« Obama Should Recognize Email Supporters Too | coonsey's Blog | Demanding Oversight of Bailout Money is too Late »
Hillary's Morning Confirmation Grade Report - What's Your Opinion?
So, Hillary supporters, how did she do this morning at the confirmation hearings?
I thought she did just fine, course I never heard any actual 'hard' questions, only those that she was able to say "we don't know yet"l Like the one on what you will do different with respects to Iran - will you go there?
I did feel that she 'struggled' to give the Obama 'take' on the issue of diplomacy and one on one talks. She also seemed a bit uncomfortable discussing Iraq and getting out in 16 months. She was able to claim Bush's agreement with Iraq would confine them to a certain extent.
What's your opinion?
Should Chelsea had been there? Do children and other family members normally attend a confirmation? I honestly do not know. Should Kerry have invited her behind the Senate table?
What's your opinion?
I thought she did just fine, course I never heard any actual 'hard' questions, only those that she was able to say "we don't know yet"l Like the one on what you will do different with respects to Iran - will you go there?
I did feel that she 'struggled' to give the Obama 'take' on the issue of diplomacy and one on one talks. She also seemed a bit uncomfortable discussing Iraq and getting out in 16 months. She was able to claim Bush's agreement with Iraq would confine them to a certain extent.
What's your opinion?
Should Chelsea had been there? Do children and other family members normally attend a confirmation? I honestly do not know. Should Kerry have invited her behind the Senate table?
What's your opinion?
Advertisement
No comment on the meat of it, but: It's my understanding that family members are fairly common at confirmation hearings, particularly those that are expected to go well.
January 13, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not against her being there, however, having a front row seat is questionable. I know I'd be there if it were my family member.
I do get the feeling that the Clintons are PREPARING Chelsea for future government service. She'll call this 'experience'.
January 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I thought she did fine. As far as Chelsea goes this is not out of the ordinary. Family members usually attend and sit right behind the individual being questioned.
January 13, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Family members do attend. To me, this confirmation hearing was not interesting at all.
Sen. Clinton, while well-versed, simply said what she was supposed to say without saying anything.
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no disclosure regarding the specifics of international contributors to the Clinton global initiative moving forward.
Am I wrong on that?
January 13, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding and this is only my understanding from what I heard in the hearing. Is that the CGI has always disclosed it's contributors and will continue to do so. However the sticking point now seems to be that it is now disclosed on an annual basis and some want it to be more frequent. Say quarterly. I think the confusion comes from the fact that the Clinton Foundation which did not disclose it's contributors and was not required to do so before now and the CGI are separate entities. Someone with possibly greater knowledge or a clearer understanding can certainly weigh in here.
January 13, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know enough about it myself. I'm a big Obama supporter and I confess that I preferred not having Sen. Clinton in the cabinet, especially as secretary of state. (I just want to point out that that doesn't mean I dislike her.)
IMO, the potential of international quid pro quo via the foundation or CGI is too great.
Whatever transparency the Clintons are offering, there's just no such thing as full disclosure in politics.
January 13, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this was Lugar's point. He had a simple solution: a moratorium on donations while she held office. It seems reasonable enough. "Even the apparance" of conflict of interest is a government standard -- it's clear in this situation that such an appearance will always exist unless you cleanly separate things.
Of course, the rules that apply to the ruling class are not like those for the rest of us.
January 14, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there is a double standard for the rich and powerful and the rest of us. But do you know anything about what the Clinton Global Initiative does??? When you have spent as much time and effort doing as much good in the world as the CGI then you can talk. The sad thing here is that a more progressive world is put on hold by people like you so you can endlessly try to run the Clintons into the ground. Your personal prejudice is more important to you, fine, your choice. I will be the first to donate to the Clearthinker Global Initiative when you get around to something positive instead of just casting stones.
January 14, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was disappointed that people didn't ask tougher questions. Her husband is raising money from questionable sources. But somehow people don't think that it will comprise Hillary's actions as security of state. Very disappointing
January 13, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was brilliant as usual and easily confirmed.
January 13, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, you tell em. Hillary was brilliant.
There was not a man or woman on that panel that could have answered the questions as well as she did.
January 14, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid question here:
How can you have confirmation hearings for a nominee of a not-yet-President?
It still bugs me that according to the letter of the Constitution, any sitting legislator should be disqualified from any position for which their Congress approved a pay raise.
Does the Constitution mean anything anymore?
January 13, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Padre -
This issue was resolved by reverting the pay back to what is was before the pay increase. Thus removing the constitutional objection. This as not ground breaking precedent it had been done before.
January 13, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know how they resolved it, this time and before. It still violates both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, IMHO. Kinda like finding convenient ways to avoid requiring Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I know an AUMF and a SecState nomination don't compare, but it's the mindset that the Constitution is an obstacle requiring a work-around, like Microsoft's latest OS, rather than a set of rules by which our government should be run.
January 13, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's really annoying, is that the senate will vote themselves another pay raise, possibly more than the one HRC voted for after she is sworn in.
January 14, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It still bugs me that according to the letter of the Constitution, any sitting legislator should be disqualified from any position for which their Congress approved a pay raise..........I know how they resolved it, this time and before. It still violates both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, IMHO."
I respectfully disagree regarding this conclusion of the "spirit of the law". IMO, the "spirit" of the law sets forth a principle by which a legislator should not be allowed to benefit from legislation that they have introduced, voted on, or collectively benefited from upon vote of their equal peers which effects a future governmental position that they may hold in receipt of such benefits. More specifically, she should not be allowed to benefit from a pay raise as a cabinet member, that she voted for (not necessarily in anticipation of a future cabinet position) as a senator. And in this case, she won't, as the raise has been rolled back.
That is the spirit (intent) of the law, and more often than not, you will see it (the "spirit" of constitutional law) employed in modern formal decisions regarding constitutional matters, rather than explicit, verbatim language as contained in the original consitution. A careful review of modern constitutional law (decisions) will reveal a progressive slant towards the interpretational intent of the law, as opposed to antiquated literal recitations of a document written over 200 years ago.
January 13, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would argue that the true "spirit" of the particular clause of the Constitution was to remove a potential instrument by which the executive and the legislative branches could commit collusion, curry favor with each other, and combine the executive power with that of the legislative (an act that would meet the definition of tyranny).
January 14, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about. One hard question after another. Every possible corner of the planet was discussed.
And guess what?
She could discuss every single issue confronting that corner. Hillary was brilliant.
January 14, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go look at her obstinacy over Lugar's questioning about not *even the appearance* of conflict of interest.
In government there are very strict rules about this, but it's clear to all involved that there are two standards of enforcement. The peons have it very, very strict -- while the ruling class gets by with everyone winking and nodding and returning passes to one another.
Hillary shouldn't be barred from Sec of State because of Bill's organization -- if Bill would simply put collecting his donations on hold while she held office.
January 14, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I kind of agree CT. I think everybody assumes the two are married in name only anyway.
Cheney gives his own company tens of billions of dollars in no bid contracts and maneuvered bid contracts and congress never said a damn thing, except formally.
But the republicans have constituencies and they sit in a caucus and agree that certain members will make certain comments and ask certain questions.
The Democrats do the same things.
January 14, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if she's overnighting in D.C., she may notice over coffee that got a wedgie from her morning newspaper:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011302567.html
January 14, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Hillary did awful to Lugar's reasonable point that there should be a total, iron-clad moratorium of not receiving contributions while she is Sec of State (and I don't even like Lugar).
Her specious argument is that Bill went through unprecedented disclosure for an ex-President and therefore needed take these other steps. I wish someone would have said the obvious: and that's because we've never had an ex-President's spouse sitting at such a high level of government before, so who knows where the "unprecedented bar" should be set?
I, too, was irritated by Chelsea being up front and center (which is somewhat unusual though not unprecedented). It was clear why after the hearing yesterday was over -- she was getting introduced to all the high level officials by her mother. My irritation is mostly because people fail to see this is where the oligarchy starts.
JEM had made the point that the biggest impediment to real action is the near certainty that an elected official can do damned near anything and still virtually guarantee re-election (incumbents seldom lose). This oligarchy behavior extends things over multi-generations.
And then people whine about their not having a say in the direction of the country. Of course, you don't! You gave up the steering wheel long ago!
January 14, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker? hardly ..... thinking with severe prejudice is more like it. You were "irritated" by Chelsea being there? "...she was getting introduced to all the high level officials" ... oh yeah that really pissed me off too! How dare those Clintons acting like a normal family! Maybe you should Google the Clinton Global Initiative and find out what profoundly good things are being done in this frightening world. Maybe you should donate some of your time and money to help them help others instead of casting out negativity and paranoia. (and maybe look up the definition of 'oligarchy' to see what the hell it really means) Just saying ..... have a nice day!
January 14, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true. No social work was done world wide until Bill Clinton got involved.
By the way, when was the last time your parents dragged you to a job interview? Or you dragged your parents? And by the way, the "normal" family aspect usually has the relatives *behind* the candidate, not sitting next front and center.
Or...why wasn't Bill there? The husband often is. Or why wasn't Hillary's mother there?
There's no talking sense to a Clintonista. Because in their warped mind, it's only an oligarchy when the families you don't like are in power.
January 14, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's true. No social work was done in the world wide until Bill Clinton got involved"
My god could you be any less bitter? The sight of Chelsea sets you off like this? Your life must be very comfortable to allow you such a throne to view it all from. I strongly suggest you change your icon, or at least get a clue to what it means. And again, could you please look up the CGI and see what it does and who supports it. You might just want to help .... instead of spewing venom.
January 14, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink