Always Hillary, Alway First! That is her mindset and she never fails to think of her self and her career first, again before the residents of New York, who are nothing more than her running boards in life.The political system is built on seniority, hence why she is referred to as the junior senator. The institution is run on this principle from committee assignments to office location.
The next SoS has an opportunity for once to put the residents she serves ahead of her own personal interest, and resign immediate, which will allow the Governor to put someone in place before the next Congress begins with a freshman class of Senators and allow the new Senator from New York to have a slight edge in senority.
But, what does the Hil do...always Hillary first, she will stay on through her confirmation, read here.
Is she worried she will not be confirmed?
Ah New York, we just cannot get enough of her selfishness, and her self celebrity status.
11 comments:
iv, do you even read the articles you link to? if you had, you would have learned that 1) it would appear presumptuous for her to give up her seat before being confirmed, and 2) she's also basing her decision on precedent. perhaps i'm being uncharitable, but i think the right-wing media would go ballistic if she resigned her seat before confirmation.
Hey (iv) as long as your posting about the next Secretary of State.
How about a post of one of Condi Rice's successes as Secretary of State, if you can find even one.
At least as National Security Advisor she did what she was told and ignored terrorist threats for most of 2001.
A big Condi fan is Chevron, the worlds fourth largest oil company. Chevron liked her business deals so much that they named a Supertanker after her.
Who will replace Clinton? Any chance someone from Upstate might take the spot? Maybe Kirsten Gillibrand in the 20th district?
Hermit, hermit, the "right wing media". ?? What are you speaking of, my dear Hermit? I don't want to be agressive with you in any way for fear of making you whine, but please explain. Might this be that terrible talk radio that fears you so muchly?
Otherwise, I agree. She shouldn't resign. But do explain the blather.
Kirsten Gillibrand in the 20th district?
Hell, why not?
She is a first termer who just got reelected and raised $9 million.
Seem she fits the profile perfectly: lots of supporters (at least the captial region); can raise millions; is a young pretty face; and was an aide in DC, too.
With these types of appointments (no real competition per se) we always seem to go with Name, Fame and Fortune.
I guess that makes it easier regardless of abilities, leadership and proven public serve record, in this case, strong DOD record vis-a-vis Fort Drum's critical importance.
I know, I know - military background means squat, right?
Well, the squat thing speaks for itself, Daniel.
This Kirsten thing just isn't as good looking as my girl from up north. But she is the right kind of woman, so it might work. She would get re-elected for years and years, the rest of her life if she wanted. It would take the drama out of having an election, which is pretty much the case here in the Empire State.
After all that Hill has done for New York and the North Country, it's shameful to speak of her in such a way.
Oh yeah...., never mind.
where are the 200,000 jobs that she had a plan for to revitalize upstate?
dear anon 6:10,
perhaps i wasn't being clear in my comment above. i certainly did not mean to assert that the entire american media is right wing. instead, i was referring only to the so-called "right wing noise machine", that is, the talk radio-fox news-matt drudge-wall street journal-washington times-national review-weekly standard axis of the media.
i'll also take the opportunity now to reply to your last comment in this thread, since that post has moved off the front page.
first, i'm sorry that i "jump around so much", but i see no alternative. there have been several points to discuss, and i'm just trying my best to do so in an organized, succinct way. (i make no claims to doing so well, by the way.)
i don't understand what you mean by this:
"I will say that most all of my disagreements with you have centered on sweeping statements you've made."
is it that you object to me making "sweeping statements"? but that can't be it -- surely no one who recently wrote
"Our schools, newspapers, network entertainment and news, our movie industry, music, magazine writers, any mass media, the whole banana, doesn't lean left, it falls all over itself left"
has any objections to "sweeping statements" whatsoever. so i'm left scratching my head. also, which of my responses to "specific questions" have you found "off-target"?
as for hilary and palin, my intent in bringing up palin was not as a counter to hilary's sniper lie; as i've already indicated, i found hilary's conduct during the primary campaign to be deplorable and inexcusable. rather, i brought up palin because i wanted to better understand your objections to hilary. you cited exactly one essential reason for disliking hilary: her "constant lying." i'm inclined to agree that palin hasn't "built nearly the record of dishonesty that Clinton has," but palin has only been on the national scene for three months! and in that time, she's been doing her darnedest to catch up -- her lies have come at such a dizzying pace that even hilary would get whiplash. so is it true that you give palin a pass, but not hilary? if so, why?
There's too much there for me to understand. I think I got some of it. I'll keep trying.
Did you see the SNL skit with Hillary? The laughter at the people of NYS was the funiest part. Not the kind of thing you would have seen before the election. Hilllarious.
Post a Comment