Date for confirmation hearings for SoS not yet set.

[TayTay]

According to the http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/cabinet-confirmation-hearings-start-next-week/?hp">NYTimes, the date for confirmation hearings for SoS in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have not yet been set. In addition to the Secretary of State hearing, numerous other hearings on State Department and diplomatic appointments are expected to be held for the new Obama appointees.

No date has been set yet for the spotlight moment when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to answer questions rather than ask them. But it looks as if it could be as early as the second week of January. Aides to Senator John Kerry, chairman of the committee, indicated that details should be released within a few days.

And while a spokesman for Senator Dick Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee, already indicated earlier that Republicans were not planning on insisting that former President Bill Clinton testify at her hearing, his name and affiliations — through his foundation work and speaking engagements — are bound to come up.

Along with Afghanistan and Iraq, the eruption of another crisis in the Mideast ensures hefty themes for senators to pursue as they explore what policy directions Senator Clinton might take as a member of the Obama administration. (It will be interesting to see how she draws on her husband’s dogged pursuit of peace in the region from his days as president.)

[karynnj]

1. dogged pursuit of peace in the region from his days as president" ???

They have always ignored Jimmy Carter's genuine success, while over praising Clinton.

Clinton was President for eight (8) years. He only engaged energetically in the end of the last year of his Presidency. Unlike Bush, he didn't ignore diplomacy, but the Middle east clearly was not a top priority. I know it is cynical, but it always looked to me as though he engaged in a high stakes high pressure bout of diplomacy in the waning days of his administration - and when it collapsed, it collapsed with a BANG bringing in Ariel Sharon, who many thought far too militant to become Prime Minister. It was Sharon who had pushed the development of settlements in the areas won in 1967 war - a factor that made any peace plan harder.

The NYT (and much of the MSM) has always given Clinton incredible credit - speaking of how he knew the details of every neighborhood in Jerusalem. The fact is that moderate Israelis and Palestinians all know the basic outline a settlement will take - what Clinton proposed was not new to the area. What seemed to be lacking were the real buy ins of the Israelis and Palestinians. (Clinton blamed Arafat later, but he didn't really have Israeli support either.) It always looked to me like he wanted the major accomplishment of brokering peace in the middle east because he wanted a legacy that would overshadow Monica and impeachment. (What hurts is the feeling that Kerry would have been more likely to position himself as the catalyst to the sides making an agreement - co-opting both sides into having a vested interest in its success. That may in a nutshell be the major difference between them - Kerry will do what he thinks is best for the world, Clinton did what he thought was best for his own legacy. Even in 2001, I was struck by the selfcenterness of his comment that Arafat's recalcitrance made him (Bill) a failure. Kerry is human and does want credit, but I can't see him making that comment.

I do think that these will be interesting hearings.