Setting the Record Straight Re: Bill's Papers

I've been following the attacks on Hillary over the release of Bill's documents by the National Archives, and I touched on it a little the other day in a diary I posted here.   This all started when Russert (true to form) waived a 13 year old - routine - letter in front of everyone and asked Hillary WHY she and Bill were refusing to release his presidential papers before next year's elections.

I thought it’d blown over by now.  Then I ran across an LTE – a so-called open-letter to Hillary by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, (who also happens to be Co-Chair of Obama’s Iowa campaign).  Now granted, the folks in Obama’s camp have every right to make their case, but this guy is the Attorney General for the State of Iowa for cryin’ out loud!  Someone who makes it to that level of the law should be well aware of how things work with the release of Presidential papers and if he wasn’t before – I doubt seriously he would have gone ahead with this sort of an LTE without researching things at least a little.

We’re talking a serious disconnect from reality here folks – make the jump for more...

November 3, 2007

Dear Senator Clinton:

Yesterday, it was reported that the Clinton presidential library will not release the public schedules from your tenure as First Lady until late January - several weeks after Iowa Democrats have participated in the January 3rd caucuses.  Other records documenting your time in Washington won’t be made public until long after millions of Democrats have cast their vote to choose our nominee, because of the request to have documents reviewed by Bruce Lindsey prior to their release.

Throughout this campaign, you have repeatedly emphasized your experience as First Lady.  However, by refusing to authorize an expedited release of the records from your time in Washington, you are preventing the Iowa voters from thoroughly reviewing that experience.

snip

We’re backing Barack Obama because he has repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to a transparent government.  That’s why he has released his personal income tax returns, made his Senate appropriations earmarks public, and led the effort to establish a "Google for Government" initiative that requires the entire federal budget to be posted online in a publicly available and searchable format.

snip

Sincerely,
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Co-Chair of Obama’s Iowa campaign
Linn County Supervisor Lu Barron

I’m sorry but there is a serious difference between releasing millions of pages of documents that need to be reviewed nine ways to Sunday, and a set of someone’s freakin’ tax returns!

Bill’s had a few things to say about all this nonsense...

Ok I've been messing with this for the last hour and for some reason, the source code for embedding the video clip I have can't get through the publishing set up here.  There's a really great video at THIS LINK.  Please check it out - Bill makes a compelling case for how hard he & Hillary have pressed to get his presidential papers released sooner rather than later.
.

One more time: GO TO THIS LINK TO SEE WHAT BILL HAS TO SAY
.

Lastly, I received the following information from Bruce Lindsey, who serves as Bill Clinton's Records Representative which totally sets the record straight here.

Statement Regarding Clinton Presidential Records
Bruce Lindsey
William J. Clinton Records Representative
November 2, 2007

In the last few days, there have been several inaccurate reports regarding Clinton Presidential records, including reports that have misconstrued a 2002 letter President Clinton sent to the National Archives easing the restrictions on his presidential records.

I want to ensure that the record is clear that:

* By law, the Clinton presidential records are under the control of the National Archives and Records Administration and are subject to the same rules and regulations as the papers of every president elected since 1978.

* Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document from his Library.

* Bill Clinton has actively encouraged the National Archives to release more policy and substantive presidential records sooner than any other president subject to the Presidential Records Act.

* Contrary to recent reports, Bill Clinton has not asked that records related to communications with Senator Clinton be withheld.

* In his 2002 letter to the Archives, Bill Clinton authorized NARA to release substantive policy materials that involve confidential advice from his advisors, including Senator Clinton. No other President subject to the Presidential Records Act has authorized such a broad release. He has designated a subset of these materials (including, among others, negative or derogatory information about individuals involved in the appointment process, confidential foreign policy communications, and communications between the President and Vice President, First Lady, or former presidents or vice presidents) that should be reviewed prior to release. Documents in these categories have been released and are readily available in the Library at this moment.

* There are over 100 million pages of materials at the Library - and the Archives is required by law to review each page before it is released.

* The Archives is in the process of making records available as quickly as they can -- over 1 million pages of the Clinton Administration records have already been released, including Health Care Task Force records.

* Now that Clinton presidential records are subject to FOIA requests, which NARA must by law address, it has devoted significant resources to that task. There are approximately 300 FOIA requests, involving 10.5 million pages, pending at the Clinton Library and the Archives recently estimated that it would take the Archives approximately 5-6 months to process 10,000 pages responsive to one FOIA request.

Background On Clinton Presidential Records
Bruce Lindsey
William J. Clinton Records Representative
November 2, 2007
Background

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is a post-Watergate statute that applies to the records of presidents elected since 1978.

The PRA defines which records are presidential records and provides that they are the property of the federal government to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

NARA assumes custody and responsibility for control, preservation, and access to the records when the President leaves office.

* Under the PRA, presidents:

* name a personal representative(s) to exercise authority over his/her records in the event of his/her death or disability, and

* while in office, specify time periods up to 12 years to apply to 6 categories of information that may be restricted under the PRA, including national defense/foreign policy records, appointment records, records of confidential advice between the President and his advisers, etc.

* The Archivist determines if access to a presidential record is
restricted under the PRA (or FOIA), with a notification and review process during which the former and sitting president may raise any constitutional privileges.

*August 19, 1994 Letter from President Clinton to the Archives
In 1994, as provided in the PRA, President Clinton sent a letter to the Archives naming me and Hillary Clinton as his personal representatives in the case of his death or disability. Like Presidents Reagan and Bush before him, he authorized the Archives to limit access to the 6 categories of records for the permissible 12 years.

November 1, 2001 Bush Executive Order

The Bush Executive Order provided former presidents with the
independent right to assert any appropriate constitutional privileges over their records. It also extended - from 30 to 90 days - the time period former presidents have to review records that NARA proposes for release (however, this part of the Executive Order was struck down by a D.C. federal court on September 30, 2007).

On behalf of Bill Clinton, I publicly objected to the new Executive Order because Bill Clinton believes that these additional protections are unnecessary and inconsistent with the spirit of PRA.

November 6, 2002 Letter from Bill Clinton to the Archives
In 2002, Bill Clinton sent an "easing" letter authorizing NARA to
review and open policy-related documents containing confidential advice between himself and his advisers, including Senator Clinton. As Bill Clinton said in that letter: "My intent is to make available to the public as full a record as possible documenting the decision-making, policy-making, and appointment process of my Presidency by applying both the appointment and confidential advice restrictions as narrowly as possible."

No other president subject to the Presidential Records Act has
authorized such a broad release. (While former Presidents Reagan and Bush also have sent "easing" letters with respect to "routine" correspondence and "informational and factual" materials, these letters leave greater restrictions in place.) Bill Clinton's letter designates a subset of materials for review prior to release. Documents in the various listed categories in this letter are readily available in the Library at this moment, including those reflecting advice between President Clinton and his advisers.

January 20, 2006 - Clinton Records Subject to FOIA * Presidential records are not subject to FOIA for the first 5 years after a president leaves office.

* Bill Clinton specifically encouraged NARA to review and make public as many policy-related records as possible during those first five years (as opposed to simply releasing press releases and public speeches, which because of their ease of review, historically have been released first by the Archives).

* Under FOIA, the Archives must review all records covered by requests from the public and restrict access to any information contained in those records that is prohibited from release by FOIA (there are 9 such categories) or that are not subject to FOIA under the PRA.

* Currently, none of the FOIA requests NARA has processed and provided for my review involve Senator Clinton.

I hope this sets the record straight here folks.  If anything - the Clintons are doing far more than any other president has ever done to disclose their Presidential papers sooner rather than later.  In other words...

There’s no there there as far as those papers are concerned.

•  Tips for Getting Past the Red Herrings

  Can we get back to the issues that matter now?

  Talk to me people.

  by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:14:46 PM PST

  •  No surprise, yet another

    

    They keep setting them up and you keep knocking them down.  Thanks Alegre.  Great job.

    by DMiller on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PST

    •  I Love the Graphic DMiller

      And yeah... you'd think they'd be getting tired of being wrong so often - wouldn't you? ;o)

      by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:39:43 PM PST

      •  Another amazing thing

        I read a few of the comments at the link you provided.  In the clip, Bill goes through this detailed, thorough, long explanation of why the information can't be released right away.  Some typical comments stated that he is still lying to their face! what kind of hatred and ignorance is that?  You know every time  I see this kind of behavior, it reminds me of the treatment he got in the office and of Toni Morrison calling him America's first black president (it had to do both with his upbringing and the constant persecution he received for every minor thing).  

        Thanks.  It's a great clip.  

        by ghost2 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:51:27 PM PST

        •  I Hope Everybody Looks At That Video

          I'm sure the folks who left those horrid comments never looked at it - but I would hope the good people of this progressive community will at least give him a fair hearing.

          by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:19:47 PM PST

          •  I found this link.

            During Clinton adminstration, republicans were close to issuing a subpoena for Socks.  I am serious.  See Purr-spective at firedoglake (actual quote from a salon article):

            [Congressman Dan Burton] went after Clinton with a vengeance, hammering away at charges of campaign finance violations and other alleged ethical abuses. He once wrote a letter to ask the president whether taxpayer money was being used to underwrite the expense of mailings for a fan club for first feline Socks. ....

            by ghost2 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:58:41 PM PST

    •  Well, he's fishing for something alright.

      My guess, independent voters.  Seriously, how many Democrats don't know that we already know more about the Clinton presidency than we do the last 3 Republican presidents combined?  Feck sake, Congress researched their Christmas card list.

      by masslib on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:45:49 PM PST

      •  You mean these independents?

        "Still, Obama and Edwards both run significantly stronger than Clinton among independents. For example, in a head-to-head match up against Republican contender Fred Thompson (who commands just 15 percent of GOP support), Clinton attracts 47 percent of the independent vote. Both Obama (56 percent) and Edwards (57 percent) draw a majority of the independent vote against the retired senator and "Law & Order' star. "

        http://www.prnewswire.com/...

        by casperr on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:59:52 PM PST

        •  I could really give a shit.

          by masslib on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:18:17 PM PST

          •  You may not care...

            But seriously, the candidates do. As an Independent right now...I rock :)

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:44:57 PM PST

        •  Remind Me Again Of Thier Overal Numbers?

          by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:18:17 PM PST

  •  I agree this "release the papers" stuff is bull

    I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this is a bogus issue.

    Bottom-line to me is this: any personal communications between the President and the First Lady ought to be private.

    I suppose if they were using this like a shield and saying any communication on which both of them were cc'd ought to be private then I'd have a problem, but communications from one to the other?

    I'm for keeping that private. If someone has a specific thing that needs investigating, explain why and get a flipping search warrant.

    I can't let this go without a small snark at Hillary (sorry). I don't understand why she just didn't say: "Sorry, Tim, but I don't think most married couples share your point of view on this. What happens between a husband and a wife is not for the whole world to see. You know that Bill and I have worked through our problems, and unlike so many on the right, we've managed to keep our marriage together. So I'm not going to play this little game of gotcha' with you. I'm just not -- because even I deserve a little privacy from time to time."

    Still, Timmeh is an ass.

    by Patel1946 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:53:34 PM PST

    •  For some reason most people can get by

      on that, but not the Clintons for some reason.

      by hairspray on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:06:00 PM PST

      •  Timmeh has an irrational hatred of her

        Timmeh is horrible awful person.

        I think he's jealous because she got Moynihan's office and he would have rather been in it himself.

        by Patel1946 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:15:44 PM PST

      •  Double Standard as Usual

        by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:17:01 PM PST

    •  In all fairness

      I don't think she can use that line, because she had policy roles in the administration.  I know, the whole thing is bullshit, and as Bill said, they have released the documents relating to the Health Care Task Force.  But I assume some of the remaining papers could be (or could be seen to be) related to policy discussions, and not be private communications between Bill and her.

      by ghost2 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:04:10 PM PST

      •  Should Obama release papers between he and his...

        ...CoS, though?

        What about Edwards?

        In the absence of a specific concern, I'm against these types of fishing expeditions.

        In the case of the Bush Administration, they have overused executive privilege because there have been specific questions and allegations, backed by reasonable evidence, which Congress wanted to explore.

        Here, however, it just looks like fishing and trolling, and it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

        by Patel1946 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:43:17 PM PST

    •  How many archivists and librarians are working

      on this? It sounds like something that must be done slowly and seriously. Just putting them into a searchable format with cross referencing is going to take a long time. 12 years sounds reasonable for a project of this magnitude.

      If they just put them out in a pile, people would accuse them of hiding stuff. No way to win here.

      by DaleA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:42:14 AM PST

  •  Very important diary, thanks!

    This part of Bush's executive order really bothers me:

    (2) When the former President has authorized access to the records:

    (i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the Archivist shall permit access to the records by the requester.

    (ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

    Sec. 4. Concurrence by Incumbent President.

    Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will concur in the privilege decision of the former President in response to a request for access under section 2204(c)(1). When the incumbent President concurs in the decision of the former President to request withholding of records within the scope of a constitutionally based privilege, the incumbent President will support that privilege claim in any forum in which the privilege claim is challenged.

    So the sitting (incumbent) President can (for all intents and purposes) overrule a former President's request to release his own records?

    by Partially Impartial on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:01:53 PM PST

    •  Yes and isn't that what Bush did? n/t

      by hairspray on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:08:17 PM PST

    •  Sure Looks That Way

      by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:16:11 PM PST

    •  intent was to protect his father

      and people who had worked in Reagan's administration or his father's.   Otherwise a lot of stuff from Reagan's administration would now be open to examination, and that might not be exactly what the Bushites wanted.

      by teacherken on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:21:29 PM PST

•  Thank you for posting this.

  IMHO, this is a non-issue. I am much more concerned about Bush the lesser blocking access to his dad's papers, especially those that may have some bearing on Iran-Contra.

  by blue jersey mom on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:21:20 PM PST

  •  The Thing Is, The Clintons Have Done MORE to

    get their papers out to the public than any other president - ever.

    They didn't have to lift a finger on this - they could just sit back and let the National Archives do their work.

    And then there's that little matter of the 300 FOIA reauests.  The come first and there are millions of pages of documents involved in those requests.

    Ten point five million pages to be exact.

    Now given the FACT that the Archives can process about 10,000 pages every 6 months, can you imagine how long it'll take the Archives to comply with those FOIA requests?

    Now unless the good people of this community are ready to say FOIA doesn't matter, I'd say it's high time folks jus shut the hell up about this matter and get back to the issues that matter to the working folk of this nation.

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:26:00 PM PST

    •  In other words ...

      ... these documents won't be processed in a million years.

      by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:09:57 PM PST

      •  Here's A Thought - Why Don't Ya Lend a Hand?

        Flights to DC leave every half hour from most major airports ;o)

        by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:33:06 PM PST

        •  I do my share of FOIA litigation

          It's up to the agency to staff up appropriately to meet its requirements under the law, and if necessary, one can sue to get expedited treatment.

          Under FOIA, after all, agencies only have ten days to respond to requests.

          Also, Barack Obama just got one of the biggest cheers in Saturday Night Live history.  

          by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:36:27 PM PST

          •  Well since SNL isn't watched that much anymore,

            it's not worrying me.

            by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:38:14 PM PST

            •  Hang it up folks...

              Obama is going to win because of that cheer.

              /snark

              by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:39:51 PM PST

            •  Yeah, probably just 15 million people.

              How those grapes tasting?

              by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:42:24 PM PST

              •  You got anything to show those numbers?

                I really doubt it.  Are we talking about those who are really watching it intently, or those who have the television on while......on a Saturday night?  

                by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:44:09 PM PST

                •  Sure.

                  Last Saturday, for a rerun, 5.3% of American households watched SNL, and 13% of those with their tvs on.  Do the math.

                  by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:47:51 PM PST

                  •  I'm sure the flashing

                    APPLAUSE signs in the studio had nothing to do with it.

                    by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:49:35 PM PST

                    •  People love Obama.

                      I didn't realize that supporting Clinton required denied reality.

                      by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:51:34 PM PST

                      •  Sure, they do love him.

                        I would clap for the guy too, doesn't mean I'd support him in a primary.

                        by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:52:49 PM PST

                      •  All Right You Two - Cut it Out ;o)

                        Can we pulease get back to the subject of this diary?

                        Thanks.

                        by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:54:44 PM PST

                        •  Yes.

                          Now, how is it that you're getting help from Bruce Lindsey again?

                          by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:57:36 PM PST

                          •  How I'm Getting Help?

                            Me?

                            Personally?

                            I'm not but if he wants to swing by and do a few loads of laundry - maybe see what's wrong w/ the battery on our 10 year old car he's more than welcome!

                            by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:14:42 PM PST

                            •  It's what you said

                              "I received the following information from Bruce Lindsey"

                              by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:23:04 PM PST

                  •  Gosh.

                    I am sorry I missed that.  If I had heard the applause, I bet I would have wakened up tomorrow morning blogging in favor of a different candidate.  The applause Candidate.  Applause has swayed me before.  Can't rule it out for the future.

                    by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:54:04 PM PST

              •  If you are right...

                I bet about half are under the voting age, and the other half is drunk or high.

                by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:47:23 PM PST

              •  15 Million people were

                cheering him in the audience?

                Wow.

                by jay w on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:51:20 PM PST

                •  15M people will be watching ...

                  .... Obama being cheered by a rapturous studio audience.  Go on and convince yourself this won't get replayed on tv and YouTube for the next week.

                  by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:52:28 PM PST

                  •  I was just being snide

                    with the 15 million people comment.

                    I'm also not going to "convince myself" of anything, I try to avoid self-delusion as a general rule.

                    With that thought in mind, I don't see how TV replays or YouTube clips of (prompted) applause for a presidential candidate is going to score much in the way of political points.

                    by jay w on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:05:49 PM PST

                    •  Really.. people want dirt.. a macacca incident

                      Applause isn't exactly what I'd call a defining moment.

                      by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:31:17 PM PST

            •  I Haven't Watched That In

              hell I hate to say how many years.

              I think we're talking the Not Ready for Prime Time Players.

              Speaking of Not ready for prime time...

              ;o)

              by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:52:47 PM PST

              •  Yes.

                Candidates ready for prime time know how they feel about controversial policies in their home states and can answer yes/no questions with clear answers.

                by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:01:03 PM PST

                •  Funny - All I Heard Were Attacks In The Last

                  debate.  At least from the boys.

                  Hillary on the other hand handled it all well and answered the questions put to her.

                  by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:11:11 PM PST

                  •  "the boys"

                    Wait, I thought that yesterday y'all decided not to play the gender card.

                    by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:20:42 PM PST

                    •  How about a deal...

                      and YOU stop playing the "lawyer card?"

                      by KnowVox on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 06:54:23 PM PST

                •  As to that question you're referencing

                  That was a load of bullshit.

                  Anyone who answered that was screwed and russert knew that when he asked it.

                  You say you agree w/ spitzer and you're fucked in the general.

                  You say you disagree and you're screwed in the primaries.

                  Hillary said she thought spitzer was trying to deal with a problem the feds have ignored and she commended him for that but she did NOT say she supported his plan.

                  Nice try though.

                  by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:13:04 PM PST

                  •  Obama agreed with Spitzer.

                    See, he believes in telling the truth to all audiences at all times.  He's not interested in pandering to where his pollsters say the masses are.

                    You're absolutely right: she didn't say she supported the plan; she didn't say she opposed it either.

                    by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:22:15 PM PST

                    •  Actually - Yeah, She Did

                      You obviously missed that bit - look at the transcript.  She said she does NOT support his plan but she can appreciate that he's at least trying to address something the feds have ignored.

                      BTW - Edwards said the EXACT SAME THING on This Week this morning.

                      by Alegre on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 08:55:43 AM PST

                      •  Then Edwards ducked it too.

                        I didn't miss anything.  She certainly didn't say she DIDN'T support the plan.

                        by Adam B on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:01:51 AM PST

                •  Usually "yes" or "no"? Right? n/t

                  by TheMomCat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:15:22 PM PST

              •  Richard Nixon appeared on "Laugh In"

                I don't think appearances on these shows do anything to change support for a candidate or even a president. IMO

                by TheMomCat on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:13:51 PM PST

          •  Agency?

            Can you name one federal agency that is fully staffed? If these idiots won't fund the FDA, USDA and other important agencies for health inspections, what makes you think they give a shit about actually fully staffing for the FOIA?

            by Kewalo on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:09:57 PM PST

            •  They don't until you sue them.

              And it's real easy to sue them under FOIA.

              by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:27:20 PM PST

        •  Archivists and librarians

          are skilled professionals. To insure a searchable and organized archive requires people trained in this. It is not a matter of having a bunch of worker ants swarming over the papers.

          by DaleA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:45:43 AM PST

      •  Clearly, you didn't watch the video

        Bill Clinton said that half of them directly concerning Hillary were already processed.  Wow, I thought kossacks were too smart to be so easily spun by the right wing machine. How about listening with an open mind? Is that so hard, or are the facts unimportant when your mind's already made up?

        by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:39:53 PM PST

        •  Processed does not mean released. NT

          .

          by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:48:46 PM PST

          •  They must be crossreferenced

            for the form to be searchable. Which is why this takes so long.

            by DaleA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:49:08 AM PST

  •  Your liberal media at work.

    Has Russert ever questioned Bush/Cheney on the secrecy of this administration?  Is there a name for mid-level high school bullies?  The ones who get bullied themselves and take it out on others? Because that's what the press has become.  

    by ghost2 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:54:06 PM PST

•  Thanks for Setting the Record Straight

  Russert's attempt to swift boat Hillary has no basis in fact. The Clinton administration is the most transparent of any administration since the archiving law was enacted!

  by owl06 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:21:55 PM PST

  •  BTW - Saw Your Diary - Way to GO! ;o)

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:45:38 PM PST

    •  Why Thanks

      Glad that you noticed

      by owl06 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:37:11 PM PST

•  Great diary.

  The people trying to make this an issue are just hoping beyond hope that they can find ANYTHING to discredit Hillary.  Their candidate can't win on policy issues, so in desperation they try to make this an issue.  Very funny.

  by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:22:21 PM PST

  •  It's Bad Enough When Someone Who Knows NOTHING

    of how things are done re presidential documents - but for a state Attorney General to jump in to this shite?

    Not to mention he compared Obama's freakin' TAX RETURNS to Bill's 100 MILLION PAGES OF DOCUMENTS...!!!!

    I doubt that asshole could go through that many documents in 12 years - not even with a huge staff.  Who the HELL is he to tell Bill & Hillary to ignore the FOIA requests AND the law, and demand they releaes them to suit his political agenda????

    Seriously - someone's gotta call that asshole on this!

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:48:57 PM PST

•  Obama Campaign Gives Me the Creeps

  I was more comfortable when they were burning gay people at the stake.

  by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:28:20 PM PST

  •  Very Unsavory

    This isn't even simply negative campaigning ...  I don't know what it is.  It's one thing to attack Sen. Clinton's appearance, her personality, etc.  But it's another to take up right wing themes and use them to beat up on opponents.  This is strike three for Obama.

    by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:33:23 PM PST

    •  Strike One

      Lecturing gay people on not being willing to hear out Evangelicals on their issues.

      Strike Two:

      Attacking Sen. Clinton for not having a plan to "fix" Social Security.

      Strike Three:

      The National Archives nonsense, which reeks of the same foul odor that emanated from the Whitewater "scandal" and a million other false stories cooked up by Beltway journalists and the GOP during the Clinton years.

      by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:35:28 PM PST

      •  Strike 3 for both Obama & Edwards

        The spectacle of the two of them abandoning their platforms at the same time to launch twin full scale attack platforms makes them look like desperate, ungracious losers. The final impression anyone will have of either man's campaign is negative, a compounded loss for both men.

        by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:49:44 PM PST

        •  I Don't Really Have a Problem with Edwards

          She made herself vulnerable to his latest attacks by fumbling in the debate.  Fair is fair.  But this latest Obama thing reminds me too much of how the right wing and their "journalist" allies went after the Clintons in the 1990s..

          by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:51:55 PM PST

          •  I do

            Edwards hired Joe Trippi and retooled his war on poverty as a war on Hillary.

            by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:03:52 PM PST

            •  Same Here

              Edwards has gone from talking about the issues to using BS words like "Neocon" and "doubletalk" (btw - what in the HELL is that??)

              by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:31:56 PM PST

          •  I Don't Think She Fumbled At All

            Given the 2 hour grilling she took, and thi BS question about Bill's papers Russert tossed at her (WRF? She hadn't a clue as to what he was talking about) I think she handled it very well.

            by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:30:58 PM PST

        •  Edwards really went sour for me when

          he sent Elizabeth out to claim that He was better for women on issues than Clinton was.  That was too weak and sexist for me. He didn't see anything wrong with having the public think it was a fight between women.  Something "cat fightish".  And Elizabeth went along with it.  My good feeling toward him started circling the drain and was gone by sundown.

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:34:54 PM PST

          •  Really?

            So you consider Elizabeth some kind of stepford wife that can just be sent here and there? She has no mind of her own?

            Most of the women I know are mature, strong women and they certainly wouldn't do something they didn't want to do. She said she went on her own and I have no reason to consider her a liar. I'm sorry you do.

            Sorry to say your post sounds to me like it's right out of the RW playbook.

            by Kewalo on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:02:41 PM PST

            •  She said it on behalf of her husband, and yes she

              did it willingly which is what bothers me the most. There were other things that she said which were similar around that time too.  And no, I don't believe it was spontaneous as opposed to a campaign move planned by the campaign and approved by Edwards.  It appeared that way very easily, and if it appears to be an observation out of the RW playbook, that reflects poorly on who ever thought it up in the campaign.  They misjudged how it would appear.

              by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:08:10 PM PST

            •  That's Not What She Said At All

              Just sayin'

              by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:08:35 PM PST

          •  That Pissed Me Off Too

            Especially on the heels of his skipping that Planned Parenthood Conference (I was there) and sending her in to speak instead.

            Even did a diary on it ;o)

            by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:07:36 PM PST

      •  Strike 1 for me was when he said he wanted

        to bridge Christians and Democrats. The first time he said it I laughed it off as a mistake or poor choice of words but then he went back to it recently and even  elaborated on a video....Maybe Obama could run for Pope, the Catholic clergy is very political.

        by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:50:30 PM PST

        •  He's Made Several of These Comments

          He has no idea that -- for better or worse -- a majority of Democrats are religious people.

          by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:53:03 PM PST

          •  A majority of Americans are Democrats

            and a majority of Americans are Christians
            and a majority of Democrats are Christians.
            He insulted so many people. And he's a smart guy, why does a Democratic candidate do that?

            by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:16:32 PM PST

            •  Rookie Mistake

              Maybe he'll have learned in 8 or 12 years.

              by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:28:27 PM PST

              •  either that,

                or he made a seriously bad career choice when he got into politics.  I was very favorably disposed to Obama before this race, but I don't trust his judgment now.

                by DCDemocrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:23:31 AM PST

        •  That is exactly what turned me off on Obama.

          And it threw Armando into a fit.  I think the disturbance caused by Armando on that one ended up leading to his banning.  Not that there was anything wrong with that.

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:31:45 PM PST

      •  Ya figure maybe Rove is helping Obama

        out with his campaign?

        by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:30:10 PM PST

        •  I wouldn't be suprised if Rove

          had something to do with Russert's behavior and questions.. his strategy basically to align himself with Edwards and Obama, setting them up repeatedly to go after Hillary. I firmly believe the GOP fears running against her the most.

          by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:39:02 PM PST

          •  I sincerely believe that

            obama is being funded by people who want to use him for these kinds of tactics but they would never actually vote for him!!!!

            by cookiecutter on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:45:02 PM PST

            •  There's an interesting theory

              that even some Republicans contribute to a Democratic hopeful they think would be easier to defeat.

              by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:53:53 PM PST

      •  What amazes me is their naivete

        that if they were to sink Hillary, either Edwards or Obama would rise.  It would be Dodd or Biden who benefited.  The people have made their judgment about Edwards and Obama, and they're right.

        by DCDemocrat on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 03:21:26 AM PST

•  Very detailed, well-researched

  and well-written as usual. Thanks again for debunking these "Hillary urban legends".

  They are just throwing one non-issue after another, and then sit and wonder in amazement why nothing is sticking to her and she is doing so well in the polls.

  by Norwegian Chef on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:35:33 PM PST

  •  They're Getting Desperate - And It SHOWS

    Thanks for the kind words Chef :o)

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:50:06 PM PST

•  I like this part

  led the effort to establish a "Google for Government" initiative that requires the entire federal budget to be posted online in a publicly available and searchable format.

  OK...that's gotta prove something.

  by NegSpin on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:35:41 PM PST

  •  Had To Laugh @ That Bit About His Tax Returns

    How freakin' lame is that????

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:50:44 PM PST

•  This Bruce Lindsey?

  "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." said Bill Burton, a fellow Arkansan and former White House colleague.

  Link

  by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:42:37 PM PST

  •  Yeah - Just Ignore the FOIA Laws WhyDontYa?

    Gimme a break.

    Next you'll be claiming he bumped off Vince Foster for the Clintons.

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:51:57 PM PST

•  Vince Foster would disagree with you, Alegre...

  if Hillary hadn't killed him.

  by Trix on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:49:14 PM PST

  •  That was sarcasm, owl06 :) n/t

    by Trix on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:50:13 PM PST

  •  TR

    That is total bullshit and you know it.

    by owl06 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:50:18 PM PST

    •  Read between the lines :)

      

      by Trix on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:52:08 PM PST

  •  I hate it when people use Vince Foster's name

    like that. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it but it makes me cringe. The man's name, his family, they deserve respect.

    by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:54:30 PM PST

    •  Point taken :) n/t

      by Trix on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:55:17 PM PST

    •  Indeed

      But this latest Obama attack is redolent of all of those old fake stories that the right wing cooked up about the Clintons.  It's the same crap.  

      by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:56:57 PM PST

      •  Has Obama indicated what he's looking for?

        by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:58:42 PM PST

        •  Her

          "Secrets."

          Presumably the secrets behind Travelgate, Whitewater, her lesbian affairs and every other lie dreamed up by the Scaife organization and religious printed by the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek week after week after week during the Clinton administration.

          by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:00:17 PM PST

        •  I Doubt He Has Any More of A Clue About This

          as any of the other issues he's been whinging on about over the last few months.

          by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:00:44 PM PST

  •  I Had to Do a Double-Take Trix

    /snark right????

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:59:35 PM PST

    •  Of course, Alegre :) n/t

      by Trix on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:01:33 PM PST

•  Bill has spoken...

  so I guess we should all just fall into line, eh?

  Yesterday you believed CNN and their unnamed sources, today you buy this. What else will you buy if it benefits your candidate?

  by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:54:03 PM PST

  •  So do you think there's some meat here

    they're hiding and lying about?  It seems so unimportant to me...

    by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:57:47 PM PST

    •  I think it's an example of how the Clintons

      are the status quo. They aren't in a rush to have open government - they just want power. What is Hillary's record on openness in government? Does she even have one?

      Obama, on the other hand, has been fighting for transparency in government his entire life. In the end, transparency is imperative.

      by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:14:01 PM PST

      •  I agree transparency is/will be vital

        to better government, better audits, less incompetencies.  

        As for this issue and Hillary, I may be wrong but it seems like administrivia.

        by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:24:05 PM PST

        •  You're Not Wrong KCK

          The other guys are just looking for somethign to latch on to here.

          by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:26:09 PM PST

      •  Why do people ask what Hillary's record is

        when they could research it and have genuine facts to offer? Hillary has been a public liberal since 1969 when she was featured in Life Magazine. There exists a great deal of information on her.

        For help, here is link to her ratings from all public interest groups.

        by DaleA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:00:32 AM PST

        •  My point is that she doesn't have a

          record on open government.

          by Elise on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:01:44 PM PST

          •  That's funny...

            I thought your point was to bash one of our leading progressive candidates.

            by KnowVox on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:01:47 PM PST

            •  If pointing out her record is bashing -

              then I have to wonder if I clicked on Red State by accident...

              by Elise on Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:33:10 PM PST

    •  It IS Unimportanat and There's Nothing the

      he Clintons can do about it.  The law is the law - the documents need to be reviewed - the FIOA requests come first.

      Period.

      This is a red herring people.

      There's no there there.

      by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:25:33 PM PST

  •  Fall In Line - No. Wise Up - Hell Yeah

    As for my diary yesterday - I stand by it.

    Today's diary deals with the freakin' law so unless you're ready to trash the FOIA laws and those 300 requests that are pending (involving 10.5 million pages of documents) I suggest you go find another sandbox to play in.

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:02:19 PM PST

  •  Well, Bill Clinton

    is not exactly an unnamed source.  Lest we forget, he was a popular president with most Democrats and in retrospect he's looking much better to some Republicans, too.  

    by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:51:43 PM PST

    •  He's also not exactly credible on this one...

      since it directly affects his WIFE who is running for President - and since it's HIS records that they're talking about releasing.

      Honestly...if I need to explain the conflict of interest...

      by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:01:22 PM PST

•  from factcheck.org

  We find her response doubly misleading.

  First, the primary reason that no documents related to correspondence between the two of them have been made public is, just as Russert said, that Bill Clinton asked the Archives not to release them until 2012. The Presidential Records Act allows a president, while still in office, to bar disclosure of six categories of documents for 12 years following the end of his or her tenure. One of those categories is "confidential communications requesting or submitting advice, between the President and his advisers." Communications between a president and his wife are considered to fall in that category. He claimed the exemptions broadly (without mentioning Hillary) in 1994. In 2002, he amended his claims to loosen the restrictions – but specifically identified communications between himself and the First Lady (among others) as items that should remain sealed until 2012.

  while she may also be correct that other presidents haven’t allowed access to communications between themselves and their wives before the 12 years were up, none of those wives were running for president themselves – and holding out their experience in the White House as a qualification for election.

  I couldn't put it any better...

  http://www.factcheck.org/...

  by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 07:58:22 PM PST

  •  Where Was This Story

    During Bush's 2000 campaign?  Shouldn't his father have been under the same pressure to release his documents then?

    Heh.

    Of course he wasn't, because this kind of "scandal" only applies to Democrats.

    This is the third time in a two weeks that Obama has taken up common cause with the right wing in order to attack Sen. Clinton.  It's downright disturbing.

    by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:02:58 PM PST

    •  Excellent Point Bink

      Father / son.

      Husband /wife.

      I seriously doubt McCain's camp was screaming about Bush's senior's docs during the 2000 primaries.

      by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:06:29 PM PST

      •  Oddly enough, I remember US saying that

        those records should be disclosed - and that was EVEN THOUGH Bush Jr. didn't have any official position in the Bush Sr. White House.

        by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:17:44 PM PST

    •  Huh?

      George W. Bush had no policy role in his father's administration.

      by Adam B on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:10:39 PM PST

      •  No Idea What Kind of Influence

        Bush, Jr. had on his father, but the passage quoted above does not cite her "policy role."  It cites her status as Clinton's immediate family member.

        by bink on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:13:02 PM PST

        •  There was pressure for Bush Sr.'s records

          to be released at the time - AND after Bush Jr. was elected...WE pushed for that.

          Apparently when Clintons are running for the WH we're willing to let disclosure slide?

          Sorry, but I wanted to see Bush Senior's records released back then - and I want to see Clinton's records released now. If she's going to run on her "record" as First Lady - and suggest that that gives her the "most experience" of all the candidates - then those records are relevant and we should be able to read them.

          by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:24:49 PM PST

          •  So Tell Us How This Would Happen Elise

            You talk about "pushing for" the release of the documents but given the constraints of the law and the whole requirement re reviewing everything, HOW are they supposed to speed up the release of 100 MILLION pages of documents?

            Rather than yell holler & point fingers - tell Obama to propose legislation that would change the laws that apply here.

            by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:43:36 PM PST

            •  I think the whole point is just to paint

              Hillary as secretive.  It's straight out of the GOP playbook.  There is little she can do to make these papers available any faster than they are scheduled to be.  She's boxed in.  So the Obama camp demands papers knowing there is nothing she can do so they can say aha!  She's secretive, just like Cheney.  Unbelievable.

              by masslib on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:49:20 PM PST

              •  I Keep Seeing Similarities w/ Rove Tonight

                Several folks have mentioned it in this thread.

                And Owl06 posted a diary about how Edwards new video clip is a near carbon copy of an ad Rove did for Bush against Kerry in '04.  That surfboarding ad.

                Same music and everything - scary!

                by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:59:46 PM PST

                •  Somebody ought to do a diary about it. nt

                  by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:03:34 PM PST

                  •  I nominate you!

                    :)

                    by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:07:07 PM PST

                    •  Tried it one time.

                      Very unsuccessful.  You might want to withdraw your nomination.

                      by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:09:20 PM PST

                •  And you can call people who ask questions "Rove"

                  all day long if you want to - but that doesn't exempt your candidate from having to answer questions.

                  In fact, I find it amusing that you'd suggest it's Rovian to demand transparency in Government...since Rove is somewhat responsible for all the current secrecy.

                  by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:09:41 PM PST

                  •  If the shoe fits..... and it does. n/t

                    by KnowVox on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 07:04:24 PM PST

              •  there is plenty she can do...

                to NOT selectively restrain the disclosure of papers dealing with her personal communications during the Clinton terms.

                by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:05:24 PM PST

                •  Whoa, this is about personal communications

                  between husband and wife?  Surely this is about policy related communications, right?  Otherwise that is just 1000% inappropriate.  How would personal communcations between spouses be relevant?  

                  by masslib on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:10:47 PM PST

                  •  No...

                    these are presidential records, not personal records, so far as my understanding goes. They deal with communications with advisors and the first lady in the official capacity of the white house, not husband-wife communications.

                    by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:22:40 PM PST

                    •  Ok, I misunderstood what you wrote then. That

                      would be creepy.

                      by masslib on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:24:30 PM PST

            •  If the Clintons wanted their records released

              they would have been released. More than enough time has passed since the end of Bill's Presidency. And in addition to that - there are obviously exceptions that move certain docs on the list forward.

              And where exactly am I, yelling, hollering, or pointing fingers??

              You claim that Bill is "setting the record straight" - I dispute that claim. You claim that the Iowa Attorney General doesn't know what he's talking about.

              I'm sorry, but what are YOUR credentials here? Bill says so, therefore it's true? He doesn't exactly have a history of telling the truth - and yeah - that was on "stupid" stuff that was unrelated to his work as President - but you're claiming here that "there's no there there" and telling us this just isn't important. Bill has certainly shown that he's more than willing to lie about things he feels are unimportant. (And let's not feign shock and pretend otherwise. I never gave a shit about the entire Monica affair, but the dumbest thing he ever did was lie about it.)

              This has not a goddamned thing to do with a GOP playbook or any other thing. You can't cry "Rove" nearly every time someone asks your candidate to answer a question - she's running for President - she's OBLIGATED to answer my questions as I'm a voter. Period.

              And you know what - Obama has already proposed doing this:

              (3) RESTORE MEANING TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: The American
              people deserve to know what their government does and why. Ours is an open
              government, and our ability to understand our government at work--the freedom of
              information we enjoy--has been copied by other countries around the world. The
              Freedom of Information Act is a pillar of our open government. Unfortunately, in recent
              years our government has failed to keep the American people informed about what it was
              doing and why, and it has refused to provide Americans with information they are
              entitled to by law. Turning our tradition of free information upside down, the Bush
              administration has instructed agencies to presume citizens are not entitled to information
              unless they are willing to sue for it. Barack Obama would restore the tradition of free
              information by issuing an Executive Order that information should be released unless an
              agency reasonably foresees harm to a protected interest.

              and

              (5) MAKING WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC: Barack Obama would amend
              Executive Order 12866 to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking
              between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the
              public. The Obama White House would invoke its executive privilege to protect the
              confidentiality of communications concerning national security and similar traditionally
              sensitive matters, not to withhold information about private interests’ communication on
              regulatory policy. There are communications that should be kept private because
              disclosure could endanger the public. But the White House is the people’s house and the
              people have a right to know who visits.

              and

              (6) RELEASING PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS: Under the Presidential Records Act,
              presidential records are supposed to be released to the public 12 years after the end of a
              presidential administration. In November 2001, President Bush issued an order that gave
              current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential
              records or delay their release indefinitely. As president, Barack Obama will nullify the
              Bush order and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

              Link. Click "Reform Plan Overview"

              And you know, I looked on Hillary's website for a similar proposal...but apparently she has NONE. This was the closest thing I could find. And when I look at the plans next to one another, I've got to say that Obama seems willing to go a whole lot farther than Hillary does.

              by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:08:27 PM PST

              •  You say that if the Clintons

                wanted their records released they would have been released.  Now that is just plain absurd.  There are laws regarding the archiving of records, and so far as I know Bill Clinton did not habitually  ignore the law.  Is that what you're advocating he should do?  Because it most certainly is not up to Hillary what happens.  She was not president, and they are not her records.

                As far as your other remarks, I've been waiting for the Monica Lewinsky thing to resurface, but I expected it to first come from the Republicans and their media, not from a Democrat. And not linking it to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which makes it even more surprising.  But I guess nothing should surprise me about what is said regarding her.      

                by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:09:42 PM PST

                •  as stated below...

                  What is being discussed is at Bill Clinton's discretion... his lawyer is not, by law, obliged to review those documents prior to release.

                  Lewinsky was not tied to Hillary in Elise's comments... she was tied to Bill.. and this logically fallacious "you sound like republicans" gripe is getting very tired. Do you have a substantive reason to selectively review the official communications between the president and the first lady during the Clinton administration?

                  by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:35:32 PM PST

          •  You are ignoring the facts

            to continue repeating the lemming like talking points of all the other Obama supporters.  Weird.

            We all know you guys are just looking for dirt and trying to make an issue where none really exists.

            by MollyStark on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:30:33 PM PST

      •  no policy role?

        tell that to john sununu. george w fired him.

        by campskunk on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:38:33 PM PST

    •  yes...

      but then, that's not a logical defense of Clinton. The point is that there is every reason to be open with one's record before the public. Being the public, that's something we all should be asking.

      by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:03:45 PM PST

      •  Then change the archival laws.

        by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:11:56 PM PST

        •  stop it...

          What is being discussed is at Clinton's discretion. I don't have to change laws to ask of candidates that they be open with their policies and with their conduct. He (and she) are perfectly within their rights to behave exactly as they are- that doesn't mean that we can't criticize them for doing so and support a candidate who has made it a point to substantially increase government transparency. It was misleading of Hillary to suggest that this is simply a matter of the archives taking time to progress... her OFFICIAL communications with her husband during the Clinton administration have been selectively subjected to further review. Bill Clinton has a legal right to do so, and we are perfectly reasonable in asking more.

          by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:32:07 PM PST

          •  And, as Bill Clinton explained,

            Hillary had no idea what Russert was talking about because she didn't write the letter and she has no power to have the presidential records released.  I don't think she was being misleading.  I think she didn't want to commit herself to something she wasn't familiar with---especially with Russert's bullying and him waving that paper in front of her like a red flag.  

            And don't tell me to stop it.  For the past months I have read diary after diary making the most absurd, dishonest assertions about HRC, and most Clinton supporters have been too polite to hit the mendacity as hard as it deserves.    I, for one, have had enough of the gratuitous Clinton bashing and obviously so have some others.  I'm not saying you are doing it here, but the truth concerning Clinton and her positions has continally been savaged and it's time to set the facts out straight.

            by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:58:49 PM PST

            •  then she hasn't been paying attention...

              Hillary had no idea what Russert was talking about because she didn't write the letter and she has no power to have the presidential records released.

              This specific criticism is months old. I'd be perfectly willing to accept her coming out and explaining she was mistaken in her response, however.

              And don't tell me to stop it.

              Stop misstating our arguments back at us. Previously poor allegations against Clinton does not excuse illogically attacking the criticisms of completely different posters somewhere down the road. No one claimed that Clinton had a legal obligation to release the documents. If she's going to court my vote, however, government transparency IS something I find appealing, and it is completelty fair of me to criticize opeenness in this regard.

              I, for one, have had enough of the gratuitous Clinton bashing and obviously so have some others.

              I remember enthusiastically reccing a couple of Alegre's diaries a while back, with a willingness to speak out strongly to kossacks about Hillary's strengths and record in ways which many here find surprising. I think many here give her too little credit, but I don't find that misstreatment to be a valid argument when faced with legitimate criticism, and I find that has been used a bit too often as well.

              by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:17:57 PM PST

  •  What are you doing introducing

    facts here? This is no place for facts! ;)

    by casperr on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:04:17 PM PST

    •  You Want Facts - Look at the Diary and the FOIA

      laws.

      by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:07:16 PM PST

      •  are you suggesting...

        that the factcheck.org comments on this matter are not factual?

        by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:24:10 PM PST

    •  And how long it takes

      I have been involved with dealing with a 10,000 page file. It took almost a month to get in intelligable shape. With 3 people working on it. This can not be done quickly.

      by DaleA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:12:01 AM PST

  •  So What's Your Point?

    The law requires that these documents be reviewed before being released.

    The law also gives those 300 FOIA requests top priority in the review of these documents.

    At this point, they're processing 10,000 pages every 6 months.

    If you've got any suggestions on how to speed up the review of 10.5 MILLION pages of documents then I'm all ears here.  

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:05:17 PM PST

    •  you are avoiding the point...

      ...that these specific records which deal with Hillary's involvement in the White House have been have been excluded from disclosure until 2001. I have no doubt that all records processing will not be complete before the election, and that any removal of the right to review said papers will not result in their full disclosure before the election as well. I also do not content that Clinton has a LEGAL obligation for the document release. Nor have Obama or his supporters contended that a legal obligations exist.

      You claim, Alegre, that the Clinton's have a right to review the documents. You're right.

      You contend that their expediency in document release is unexceptional. I agree.

      Neither claim fundamentally refutes the allegation that Clinton is being secretive regarding her records for Bill's terms, and I would consider it my right to request a better explanation than "because she can."  

      by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:14:11 PM PST

      •  And what's most dishonest here - is that

        Hillary is running on her "experience" as First Lady - but she won't release records that talk about that experience?

        How convenient for her.

        by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:21:07 PM PST

        •  I'd say what'

          by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:36:23 PM PST

          •  oops

            I've read your comments carefully and thoughtfully, and one thought kept nagging me. I get the distinct impression that gathering something to hang Hillary with is a higher priority for you than the 'transparency' issue itself.

            by phoenixdreamz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:41:58 PM PST

            •  Sorry, but that just isn't the case -

              she's my second choice for President - and part of the reason that Obama is my #1 choice is that he's better on several issues than Hillary is - and one of those issues happens to be transparency.

              by Elise on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:52:33 PM PST

        •  Well, laws do tend to be inconvenient

          at times, but that doesn't mean they can be broken with impunity (unless you're George Bush).  What is it you don't understand about these records not being at Hillary Clinton's disposal?  What's dishonest about it?  And she's not running only on her experience as first lady---she's a second term senator.  Although, frankly, I can't imagine better experience for being president than seeing it first hand for eight years.  She can hit the ground running and won't need the on-the-job-training that a first term junior senator would.  Which, in the present world climate, is a little too dangerous for my liking.  Crises are not going to stop because Obama has no idea what it means to be commander-in-chief.

          by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:22:59 PM PST

          •  What about her record prepared her?

            ...and I'd like the answer to that question before 2012.

            at times, but that doesn't mean they can be broken with impunity (unless you're George Bush).  What is it you don't understand about these records not being at Hillary Clinton's disposal?

            No law is being broken... and the documents are at Bill Clinton's disposal... ?I assume that she has some pull with her husband.

            What's dishonest about it?

            It is dishonest, if not an outright lie, to suggest that the only thing preventing the release of the official communications between the president and first lady is the time it takes to process all presidential records.

            And she's not running only on her experience as first lady---she's a second term senator.

            No one is suggesting she is. If she runs AT ALL on her record as first lady we are within our rights to request tohat she be open with that record.

            by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:43:19 PM PST

  •  That's interesting

    but doesn't exactly disputes what she says. But later in the same link they say this atrocious falsity about Social Security and they use words and policy directions that could have come from the Cheney himself.

    In fact, the system is headed for nearly certain collapse unless some action is taken to increase taxes or at least slow down the projected rise of future benefits. And delay will only make the eventual corrections more painful, experts say.

    They go on to claim the SS trustees as sources. What crapola on SS. Sorry to get OT but I will have to look more closely at factcheck...

    Do you know why anyone wants these papers, Kimball?

    by kck on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:13:02 PM PST

    •  nor does...

      Alegre's diary dispute Obama's criticism and that of his Iowa supporters. Clinton is completely within her rights to not go out of her way to expedite the release of those specific documents, but they have, as a matter of fact, been withheld for review and her answer during the debate was, as a matter of fact, misleading.

      by Kimball on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:15:59 PM PST

•  Good Diary

  Thanks for posting this. After I read your diary I went looking to see if anyone in the traditional press had the story...

  http://www.nytimes.com/...

  Hillary was not my first choice, but dang! I'm starting to sympathize with her.

  by Kewalo on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:13:12 PM PST

  •  Thanks for the Link Kewalo

    I especially loved this bit...

    Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with Radio Iowa on Saturday, said she did not know what the papers would reveal, but she supported releasing them as quickly as possible. "I think it’s like people think we have boxes of records in our basement and why don’t I just go and get them and hand them over," she said. "And you know my husband has never blocked a record ever. He has been the most forthcoming of all presidents."

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:22:28 PM PST

    •  YVW

      You know what really gets me...just what do they think they're going to find after a $70M investigation. Everytime I think about someone thinking they're going to find something from her past in some kind of "gotcha" moment I remember that congress spent over 100 hours just investigating the Clintons Christmas card list.

      It's just more BS as far as I'm concerned.

      by Kewalo on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:56:19 PM PST

•  Good, but can you boil it down...

  ...to an elevator point.

  You know: You are on the elevator, and your co-worker says, "Hillary and Bill won't release their papers."

  And you say (what?).

  by daulton on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:26:54 PM PST

  •  Try This

    It's not up to them - we're talking about 100 million pages of documents and the law requires a review of those documents before they're released and the Archives are working as quickly as they can to get that done.

    Or

    They're actually working to get documents released - first time ANY president has tried to get this done before it's really required.

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:47:48 PM PST

  •  You say

    that Yes they have. That they are more than happy to have the information released. The problem is with the Archives or the rules regarding the archives that say that can't be released until reviewed. You then wink and say that a Hillary campaign will not require tinfoil hats and the GOP reports that Hillary eats babies is grossly exaggerated. ;)

    That said, I sure hope your co worker isn't interested in how Hill is planning to solve Social Security because I think bipartisan commissions are highly over rated by Washington types. Ugh.

    by cwaltz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:57:41 PM PST

•  I agree with you all on this one...

  and also on the notion that Clinton is a copycat when it comes to voting in the Senate.

  Still, there are shortcomings to Clinton that have escaped media scrutiny in my view, usually of her own doing.

  by citizen53 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:29:40 PM PST

  •  And fortunately

    none of the other candidates have any shortcomings whatsoever.  They are saints.  How lucky you are.  

    If you think Clinton mimics other's votes, why don't you take a good look at several diaries posted a few months ago that compared Clinton's votes to John Edwards.  Now, I consider votes that favor big business and corporations to the detriment of everyone else a decided shortcoming of Edwards, but has that been scrutinized by the media, or by his supporters?  HRC's votes are strong indications of her values.

    The Clinton's have lived in a glass fish bowl.  There is nothing, nothing, that hasn't been reported about them.  Much, if not most, of it is false, but that doesn't stop the obsessive Clinton haters here at kos from repeating it ad nauseum.    

    by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:59:02 PM PST

    •  no one said that

      There seems to be some serious problems when supporters can't take constructive criticism and insist that any criticism of their candidate can't be valid because THEIR candidate is perfect.

      by cwaltz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:01:30 PM PST

      •  What constructive criticism has been offered?

        And I haven't heard anyone argue that HRC is perfect.  What is being disputed are the untruths being voiced by people who dislike both Clintons on general principle and then gerrymander facts to support their dislike.  I expect this from Republicans but it's very hard to accept from Democrats.  And I was not even supporting Clinton until a short time ago.  

        by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:35:47 PM PST

        •  Hillary's positions are too nuanced

          She needs to get better about making her positions clear and concise. She can not be for and against the state plans for handling illegal immigration. She can't say she'll get us out of Iraq and then say that she'll use the troops in Iraq to fight Al quaeda. She needs better plans for Social Security than a bipartisan commission. I am sick to death of people calling Edwards Rove simply because he pointed out that alot of Hillary's statements contradict each other. I am tired of hearing how mean and unfair it was for him to make this criticism. You don't hear Obama whining that Hillary was Rovian despite the fact the GOP has been using Hillary's schtick that Obama is inexperienced on foriegn policy(and I might add that I totally disagree with Hill and the GOP on this.)

          I'm not going to threadjack the diary by going into this more than this when I hit upon it in another diary on this subject but I really hope that instead of saying how mean folks are for criticizing Hillary or how the argument would apply to other candidates that some of her supporters contact the campaign and tell them to make sure that in the next debate she is able to clearly articulate plans for issues like Iraq, Social Security, or Immigration. She is a smart lady. She just needs to stake a position and then be able to articulate why.

          by cwaltz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 10:01:55 PM PST

          •  There are flat out lies about Hillary

            Which is what bothers me. Posters put up: she has the most conservative voting record of any Democrat. Which is a lie. Just corrected someone on another thread who stated: Hillary and Obama almost never vote the same way. Actually they vote the same at a rate of 93+%, 96% this year alone.

            Then there was a whole diary based on Hillary voting for condemning MoveOn. She voted against it.

            The anti-Hillary folks have the worst grasp of facts and evidence I have ever seen. This may blind me to the substantial arguments. But there are so many really bad Hillary claims, that keeps me busy.

            by DaleA on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 10:23:15 AM PST

      •  Who cares what miriam says?

        Her response above was just foolish.  This diary is about Clinton, so I commented.  I agree with you completely.

        by citizen53 on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 12:23:50 AM PST

•  It's wonderful to see a Hillary diary that

  hasn't been hijacked by the regular Hillary haters/propagandists. Their lies just won't float on this page, and their absence proves they are consciously lying smear artists. I was particularly interested in seeing what the little holocaust victim had to say.
  I would like to take this perfect opportunity to tell them all to stick this diary in their tuba.

  by JamesBrown4ever on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 08:55:23 PM PST

  •  I just think they're all in bed. nt

    by hopscotch1997 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:00:31 PM PST

    •  Yes, children do tend to be

      in bed at this hour.

      by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:01:33 PM PST

  •  There have been several good Hillary diaries

    today, and I hope to see this trend continue.  I can feel it, we are growing in numbers even here on Dkos!

    by randomperson26 on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:01:11 PM PST

    •  Agreed - New Folks Are Jumping On Board

      It's all good! ;o)

      by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:04:30 PM PST

  •  They're All Trashing Owl06s Diary Re the Videos

    He did a diary re the similarities between Edwards' video and one Rove did for Bush trashing Kerry for flip-flopping.

    Same music and everything - spooky!

    They haters have gone nuts over there though.  Sad.

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:03:28 PM PST

•  I recc'd this diary

  Contrary to popular belief just because I criticize Hillary doesn't mean that I hate her. It means I want her to fix valid complaints.

  by cwaltz on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:03:51 PM PST

  •  Thx CWaltz ;o)

    by Alegre on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:05:08 PM PST

•  Alegre...

  This is terrific work you've done.  Thank you for posting it.

  I've made no secret of the fact that I supported Wes Clark in '04 and hoped he would run again.  I hadn't completely made up my mind whom to support until a week ago.  My decision came mostly because of my own fresh research on Hillary Clinton, but it has been reinforced a hundred-fold by the unprecedented falsehoods about her being perpetrated by the media...and here on kos.  She is the best candidate we could field and the best for the country at this time.  The more I learn the less surprised I am that Clark endorsed her.  

  by miriam on Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:08:23 PM PST

•  OK

  so what - time to move on - I'm sure there is nothing in there that the Repubs could or would use in the general. So lets just disregard Bill Clintons tenure and evaluate Hillary on her merits outside of that... As a femanist I'm more comfortable with that approach anyway. So what has she done to address the root cause of most of the issues we face in this country - the connection of multinational corporations to the political process.  Looking forward I want someone who is willing to address this issue because to me anything else is just moving the deck chairs on the Titanic - we're still going down.

  by SMucci on Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 09:05:47 AM PST