Maybe it really is a new era, judging from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 94-2 confirmation vote in the Senate. The New York Times’ Gail Collins marveled: “Can you remember back when Hillary was first elected to the Senate eight years ago, and the Republican majority leader made the wistful suggestion that she might be hit by lightning before she was sworn in? Do you remember that just last year she was supposed to be the most divisive figure in American politics? Now, the Republicans can find only two people cranky enough to vote against putting her fourth in line of succession to the presidency.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BobChi on Moran correct about Cuba
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
25 Comments
Hillary was never divisive. It was the Hillary HATERS, in both parties, who were divisive.
Living well is the best revenge I’d say.
I think the defeat the Republics just took might have convinced them that their hatefulness was counter-productive.
Republicans don’t reject nominees based upon ideology. Period. A Point that McCain made at the debates during the campaign and affirmed today.
Republicans have consitantly hand waived the nominations made be Democratic Presidents as long as they are qualified for the position.
RFL is exactly right. The Repubs are good about that.
Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Byrd should be worried about the last sentence in the Header. “…putting her fourth in line of succession to the presidency.”
“bth” –
It was the guilty secret of Republic Party Senators that they actually were impressed by and respected Hillary Clinton’s service in the United States Senate.
I’ve heard it even from from Sam (the Sham) Brownback and Pat Roberts… even Mitch McConnell and others.
You can bone-dig all my posts about Senator Clinton and you’ll consistently find I have always believed she’s a remarkably important force for progress in America. She simply was not the best electoral candidate.
If last year’s election had been based on the merits of the candidates’ ideologies, the Democrats would’ve run Kucinich and the Republic Party would have nominated Ron Paul.
If you entertain the concept of parallel universes, something like that is happening this minute. (Then again, in that parallel universe, Rush Limbaugh isn’t addicted to Oxycontin to the degree of sell-inflicted deafness and doesn’t need a valise full of Viagra to make his boy-sex vacations to the Dominican Republic successful. But I digress….)
Look. As Chicagoan Ann Landers used to say, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” But the Republic Party seems hell-bent to disprove that observation.
When is the last time the CONs have been right? About anything? ANYTHING?!?!
When was that, CONs?
When was the last time you were right?
One of them, Vitter is cranky because he needs a diaper changing.
At first it really stuck me odd that is seemed so many of the hard right were in love with the idea of Hillary as President. O’Reilly seemed to think she was the best of the best. I often dismissed it as the KFG put it “ the Hillary haters effect. Clinton being the one whom the Republicans would hold they noses and vote for anyone else other then Hillary. There was that much dislike of McCain, but then this election was thought to be a throw-away anyway.
Hillary has shown herself to be her own and not just a stand-in for Bill. She is still a Neo-Conservative though.
“Hillary isn’t so divisive these days”
It’s pretty hard to be divisive when one hasn’t been heard from in months. We’re only 3 days in.
She will not disappoint.
Hillary was never divisive? I guess it must have been her ‘evil twin’ who, when evidence of her husband’s “indescretions” came to light, said that it was a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ with no truth to it.
Nope…that isn’t divisive….not at all.
The vast RW conspiracy has been made defunct and irrelevant.
Vitter voted against Hilary’s nomination because he didn’t like Bill’s infidelity. Vitter, the guy who wears diapers and cheats on his wife with hookers (which the Republicans applauded).
“O’Reilly seemed to think she was the best of the best.”
O’Reilly, sir, is an idiot.
monkeyhawk.one thing we are always right on is that you will continue to demonstrate the idiot you are
Chalk one up for the Repubs.,
Former NY state Senate leader indicted on charges
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Fri Jan 23, 1:49 pm ET
Featured Topics: Barack Obama Presidential Transition Reuters – New York state’s former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno enters the Capitol building in Albany, March …
Play Video Congress Video: Kirsten Gillibrand: Who Is NY’s New Senator? CBS 2 New York Play Video Congress Video: Gillebrand Tapped By Paterson For NY Senate Seat CBS 2 New York Play Video Congress Video: Gates: No Safety Threat if Gitmo Detainees Moved to Camp Pendleton News 8 San Diego NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York state’s former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was indicted on Friday by a federal grand jury on corruption charges linked to his obtaining brokerage business for unions.
The indictment charges the Republican with eight counts, including mail and wire fraud.
Bruno resigned his post in July 2008 after 32 years of public service, saying it was time for him to move on. He said repeatedly the lengthy federal probe of his business dealings would find he had done nothing wrong.
A little blast from the past:
‘98 Vitter OpEd Calls For Clinton Impeachment “Because He Is Morally Unfit To Govern”
The Nation | David Corn | July 11, 2007 09:31 AM
——————————————————————————–
Read More: Bill Clinton, David Vitter , Breaking Politics News
Read
Email
Print
Comments
Buzz up!on Yahoo!In the fall of 1998, David Vitter felt compelled to weigh in on the national debate over the possible impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Vitter was not yet a member of Congress; he was a Republican state representative. And in an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment “is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment.” Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.
Vitter, a graduate of Harvard University and Tulane law school and a Rhodes scholar, was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton’s impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is “not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern,” he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:
Without repubs who would be the protector of family values?
this whole article makes me want to puke. She is divisive. Always will be divisive. It is called picking your battles. Lets ship her off somewhere and forget about her.
the ones who called hillary divisive are the same ones who tore this country apart.
And Vitter still hasn’t stepped down.
Hypocrite.
Hillary only had Bill by the balls, that is her ONLY power.
She’s a stupid btich.
Why else would she resign from the Senate and work for Obama (who she lodged a very bitter campaign against for 18 months) in a position where Obama can FIRE HER at any moment?
She blew it. (But not for Bill)
She’s too old to run for POTUS in 2016. She’ll be 69 years old in Jan 2017!!!!
Not so divisive they say. Well, she has ZERO power today and no future. That’s why.
Some say the best way to get rid of a problem person is to promote them.
Hillary fell for it.
She is aging and not the danger to the country she once was.
I always thought that anyone who terrified the wingnuts as much as she does couldn’t be half bad!
Sec State has no power. Sure thing JJ – NOT!
Hillary Clinton has a grand opportunity to establish her place in history IF she fix the messes Mush, Powell, Rice have made. And hopefully she will have help from Tony Blair who would like to rehabilitate his own legacy.
FYI: for those of you who just flat don’t like Hilary, did you know that the position of Secretary of State is 4th in line for the presidency in the event that something happens to the president, the vice-president, and I think that Speaker of the House Pelosi is 3rd in line.
I hope that brings you a sense of peace, safety, and sweet dreams tonight.(:>)
So remember to say your prayers before going to sleep!
#
bth
Posted January 23, 2009 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
I think the defeat the Republics just took might have convinced them that their hatefulness was counter-productive.
======================================================
Not really, Ben. Look at rush: he hopes Obama fails. If anything, the losers are being more counterproductive with that kind of rhetoric. I guess he has to keep feeding the dittoheads something to justify his obscene salary.
Hillary is the right person for Secretary of State. Hell, even Hank likes her big thighs; they’re all he ever mentions:-)