Hillary goes before the Senate, but the real story is to come
Dante Chinni
Posted: 01.14.2009 / 8:59 AM PST
There are few names in American politics that elicit the kind of responses one gets with “Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Since the beginning of Patchwork Nation, when Mrs. Clinton was a candidate for president, we’ve heard reactions ranging from unquestioned adoration to immediate dislike.
The reactions have come from across the board. In a country where politics is sometimes an afterthought, Clinton is one of those rare politicians about whom nearly everyone – men and women, young and old – has an opinion.
Tuesday, as she went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all the cable news channels broadcast her live (including MSNBC with what seemed like all-day coverage). Yet almost everyone acknowledged beforehand that she was a shoo-in to be confirmed as the next secretary of State.
The road after confirmation, however – winning voters over – could be a bit tougher.
The big name and its big baggage
The committee’s hearing went as many expected. She was asked some respectful questions about foreign donations to the library of former President Bill Clinton, and she fielded many queries about what will be on the next administration’s agenda. But nothing surfaced in the way of formal opposition.
Mrs. Clinton has spent eight years in the upper chamber of Congress, and the Senate generally goes pretty easy on its own. Besides, how many doubts can her co-workers have about who she is or where her sentiments lie?
In our Patchwork Nation communities, however, there is still a good bit of skepticism about Clinton for a range of reasons.
In Hopkinsville, Ky., our “Military Bastion” near Fort Campbell, Carter Hendricks, an official in the local chamber of commerce, says he wants to see President-elect Obama’s entire team succeed. “My hope is that Obama lives up to the incredible expectations,” he writes in an e-mail. However, he adds, “if I were to root against someone, she’d be the person. But I think Hillary is as bright and savvy as they come, so I’m sure she’ll handle it all just fine.”
During our visits to Hopkinsville last year, some particularly strong reactions about Clinton came out. The people with ties to the military, particularly men, were not fans. But many women, even the more conservative ones, were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt – or at least a chance to prove them wrong.
Lincoln City, Ore., our small-town “Service Worker Center,” has showed more support for Clinton. In the Oregon primary, the New York senator did better in surrounding Lincoln County (winning 46 percent of the vote) than she did in the state as a whole (41 percent).
But still, some here are skeptical about Clinton, although they’re coming from another direction. Take Libby Durbin, an area retiree, who has concerns about a hawkish image. “I imagine Hillary will be much more effective than Condoleezza. But I don’t trust her. She’s been roosting with the hawks!” she e-mails Libby Durbin.
And from El Mirage, Ariz. (our “Immigration Nation” community with a large Latino population), Sylvia Rivera sent an e-mail that sounded as if it were sent with an arched eyebrow. “I just want to wait and see. Is it really going to be her or her hubby behind the scenes? Don’t get me wrong. I think, too, that she is a very strong-minded woman. I just want to wait and see.”
Where people will be looking
Of course, Americans’ perceptions and the politicians’ fortunes can turn quickly. There was a time when President Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were widely admired.
In the coming months, the unease that some people have with Clinton could be an interesting side story as the new administration settles in. Ultimately, if confirmed, she will be acting on the policies of the president, but it will be interesting to note how people perceive the new administration’s successes and/or failures in foreign policy.
Will they be seen as hers (the State Department’s) or his (the White House’s)? That’s something we’ll be watching in our interviews and in polling data.
The hearing, in other words, may have been largely uneventful, and her confirmation may be smooth. But the truth is that all the formal Q-and-A and talk about foreign contributions to the former president’s Global Initiative probably won’t have much impact on Mrs. Clinton’s time in office.
A lot of strong feelings about Clinton are already out there. And many of the eyes watching the new administration will be closely focused on her.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:02 am PST
Regardless of personal feelings about either Clinton, I cannot imagine a better choice. As one commentator mentioned, people question the role Bill may have.
Both Clintons have the respect of the international community. We’ve reached a point in this country where we really need to recognize that we cannot afford to have our leaders fail. And we should not consider “rooting” for any of them to fail. The stakes are way to high.
The anticipation and jealously of the success of Obama is so high that even the slightest mistake is likely to cause a firestorm of criticism by those just waiting to say “see, I told you so”. And we have an active pundocracy who devote all their time and energy to criticism and slander just waiting to start the accusations of anti-American.
I really hope Obama succeeds, and that his entire administration succeeds. It is really a relief to see an electorate excited about a new president. I haven’t seen this since Kennedy, and I wonder if we’ll ever see it again. If Obama finds that some of his appointees violate the high standards he set, I hope he deals with it quickly.
We can’t afford to continue on in the mean and highly partisan spirit of the last 8 years. We have got to become united.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:06 am PST
Oh cut it out with the petty sniping. In what way has Hillary earned your mistrust? She is my senator in New York and won over upstate blue collar communities with hard work and diligence. If you cannot find in your minds to be glad that the very worst most dishonest corrupt (Halliburton et.al.) administration in our history is finally leaving, at least say a prayer for the Nation at this critical point, we need her and we need the next President to succeed, because our success depends on their success. This crisis was brought to you by liars who make Bill Clinton look like a piker, and we were trying to impeach him? Good Lord where is our perspective?
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am PST
Am I at the wrong Web Site?
Mr. Chinni, two pargraphs below the Lead still hasn’t provided any substance about the subject.
So much for Google News.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am PST
She is a fine person.
She will do a great job.
I challenge those of you filled with hate to examine your hearts in the light of Christ’s commandments. Do not nurture your hatred or your prejudices.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am PST
Oh leave it alone already. We know Obama was your guy from the start and Hillary was someone to be taken down. The election is OVER, and the smears and innuendo about her can go too. If it is so important to tell people that not everyone loves Hillary, a tiny piece of relevant information would also be that yesterday’s Gallup poll shows 65% of Americans have a positive opinion of her, her highest rating in a decade. You are manufacturing conflict between her and Obama that isn’t there, and trying to make a bogeyman out of Bill Clinton. Let your “baggage” go already!
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:37 am PST
Well said to Jo, Colin and Jim Brown. That is the positive type of viewpoint we need going into the new year with a new administration that has a lot on its plate.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am PST
What a bunch of liars the sliming trolls from the GOP are that have posted on this article.
Hillary has been PROVEN honest and trustworthy after a $70 million investigation that found NOTHING WRONG. Only if you get you information from fact free, assertion as fact, never any fact checking sources like Rush and Fox do you have an excuse to be so publicly stupid and uninformed.
And the Author of this article needs a better editor - it is inexcusable that this went to print without a paragraph mentioning how popular Hillary is today - 65% favorable - and how this actually makes obvious the lie that is the theme - there is still a “good bit” of skepticism about Hillary - when such skepticism is limited to the hard core right wing Rush “ditto-heads” that form the base of the GOP who are out-numbered 2 to 1 by the Hillary adore folks. Yes, feelings are intense about Hillary - but they are not 50/50 as to how the population is split. She will have zero problems - perhaps the article author forgot that being extremely competent prevents many potential problems from developing?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:45 am PST
All she has to do is really mess up once in public to get herself fired — if confirmed. Congress is welcome to save the new President the trouble right now. Coronella Keiper of Rhode Island.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:47 am PST
What a bunch of liars the sliming trolls from the GOP are that have posted on this article.
Hillary has been PROVEN honest and trustworthy after a $70 million investigation that found NOTHING WRONG. Only if you get you information from fact free, assertion as fact, never any fact checking sources like Rush and Fox do you have an excuse to be so publicly stupid and uninformed.
And the Author of this article needs a better editor - it is inexcusable that this went to print without a paragraph mentioning how popular Hillary is today - 65% favorable - and how this actually makes obvious the lie that is the theme - there is still a “good bit” of skepticism about Hillary - when such skepticism is limited to the hard core right wing Rush “ditto-heads” that form the base of the GOP who are out-numbered 2 to 1 by the Hillary adore folks. Yes, feelings are intense about Hillary - but they are not 50/50 as to how the population is split. She will have zero problems - perhaps the article author forgot that being extremely competent prevents many potential problems from developing?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am PST
She will do what Bill did as President relative to foreign policy, sell out our country for her (their) own personal aggrandizement.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am PST
Has it been noted the spirit of cooperation and bi-partisanship in Mr. Bush as he departs? Most of the mean spiritedness comes from the opposition to the Republicans, not the other way around.
As for Mrs. Clinton’s qualifications: being secretary of state is not a matter of being a quick study. The sleaziness of both Clintons does not augur well for this country. Good luck, America.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:56 am PST
Greenpeace Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am EST
“Am I at the wrong Web Site?
Mr. Chinni, two pargraphs below the Lead still hasn’t provided any substance about the subject.
So much for Google News.”
That’s exactly what I want to say. Your title is very misleading. It sounds you have got some story about Mrs. Clinton to come up, but what you have is some made-up or just cherry-picked stupid quotes. Is this your journalism respossibility?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:57 am PST
Leopards do not change their spots. Why should we expect the Clintons to change the way they do business? I hope Hillary does a good job, but she is going to have to keep Bill from running his foundation as he has done in the past. Bottom line for me; I don’t trust them.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:00 am PST
James, you need to grow up.
We should torture people because that’s what “Muslims do”? Since when is it ever acceptable to sink to that level? Surely, you cannot be justifying torture because other people do it? Our country is supposed to be better than that - and has been, until the shame of the Bush Administration.
Don’t you understand that the reason for the Geneva Conventions was to assure that soldiers captured during war would be treated humanely by both sides? Would you be happy if our captured soldiers were tortured? Is that OK?
But you say, “Muslims do that,” and so we must respond in kind. No, we must not, or we abdicate forever not only the moral high ground, but also the ideals upon which this country was founded. According to our military experts, torture does not produce reliable intelligence - therefore, it serves no purpose other than petty revenge. So you physically hurt your enemy at the cost of your own soul; what have you gained, and what have you lost? Sure, it might feel good for a few minutes to inflict pain on someone, but what does it ultimately gain us? Nothing.
We all harbor revenge fantasies, and we do not prosecute thought crimes here. However, the realm of fantasy is exactly where notions of torture should stay. We as a nation cannot condone torture, period - or we might as well change the name of the country. The United States of America is better than that; she must be better than that, or hope is truly gone.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am PST
Hey Bubba check your 401. Is it better now or when Clinton was Pres? Bushco sold out to the highest bidder.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am PST
Watching CBS evening news on Jan 13, they showed a segment of a discussion with Hillary. She stated that neither she nor her lying husband took anything out of his foundation. Earlier one of the news shows told that her campaign debt of $13,000,000.00 ws paid from the foundation. How would you feel about that when your contribution to the fund was supposed to be used for humanitarian needs???? Anoter example of cheating and lying…..
BV
January 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am PST
Bin Laden and AlQueda stabilised during the reign of BC. Clinton administration did nothing to check AlQueda growth. His action on attack on US entity was ineffient and enough. 9/11 tragedy occured because we learnt nothing from earlier minor attacks.
May be the world hate Bush Administration. But an immediate 9/11 is sealed because of his actions to arrest the growth of AlQueda.
I believe the new Obama administration won’t repeat Clinton-1 errors on terrorist and AlQueda. When Obama demolish the guantanamo prison on Jan 20 make sure that those terror virus not infect US. They should be properly dumped back in the place where they originated.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am PST
It is so tiresome and boring to keep reading mean spirited and demeaning comments about Hillary Clinton. The time is now to stop this petty sniping and give credit to a woman who for the last 8 years has been a wonderful Senator and has worked across the aisle successfully.
She is brilliant, a fighter for women’s causes and will be a wonderful Secretary of State.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:28 am PST
I think we should be very respectful of former first lady. She comes with excelent credentials and great admiration around the world. Why we always try to find something bad in everything good. I think our biased media does more damage to our country than our real enemies. Media has become a mouth piece of select group that always gives the preception to the world that we are all bad in U.S.A. Please let Obama have his term with peace at home because he has his plate full with the mess he has inherited. May god bless him and his team.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am PST
Slavicdiva,
Torture happens all over the world and nobody can do anything about it. You talk about the Geneva Convention and how prisoners should be treated. I remember watching terrorist conduct beheadings and portray it all over the internet. This is a realist world and terrorist are not covered under the Geneva Convention because they are not fighting for a sovereign state with uniform and identification. Hope is a great thing, but when it comes down to why America has been safe for the last eight years it is because President Bush had to make hard decisions and sacrificed his popularity for security. I am sure the international community will be happy with Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State, but will the American people be happy with someone who has questionable morals?
January 14th, 2009 at 11:34 am PST
I think that everyone has built up this idea that as soon as Obama takes office the mystical government fairy will wave her wand and all will be better.
This is simply not the case, HRC has a HUGE amount of potential to make the worlds perception of the USA better than it currently is. Lets face it, the USA has ticked off a great many countries around the world. Iraq was a mistake… Good ole W. isn’t going to admit that he screwed up… that’s just well not what people from Texas do (apologize or admit that they are wrong).
so, which is worse? a President not speaking up about a romp in the oval office? or a President who sold a war on a lie?
Either way, HRC’s time hasn’t come just yet. It’s Obama’s time, and I feel that Hillary has just put her plans for the first lady president on hold for another decade. She’s going to tow the line for Obama.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm PST
We know that she bought the nomination. The list of her hubby’s donors was the cost. My question is why she wanted it so badly? One of her hubby’s donors was Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, this one donor tells us.
Do we want someone who has to buy her the job with ties to foreign governments?
January 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm PST
“Hillary has been PROVEN honest and trustworthy after a $70 million investigation that found NOTHING WRONG. Only if you get you information from fact free, assertion as fact, never any fact checking sources like Rush and Fox do you have an excuse to be so publicly stupid and uninformed.”
Talk about stupid and uninformed. Nice selective memory.
No charges were brought in White Water because their friends either refused to testify or lied; people went to jail for doing so. (Here are two of the many pardons that Bill issued just before leaving office. Chris Wade - Real estate broker for Jim McDougal and Bill Clinton for the Whitewater Development Corporation - He sold the lots for the Clintons and McDougals. Susan H. McDougal - Although fifteen individuals were convicted of federal charges as a result of the Whitewater controversy, she is one of the few people who served prison time. - She is most notorious for refusing to answer “three questions” for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. Her refusal lead to 18 months jail time for contempt of court, which was most of her total 22 months of incarceration.) I don’t care that Bill had sex with an intern in the Oval Office; he perjured himself to Congress.
Hilary herself, on the campaign trail, lied to the American people. Remember the claims to have extensive foreign relations experience as First Lady when all she really did was meet with foreign leader’s wives and discuss non-issues? She claimed to have knowledge of what Bill was doing, and may have through ‘pillow talk’, but it would have been illegal for her to have ANY knowledge of classified discussions because she didn’t have a security clearance - being First Lady is not a qualifying criteria and she didn’t qualify on her own. That’s why she couldn’t name any instances of such knowledge, she and Bill would have been subject to arrest for violating the espionage act. And don’t forget that she “came under fire in Bosnia”. I was shot at in Vietnam and the experience is one you do not forget or confuse. Oh, that’s right. She “mis-spoke”. So let’s forgive her and how that trivializes all the troops who have fought/are fighting, been injured, and died for our country no matter the war or ‘conflict’ in which they served. This is only a partial list.
If I were a foreign leader and she wanted to meet with me I would openly refuse to do so citing her PUBLIC record of being dishonest. How could I, in that position, trust the word of one who lies so easily and often to her own people?
January 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm PST
Mr. Chinni, this piece on Senator Clinton reveals much about it’s author and nothing about it’s subject matter. I believe you have finally pictchforked me over the edge and into the land of your former readers.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm PST
January 14th, 2009 at 4:02 pm PST
Realist,
You say that Hillary Clinton has “questionable morals.” Upon what evidence do you base that assertion?
If by morals you mean “extramarital conduct” (which is all some people seem to understand by “morals”), where is your evidence that Hillary Clinton ever strayed outside her marriage?
For me, George Bush has no morals at all. He is completely amoral. People with morals do not lie to start wars, nor throw gasoline on fires (remember “Bring it on!”?) because they want to be “war president.” People with morals obey the law - they do not seek to hold themselves above it. Bush’s are the actions of a person without morals, a sociopath, even. He is more concerned with his own self-aggrandizement than the well-being of this country or its armed forces. Look how well that turned out.
As for torture, again, your argument appears to be, “Barbarians are torturing people, so we should, too!” Since when are Americans barbarians? Do you really believe we should be no better than the “animals” and barbarians we condemn?
January 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm PST
The total lack of comprehension in the average American regarding accountability for political actions is something that will make you laugh … or cry … depending on the subject.
So many of you still want to blame Bush for everything when the facts are that, in the global scheme of things, actions taken by a President usually take years to manifest into their final outcomes.
For instance, all of you who want to blame Bush for the current state of terror organizations in the world should know (and if you don’t, why don’t you … its documented fact) that in 1996 Sudan’s President Bashir and his intelligence chief offered to arrest and extradite Osama Bin Laden AND provide detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. (Read anything about these organizatons lately?). Among those in the networks Bashir was to provide intelligence data on were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
Bill Clinton and his National Security Advisor Sandy Berger never bothered to respond to the offer and instead in May 1996, the Sudanese gave in to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave Sudan, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden’s now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel who were also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks. The rest is history … the terrible loss of life and injuries to thousands of Americans and non-American innocents during the bombings of the USS Cole, the U.S. Embassies in 1998 and the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.
And to those of you saying “Lies, lies and more lies!!” right now, you probably missed the news reports in 2005 about Sandy Berger, the aforementioned White House national security adviser for Clinton, who pled guilty to a charge by the Justice department of intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration’s record on terrorism. The document contained considerable discussion about the administration’s awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil. The fact that he did nothing about it is documented history. By doing nothing, he allowed them to spread like cancer.
“And what about the state of the economy then? Surely that’s Bush’s fault!!” Don’t be too sure about that one either. It would seem that the current state of the economy can be traced back to the deregulation of the banks and other financial institutions in 1999 with the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act which allowed financial institutions to venture into high-risk areas such as derivatives to alleviate risk exposure specific to certain situations and certain players.
This gave them the go ahead to begin issuing subprime loans … basically, giving loans to people who couldn’t afford them … which led to skyrocketing home prices caused by more eligible buyers who could get a loan for homes they couldn’t afford (basic supply/demand economics) … which led to the increase of foreclosures when people with adjustable rate loans found out what “adjustable” really means … which led to exorbitant losses and/or bankruptcy of many major financial institutions who found out that instead of money, people would give them back the houses … which led to the seizing up of the loan business so nobody can buy anything … which led to the prices of houses falling as the market self-corrects … which led to you and I giving previously mentioned financial institutions $700,000,000,000 (looks bigger when written out instead of “$700 billion” doesn’t it?) of which out of the first $350,000,000,000 they can’t/won’t tell us what they spent it on but we know it sure wasn’t loans. The stock market fluctuations are just a symptom of all of this being reported in the news for all intents and purposes. BTW, the $700,000,000,000 was given out by the DEMOCRATE LED CONGRESS who in the July 2008 had an approval rating of 14% … Bush’s approval rating never went below 25%. Does anybody else see the irony in that?
And as far as Hillary Clinton being a good Secretary of State who won’t let Bill’s business dealings be a conflict of interest … well, all you have to do is look back to Bill’s 2001 pardon of Marc Rich. You may recall that charges against Rich had extended back to 1983, when he was charged with cheating the government out of nearly $50 million and doing business with Iran during the hostage crisis.
President Clinton pardoned him of all charges, leading the Justice Department to wonder if Rich’s pardon was a result of Denise Rich’s (Marc’s ex-wife) gifts of $1 million to the Democratic Party and $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library. No conflict of interest there.
So grow up folks … stop blaming Bush for everything (although God knows he has done some stupid things) and praising one of the most corrupt administrations ever (yes, I’m talking about Clinton).
We are where we are and it took the Republicans AND the Democrats to get us here. Hold your state’s Senators and Representatives feet to the fire for the next 2 years and vote accordingly based on facts … not party lines. If they don’t get things headed in the right direction in 2 years then vote them out but whatever you do … DON’T VOTE A STRAIGHT LINE TICKET AGAIN!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:19 pm PST
Amazing how much Senator Clinton’s intelligence, strength, and experience are extolled by the very ones who then say they can’t stand her. Too, there are those who say she is dishonest, bought her way into politics, is a self-serving bigot, etc., sentiments that have been earned by all male politicians at one time or another and who are still in office. I am reminded of Eleanor Roosevelt, who, I think, would also have been President had she been a man–but amazingly hated and vilely accused during her husband’s career. The women in this country better unite more powerfully to better demand the full scope of equality (wages, control over the reproductivity of their bodies, the end of their portrayal as mindless sexpots and idiots in the entertainment industry, availability of scholarships, etc., etc.) they have thus far been denied–or suffer the vengeance many males still exude since we got the vote.