public sphere by former deputy to the U.S. mission at the U.N. Suzanne Nossel, now COO of Human Rights Watch, in this 2004 Foreign Affairs article (pdf), aply titled, "Smart Power."

    laura rozen

    The piece by Nossel is well worth a read. Pretty much what Hillary was discussing and the blueprint for what we have to look forward to, I hope...

    Btw I should've (none / 0) (#200)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    said the oh-so-defenseless-and-vulnerable-to-Iran Isreal is relativly swimming in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (those children in Gaza should consider themselves lucky!)

    Bill's administration for whatever reasons, never had the cajones to put it's foot down regarding Sharon's Intifada-precipitating settlement expansions, and now Ms Obliteration is continuing the public charade - media minstrelsy in further homage to the "securing the realm" project.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    THe Israelis are using white phosphorus bombs on the kids, just like we did in falluja. War crimes galore..

    Going away present for BushCo.

    Parent

    The figure I heard was (none / 0) (#202)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 02:27:45 PM EST
    children making up 55% of the population in Gaza.

    Parent
    Makes Sense (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    Most don't make it into adulthood, ergo the disproportionate children pop.

    Parent