What if the reason the Clintons want their papers sealed is that

[hedgehog]

there is no there, there? It would be pretty embarrassing if the papers were examined and that few traces of Senator CLinton's influence could be found.

[BootinUp]

1. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3673917&mesg_id=3674124

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. That's Won't Stop The Bashers

I am beginning to find them tragic... Once was once scorn has melted into pity...

[rudy23]

3. It shouldn't stop the bashers, as long as Sen. Clinton runs on "experience"

if the papers show she really has none.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. She Will Be Fine

I don't want the Clintons to release any more information than the law allows...

But keep supporting your candidate... I used to laugh when The Hill was eviscerating her opponents...Now I almost shed a tear...

[Skip Intro]

6. Jim4Wes - please make that post its own thread

[BootinUp]

13. ok. when I have some time to respond

to a whole thread. But I am going to be offline for most of the next week. Feel free to do it if you would like to have it up right away.

[Cameron27]

12. Thanks for the info ...

[mmonk]

44. Which of course is why Russert and his ilk

are always chosen to do the debates. It was clear to me he tries to be a dishonest verbal hitman for the GOP.

[FrenchieCat]

4. You are making implications and innuendos, same as pig face

Tim Russert did while he held up papers from 1994 as props.

That's not a good thing!

[hedgehog]

8. Are the papers sealed? Why? nt

[Lucinda]

14. It's in the first response

Taylor Marsh:
"After spending time on the phone today with a source very familiar with archive procedures, the truth of the matter is quite different. The letter Russert held up was from 1994. It's also standard operating procedures for all presidents. Once documents start being produced by a president, something has to be decided about what to do with them in case something happens to the president. I was told it was standard for presidents to choose the 12 year maximum to hold the documents, which are put in categories like national security, senior administration, secret, etc. The highest level documents often stay secret, and with regards to Bill Clinton specifically, are then run by Bruce Lindsay to decide whether to make them public. What Russert didn't bother to add at the time of his document waving drama, was that right after Bill Clinton left the presidency he asked that his documents be released immediately. But after George W. Bush came into office, he decided that presidential papers would be kept secret indefinitely, something Bill Clinton openly fought against, including opposing Bush on the 12 year secrecy procedure, but especially on the new indefinite stand. So back and forth the conversation went, with Bush pushing back on Bill Clinton.

Russert played a card that was not only disingenuous and meant to bring in Bill Clinton into a debate where Hillary Clinton is running for president, but did so using innuendos and outright falsehoods, according to any objective player. Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune pointed out on MSNBC today (video up soon) that there was nothing whatsoever unusual about the Clinton archives issue. Warren then went on to say that when you speak of Rudy Giuliani, the same cannot be said. Warren's paper will have a big piece on the issue this Sunday. Wonder if Russert will be interested? Doubtful. By holding the 1994 document up, Russert acted like this was really a new event. It was a charade of monumental proportions."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/russert-leads-boys-in-hil_b_70644.html

[hedgehog]

16. President Clinton could release his papers today if he chose to do so.

Why won't he?


I know George I and George II have theirs locked up along with Ronnie's, but then none of them is running for President this time around.

[Lucinda]

23. How?

[hedgehog]

30. Just write a letter releasing them. Then it's off his plate and on someone else's. nt

[Lucinda]

33. I thought that wasnt legal?

[hedgehog]

35. What 's not legal? Let President and Senator Clinton come flat out and

clearly ask for all their papers to be released. End of story.

[Lucinda]

36. The following makes it sound as if Bush has prevented it from happening

" What Russert didn't bother to add at the time of his document waving drama, was that right after Bill Clinton left the presidency he asked that his documents be released immediately. But after George W. Bush came into office, he decided that presidential papers would be kept secret indefinitely, something Bill Clinton openly fought against, including opposing Bush on the 12 year secrecy procedure, but especially on the new indefinite stand. So back and forth the conversation went, with Bush pushing back on Bill Clinton."

Why would Clinton fight against the Bush, as posted above, if he had the ability to make it public?

[hedgehog]

39. Then why did Xenator Clinton keep saying the other night that it was up to President Clinton? nt

[Lucinda]

40. I assumed that was because it was his presidency and would be his place to work on it

But I dunno. I'm trying to figure it all out too.

[JackORoses]

7. First Lady doesn't count as Experience.

Laura Bush should not be President, neither should Shrillary.

If there is no there there, then what are they hiding?

[hedgehog]

9. I'm wondering if the reason the papers are sealed is that they

would show very little "experience". That could be a lot more damaging than any other possible secrets.

[cali]

11. That's ridiculous.

There's plenty of accounts, written during her tenure as first lady, that put her right in the mix on certain policy issues.

[AngryAmish]

32. If that is true, then it would be improper not to release the papers

She was first lady - the wife of the president. If she was involved on policy then we have a right to see her papers - period.

If Donna Shalala ran for office we would demand her papers be made public because she was working in a government office on the taxpayers dime.

If Hillary was on the political side, then say so. That should not be discoverable.

[cali]

10. I think it depends on the first lady's actual experience.

But then, Hillary Clinton is also a Senator and has been for 7 years. Not to mention her years of activism.

I find this sexist crap highly offensive.

[JackORoses]

26. yes, and in her time in the Senate, she has made such brilliant decisions.

IWR, anyone?

Just having the job shouldn't be the determinant in accounting for experience,
making the right decisions is more important.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Shrillary

Right wing constructions are always so cute... You almost gave me a moist spot...Almost...

[JackORoses]

25. I made that up myself just this morning. Quite the entendre don't you think?

And I'm no Repug, I just want a real Democrat for our candidate.

Someone with real experience, real accomplishments, and real vision.

Someone like Al Gore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. If You Made That Up Yourself Jessica Alba Is Sitting On My Lap

DSB

[JackORoses]

41. hmm, intriguing riddle...Are you a Toilet?

[wyldwolf]

17. Neal Boortz, is that you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I Can Have Lots Of Fun With The Name "Jack" But I'll Resist My Darker Angels

For now...

[emilyg]

24. No - it's Hannitty.

[oasis]

22. The Clinton's are holding the line on principle. (eom)

[JackORoses]

27. that is the best laugh I've had today...Yes, she has such high principles when it comes to secrets

but when it comes to Wars or Corporate Power, those principles go straight down the shittubes.

[Whisp]

29. Shrillary... o yah.

got you pegged.
That is probably the Only thing I will defend Senator Clinton on, stupid sexist crap talk like that. There's enough to wear away at her in policies, votes, etc., but lowering it to Me Tarzan, You Jane is just obnoxious.

[wyldwolf]

18. What if the reason the Clintons want their papers sealed is that

they reveal that Hillary was completely in charge for 8 years and Bill was just there because of his charisma?

[BootinUp]

19. lol nt

[wyldwolf]

20. no no... check this out. What if the REAL REAL reason the Clintons want their papers sealed is...

...they weren't printed on recycled paper and Hillary doesn't want to hear it from the netroots?

[BootinUp]

21. Your satirical theories

are an interesting mirror image to so much of the tripe that is written in the netroots.

[hijinx87]

28. this makes even less sense

than your "bob dole" theory regarding hillary's motivation for running
for president.

and that really is saying something.

[hedgehog]

31. It's my turn isn't just the reason she's running,

it's also the reason we're supposed to vote for her. Yesterday she expanded that to be it's a woman's turn (to break into the all boys club), and since she's the only woman running.....

[hijinx87]

37. Ibid. n/t

[Catchawave]

34. She's running for President for heaven's sake.....

we never did uncover Bush's TANG years, though he sent us to war, and won re-election.

I don't like secrets :(

[calimary]

42. If I'm not mistaken, it's not either of them who had anything to do with

the Clinton Presidential papers being sealed. It was one of the first things georgie-poo did after he first stole the Oval Office. He signed an executive order, as I recall, that sealed reagan's papers (as the formal embargo was just about to run out and allow them to be released to the public), AND his daddy's papers, AND Clinton's papers also.

And of course, nobody in the media batted an eye about it. I think they were too busy fighting for a place near the front of the room where all those cutesy new nicknames were being given out.

:mad:

[illinoisprogressive]

43. Hedgehog, I highly doubt it after 8 years.