Rosner's Domain: Blogging Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing...

Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER

Updated Jan. 13!!! Election 2009: Rosner's Poll Trend

12:55 ET, recess, the end.

12:25 ET

On N. Korea Clinton again promises effort, without really telling the Senators how she intends to provide for better results than those Clinton (1) and Bush (2) were able to get. Not her faults - that's a tough policy-matter to handle with no clear way ahead. Anyway, Clinton's way of answering questions without really answering them is becoming a pattern in this hearing-session, and I can't say I'm surprised. The right questions are being asked, but answers are general in nature. All in all, Clinton's confirmation hearing is more a celebration than a hearing - and no one seems to want to ruin the party.

Mike Madden agrees: it was a group hug.

11:50 ET

George Voinovich of Ohio commends Clinton for wanting more "smart power" - here we go again (see 10:33).

11:30 ET

That situation in Darfur is "terrible" we know. Clinton says that she's reviewing the possible alternatives for action. For those with shoeter memories: VP Biden is a supporter of unilateral American military action. Here's Biden's "I'm sending American troops alone" moment.

11:11 ET

The WP has an interesting nugget to offer: "Clinton was not sworn in. I recall that Rice always had be sworn in when she testified but here, Clinton is being shown great deference".

11:05 ET

Kerry starts the Q&A with Iran. Good for him.

As for answers - he doesn't get much. No options off the table, but Clinton not sure what can be achieved and how. We will do "everything we can", she says, to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Everything "we can" is less than everything.

10:38 ET

She keeps giving Bush credit for good things he had done (G20, AIDS). What's wrong with her?

10:33 ET

"We must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power...persuades both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior and become constructive regional actors." What's "smart power"? I think that's exactly like "pragmatism" (see 10:17). Smart power was also in this quote: "As we focus on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, we must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East that addresses the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political and economic aspirations of the Palestinians".

10:25 ET

The Gaza crisis makes Middle East peace even more urgent. But does it make it more likely? Clinton doesn't say, but promises to work on it. Some might notice that she spends more time on Israel-Palestine than on Iran. Not exactly the order of things most Israelis would choose.

10:17 ET

Clinton and Obama believe in "principal and practicality" not "rigid ideology".

I wrote about the limits of pragmatism here:

A capable government has to make decisions everyday, and these decisions all have to be derived from some ideological framework. Does Obama want a competent government that can work to better Americas image in the world? Thats great. But deciding that Americas image is more important than other things is a decision based on ideology. Does Obama want to save the American car industry? Of course he would need a competent government to do that, but he also needs to have the desire to do that. That desire is ideological, in the final analysis.

Whats really behind the pragmatism campaign is not a battle against ideology. Theres no such thing as a non-ideological government. It is a campaign against the Bush ideology, but smartly crafted. The Bush years have made voters wary and tired. They no longer want ideological battles. Thats why Obama definitely the most competent politician when it comes to the crafting of messages isnt talking about the beliefs of his government, but rather about its pragmatism.

10:08 ET

According to Senator Schumer, Clinton has plenty of foreign policy experience. Is this now the official position of all involved? As one might forget, during the campaign her rival for the ticket wasn't so sure that she has the experience she claims to have.

9:42 ET

Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry does not believe in an Afghanistan surge. This would have been more convincing had he believed in the Iraq surge.