Hillary's Secrets

[Sadie4629]

What do you all think about this article? I don't know what to think. On the one hand, I don't like all the secrecy, but on the other hand, every word in those documents will be analyzed and Sen. Clinton could be crucified for having a comma in the wrong place. Also, I don't know anything about the source. Is it another News Max kind of thing?

Hillary's Secrets
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Politics: Two million pages of Hillary Clinton's files as the most active first lady in history are locked up until after next year's election. Candidates are usually proud of their record. Does she have things to hide?

The Los Angeles Times reports that calendars, memos and reams of other records from the office of the first lady in the Clinton administration will stay off-limits to public scrutiny until after the 2008 presidential election, according to federal archivists at the Clinton presidential library.

While former President Bill Clinton has authorized lots of the records regarding Hillary's secret health care task force in 1993-94 to be publicly available, more than 1,000 pages have been censored, purportedly because they contain confidential advice protected under the Presidential Records Act.

*more at link*
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=271983072736809

[LeftCoast]

1. Wasn't it W who added all the time to the release of Presidential records?

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

2. It's almost a non-issue. We didn't need Nixon's tapes -- which are

laden with bigoted remarks across a wide spectrum of American life -- to know that he was ornery as catshit.

We didn't need the recordings of John and Robert Kennedy trying to persuade Southern governors to allow black young people to enter schools and colleges to know that they were right and the Southern governors resisting and mocking them were wrong.

In the Democratic primary, I think most of us know why we're supporting the candidate we're supporting.

[Eagle_Eye]

3. The article ignores that the documents have to be reviewed before they are released

There are thousands of pages. Each one has to be read and reviewed before release. Otherwise they can be taken out of context and confuse the casual reader.

The editorial writer obviously has a bias against changing the current health care system. I would bet the writer is in good health and has excellent health care insurance. The writer has no sympathy for the poor and the unemployed; typical republican.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I'm hearing different things on the subject.

First, the Bush Administration intentionally put a lock down on presidential papers when he first came into office. More to protect his own father's sordid past, most like. And possibly to hide Bill Clinton's very hands-on style. They say that Bill's handwriting is on a lot of the documentation, showing that he was very involved with the process. This George Bush would not like us to see because of the obvious lapse on 9/11/01. If Bill Clinton had a process that was working through the millenium bombing era and through the end of his Administration, why would George Bush have dropped it?

But then there's the Sandy Berger document theft and it involved papers involving NSA policies prior to the millenium bombing and I have to ask why? Why did he steal more than one copy of the same document? I don't see how it had anything to do with retrieving the document to refresh his memory prior to providing testimony to Congress, because one copy would have sufficed.

So, I don't have an answer for you. Because, Hillary isn't running just on her record, she's running against her husband's. Which ironically is only fair because it's for better or worse. She has name recognition because of him, both good and bad. So, don't assume it's Hillary's actions or inactions which will cause an issue for her. It could also have something to do with Bill Clinton's Administration.

Then there's another theory. What if both the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration mutually want something kept secret? What do they both have in common? Answer: The neo-cons. Scooter Libby and his pals were very much operative in both Administrations. I think this is plausible, because if there was something very negative about Hillary or Bill which wouldn't also negatively impact on the Bush Administration, YOU KNOW Rove would have milked it by now.

So, sorry to be of little help on this one, except to point out that anything that is kept secret is going to be looked at negatively against Hillary because it leaves too many unanswered questions.

[Perry Logan]

5. This makes little sense. Why would Hillary "run against" her husband's superb record?

You might want to brush up on the Clinton record--the entire record, as opposed to what the right-wing media likes to talk about. Like many people at DU, you seem to have uncritically absorbed some Republican talking points.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. It was not excellent. It was better than most in my lifetime, but it was not excellent.

NAFTA, The telecommunications bill, Neo-cons in the White House in both Administrations. The rest I won't even get into because the right-wing had more than a fair shot at him with a 70 million dollar investigation using a corrupt special prosecutor, so, if anything, Bill Clinton's was the most widely open Administration of any in my lifetime. However, it was not excellent. And you might as well prepare yourself because that little "tag" that they use when they swiftboat someone is already occurring. And in Hillary's case, it doesn't even have anything to do with her. For some Independents, they won't vote for Hillary because they don't want Bill Clinton back in the oval office. It's unfair, but it's something she is going to have to prepare herself for.

[Bitwit1234]

6. The republicans had already declared

that they had been doing everything they could to check into swift boating Hillary guess they have started.

And damn what difference does it make what papers she doesn't want released. She had been in the public eye for over 20 years and her life is an open book.

How about all the other democratic candidates. What have they done in their life. Since a lot have not BEEN in the public eye they ought to be worried about what could be brought forth about them.

THE ONES THAT "WE" SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH FINDING OUT ABOUT ARE THE REPUBLICANS. WE SHOULD SEARCH AND DIVE FOR THEIR RECORDS.