Senate Committee Approves Clinton for Secretary of State

Photograph of Senator Hillary Clinton during her confirmation hearing by Susan Walsh/AP

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee just voted overwhelmingly to approve Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State under President-elect Barack Obama. Politico reports the vote was 16 to 1: "Louisiana Republican David Vitter was the sole 'no' vote, citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest posed by Bill Clinton's international fundraising. Another conservative on the committee, South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, also expressed reservations about Clinton's failure to increase oversight of her husband's charities." But DeMint said he wouldn't stand in the way of her nomination, praising her skills, and voted to approve the nomination.

The full Senate is expected to confirm Clinton after Obama is sworn in. And last night, The Daily Show looked at the Senate lovefest that Clinton's confirmation hearing was:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Head of State

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Today, there's a confirmation hearing for Attorney General pick (and Stuy alum) Eric Holder. A Washington Post says he must explain his questionable pardons.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on January 15, 2009 10:46 AM

Comments [rss]

NannyState

Time to replace the Cheetos in the employee lounge at State with Brie.

Mr Mel

Hillary's gonna be OK. She's one smart cookie.

verbal

The problem with the Rich pardon is that he was a fugitive from justice, not to mention the utter transparency of his ex-wife's contributions to Clinton Inc.

I personally despise Hillary, but she's probably the best choice Obama could have made, it's unfortunate though that she's so corrupt and carries the Bill baggage with her.

Politburo

To be clear, I have the same issues with the Rich pardon. But since the pardon power is absolute and Clinton is an ex-President for life, there really is no way to hold him accountable. That's just the way it is. I don't think Holder should be punished for Clinton's actions, and I don't think I would hold Michael Mukasey or any other DOJ official accountable for Bush's inevitable pardons.

verbal

Not accountable for the pardon, just for his counsel. We are looking to him for his judgment and reason.

Politburo

Mr. Holder has never pardoned anyone. President Clinton did. While Holder's recommendations ("neutral, leaning toward favorable") of the pardons are suspect, the fact is that it was solely President Clinton who had the power of pardon.

On another note, in reports on this subject, I frequently see things like "prosecutors strongly argued against a pardon". No shit! They spent a ton of time getting the conviction, and they're all about jail time, so of course they're against a pardon. IMO that fact has little to no significance, but I've seen it several times as the lead argument against Holder wrt these questionable pardons.

IMO, a much larger issue with Holder is his idea in 1997 that simple possession should have a mandatory 5-year jail sentence.