Hillary Clinton confirmed: Senate panel

Given Sen. Vitter's history with women, I expect Hillary is happy to not receive his vote.

I'm not sure that the term "confirmed" is correct with respect to the action taken by the judiciary committee. Only the full Senate can confirm a nominee. (And the Senate cannot do so until Mr. Obama becomes president and actually makes the nomination.) The committee has the power to approve or reject the nominee, or it can send the nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation (as was done with Clarence Thomas). Even if rejected, however, I believe that the full Senate can still vote on the nomination.

Now for Queen Carolines arrival .
.

What does allegations a madam made against Vitter have to do with anything in this vote? Vitter is the only senator respecting federal law. Hillary voted to give the secretary of state a raise as a senator. By that rule she's ineligible for this post. I hope some conservative group files a lawsuit over it. I understand the voters of Crook County have no regard for clean government but why should we let them pollute our federal government, too?
Vitter was right.
Now the ball's in Davide Paterson's court as he can either appoint someone to Hillary's seat who is qualified and willing to serve them or go the Roland Burris route and give the annointed, feted, Hollywood pick Caroliine Kennedy her seat. At least Vitter was elected, you can't say that for Burris or Princess Caroline.

Amazing! She's on Obama's team and she doesn't even play basketball.

Nice try Jeff; I don't think Vitter or anyone else brought your "issue" up in the hearing, and I doubt Vitter's vote was on that basis, as his questioning related to Bill Clinton's fundraising. And I do believe Vitter (of crooked Louisiana) admitted to those "allegations" with his wife at his side. What does "Crook" county have to do with Hillary's eligibility?? I am not in Cook or Crook county. Go ahead, file a lawsuit. And feel free to contact Gov. Paterson with your recommendations.

No surprise with this overwhelming - except for the symbolic show of obstructionism from David Vitter, a hard-core member of the conservative cache of Republicans who have taken up the cause of fighting the entire Obama agenda, no matter how mainstream or uncontroversial it may be.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Perhaps Senator Clinton could teach Senator Vitter a thing or two about 'full disclosure.'

When it was revealed in July 2007 that Vitter's phone number appeared multiple times from 1999-2001 (and revealed later that he employed a 'favorite' prostitute from another ring several times in the 90s), Senator Vitter had this very informative statement for the media and American people: "This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them." (Translation: I don't have to tell you anything, I can retreat to my cozy house for over a week and never again speak about the issue again. My wife and God understand).

There are a few more ironies. In May 1999, Vitter replaced Bob Livingston in the U.S. House when Livingston resigned due to an adultery scandal. I am not certain of the moral guideline here, but I personally would rank the solicitation of a prostitute as more reprehensible than infidelity. Certainly the law certainly does. Both are faithless acts, at least one may be born of love. Nevertheless, Vitter himself considers an infidel too unfit for office. Consider one of Vitter's first statements as a newly appointed Congressman: "I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess." Five months later, Vitter had the D.C. Madam on his speed dial. (A few calls were even made during Roll Call votes).

Of course, Senator Clinton wouldn't want to take Vitter on about questions of infidelity, less we be reminded of the past. The more Senator Clinton avoids the issue, the better for her. So what does Mrs. Vitter think? I'm not sure how she felt when the story broke in July of 2007. Due to the sensitivity of the Vitter's marriage and privacy, no one does. But I do know how she felt about the larger issue of philandering and sex crimes from a statement sometime in the year 2000: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

I'm not sure if Mrs. Vitter stayed true to her word or not, but her husband sure does have a lot of balls to be lecturing Senator Clinton about disclosure and morality.

Whether Vitter asked her about it or not, he made the right vote. And he's right to object to Clinton's "foundation" and the millions it gets from foreign nationals, too.
It has everything to do with Burris, Blago, Rezko and the rest of the ilk that put Obama where he is. Laws mean nothing to them and they believe that government should be used to line their own pockets. Today we're ignoring the fact that Hillary is ineligible to serve as SecState because she voted to give the last secstate a raise as a senator. What will tomorrow's law that doesn't apply to us be? That you can't sell a US Senate seat?
I don't care if you think the law is outdated. It is on the books and was put there for a reason. Get it repealed if you believe so but don't just go on pretending it doesn't exist.

On one hand I really hope she does well. On the hand maybe she should be relegated to the kitchen.

Jeff is technically correct that Hillary would be ineligible for Secretary of State because she voted for a pay raise for that position while in the Senate. It's a constitutional matter, not one of federal law. However, Congress rolled back the pay increase for the Secretary of State in December, so it's not an issue. Moreover, even if Congress hadn't done so, Hillary would only have needed to accept the previous pay rate (without the voted on increase).

Seems as though those "great" Americans have become nothing more than obstructionists and pray for failure. Why do you hate America?

As Lindsay Graham and others have said, the Republicans are very happy with Hillary as Sec. of State, considering others (more liberal) Obama might have appointed. But of course we must have some whines for whine's sake. A 'no' vote from Vitter is a badge of honor.

On one hand I really hope she does well. On the hand maybe she should be relegated to the kitchen.

Posted by: Paul | January 15, 2009 12:06 PM
Never heard of her cooking.

Hillary should be proud that the only person to vote against her is a prostitute loving hypocrite. Vitter campaigns on FAMILY Values yet he is out there have sex with prostitutes Corrupting young women who sell their bodies for money.

I just have to wonder why noone ever made an issue of the Bush family's foreign investments/entanglements? Or is it that only the Clintons deserve hyperscrutiny? Either way, go figure.