Clinton's schedules shed little light on work as first lady: Little to support experience assertion

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Hillary Clinton's schedules shed little light on work as first lady
Just-released records show she was active, but are short on details and long on redactions.
By Peter Nicholas and Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
March 19, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Federal archivists on Wednesday released 11,000 pages of schedules from Hillary Rodham Clinton's eight years as first lady, but the material offers little to support her assertion that her White House experience left her best prepared to become president.

The records show her to be an active first lady who traveled widely and was deeply involved in healthcare policy, but they are rife with omissions, terse references and redactions that obscure many of her activities and the identities of those she saw....The records span some of the most historically rich and well-documented chapters in the Clinton presidency, including Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky; Hillary Clinton's failed healthcare initiative; and her role in the dismissal of several employees in the White House travel office. But in many cases, the documents refer only to "private meetings" and do little to illuminate the dramatic events unfolding at the time....

One author who has interviewed Clinton, Carl Sferrazza Anthony, said he was not surprised that the schedules do not reveal much. "She didn't put a lot in writing," said Anthony, who is based in Los Angeles and has written extensively about first ladies. "She explicitly told me she didn't put a lot in writing because everything in writing, including a personal diary, could be subpoenaed."

The records were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and a lawsuit.

Over time, Clinton's schedules offer less and less information. In 1993, her first year as first lady, the records include the names of people she met with. But federal archivists blotted out those names, citing privacy issues. In the spring of 1994, Clinton's schedulers appear to have stopped including names -- so her days are filled with one "private meeting" after another, with no mention of whom she met with or why....In later years, the records are even more spare. On June 25, 1997, for example, Clinton is shown as having taken part in three successive meetings in the White House residence, stretching from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. They are labeled simply "private meeting."...

When it came to overseas travel, the papers show that Clinton did spend some time conferring with foreign leaders on strategic issues. But they suggest she spent a lot more time fulfilling the traditional role of the first lady: meeting the leaders' wives and focusing on women's and children's issues....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clinton20mar20,0,847774,full.story

[PinkTiger]

1. If everyone would simply step back into the Wayback Machine for a second...

I think it will become crystal clear why she was terse with the written material. Her life had been invaded so much by scandal after scandal; and I think you learn as much about foreign policy when you hang with women and children as you do when paling around with the men. So what? So What?
SO FUCKING WHAT?

[papau]

2. Little to support experience assertion" - not quite true - but nice try

[lligrd]

3. You're Right, Failed Experience Is More Like It

She failed in her Health Care attempt and then went on to act the way the Repugs told her a First Lady was supposed to act.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. sorry, mispost

[papau]

5. A set of schedules - 11,000 pages - justifies no such conclusion - and "best prepared" is not

"Little to support experience assertion" when the assertion is that she is prepared.

You changed the meaning of the "best prepared" line - perhaps to shorten it to fit - I do not know

All I know is that the article does not say what the thread title says.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. I deleted my response to you because I thought maybe your argument...

was with the article, and not my subject line. But I see the argument is with the subject line. I think frankly that the article doesn't give enough evidence from the records to support the conclusion I quoted part of in the subject line.

I really do try to post articles here in a neutral way, presenting them as they are. I think it's valuable for supporters of both candidates to be aware of both positive and negative press. The only point I was trying to make was the point I thought the article made. Whether that point is supported by the info in the article, or is a valid or fair point, I leave for DUers to decide.

If you saw the subject line as a misreading of the article, I apologize.