home

National Archives to Release 11,000 PagesWith Hillary's Schedule as First Lady

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:24:45 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The National Archives tomorrow will release more than 11,000 pages of Hillary Clinton's travel schedules from her years as First Lady.

The Archives said in a statement on Tuesday that the schedules are from the staff files of Patti Solis Doyle, Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign manager who was her chief scheduler in the White House.

“Arranged chronologically, these records document in detail the activities of the First Lady, including meetings, trips, speaking engagements and social activities for the eight years of the Clinton Administration,” the statement said.

Of the more than 11,000 pages to be released, 4,746 pages have redactions, mostly relating to “the privacy interests of third parties,” including Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and home addresses, the Archives said.

I'm not sure why her social activities are relevant, but I suspect in total, the documents will substantiate her experience argument.

< Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on DC Handgun Law | MI and FL Superdelegates May Be Seated >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    National Archives to Release 11,000 PagesWith Hillary's Schedule as First Lady | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    11,000 pages for 8 yrs. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    A very busy person.  No wonder she's able to keep up the pace in the campaign.

    Maybe she used a really big font (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    I'm glad this is being released. Whatever it shows, it's good to have it out there.

    [ Parent ]
    Though we will be left to wonder.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    what is in the redacted bits.

    Boy...our govt. sure loves that black magic marker!

    [ Parent ]

    asdf (none / 0) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    11,000 pages is only 22 reams of paper - just over two standard file boxes worth of paper.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe it's 3.7 pages per day (none / 0) (#49)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    If you count every single day and ignore leap years.  For whatever that is worth.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but it's just a schedule (none / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    Go here, do this, see that person. It's over 3.5 pages for every day in office. She was definitely not sitting on her a** eating bon-bons.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Hillary. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST


    This is about taking the media narrative back (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    even if it is slightly negative about her.

    Obama had his speech this AM, Hillary will try to dominate the news cycle in the PM...

    very smart move...if it was someone other than Hillary, and someone other than Obama had made an AM speech, it would work too...

    Judicial Watch (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    released the info, not Hillary. They are hardly a pro-Clinton organization.

    [ Parent ]
    Not entirely true (none / 0) (#15)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:54:45 PM EST
    they sued for it...
    NA releasing it
    Clinton & Bush have to clear the release

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention that (none / 0) (#16)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    HRC's campaign IS pushing this as news...although it was announced 3-4-08

    [ Parent ]
    If she is pushing the news on this (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    It must mean the records are not only voluminous, but also support her experience argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    I don't think the Obama campaign is going to find anything to bury her with in those papers.

    [ Parent ]
    The source of the news article (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:46:31 PM EST
    was Judicial Watch -- not Hillary's campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    I follow (none / 0) (#189)
    by Virginian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:43:41 PM EST
    I'm macro-analyzing...but you're right

    [ Parent ]
    Here's Judicial Watch's announcement (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    here

    [ Parent ]
    Her presser (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    was pretty well done...IIRC she had good responses to questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Tom Daschle was on TV a little while ago (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    complaining that while its nice that the WH schedules are being disclosed, "it's not enough," because Clinton still hasn't released her tax returns.

    He then went on to whinge about "the well-known secrecy of the Clintons...."  Jeez, if he wants to support Obama, fine, but does he really need to perpetuate the old Republican talking points from the 1990s against Bill and Hillary Clinton?

    Tom Daschle is a tool. It especially annoys me when he waxes eloquent about Obama's early opposition to the war.  During that same period, Daschle was rallying Democrats to support the war, because he was convinced that opposing it was political suicide for Congressional Democrats, and the Democrats would do better running on the economy.

    [ Parent ]

    What are they going to say once (none / 0) (#125)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    Clinton releases her latest returns and there are decades of returns in comparison to Obama's 2006 returns?

    [ Parent ]
    But part of the Rezko deal for Obama (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
    could show up in tax returns -- if taking the tax credits for having a historic landmark house, as approved by the board on which MO served. . . .  Too bad no one in the media will know how to read that, of course.  But others of us do.  Are any Obama returns online yet?

    [ Parent ]
    do your own research. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    Now about those earmarks and tax returns...

    the earmarks are already out there. when and if she's the dem. nominee, then maybe she should release the tax returns. as it is, she filed an annual financial statement, that's available as a public record.

    frankly, the whole "tax return" thing is just another red herring. exactly what is it you think is going to suddenly be exposed to the harsh glare of the sun, they owned stock in "the bunny ranch" or something?

    trust me when i tell you that if there was anything, anything at all worth making noise about on those returns, the rightwingnut smear machine would have already told you about it, as would drudge. that they haven't should be a clue as to just how boring they probably are.

    The obsession (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    appears to be with the donations to WJC library.  People want to see who may be buying favors.  I would not want my donations made public.  The causes I am committed to are no one's business.

    [ Parent ]
    that may well be true. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    if so, they aren't going to appear on the clinton's 1040's. if they show up, they will be on the library's 990, which is already a matter of public record.

    so either there is something else they think they're going to find on those 1040's, or they have no clue what they're talking about and are just flailing around, like two virgins in the dark.

    [ Parent ]

    you're behind the curve (none / 0) (#51)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    on or about April 15 is when she says the tax returns will be released.  Not when she is the nominee.  Presumably she realized that the "when she is the nominee" standard looked a little absurd next to her claim that Obama needs to be vetted before the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    i noticed that. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    what is it you think we don't already know about sen. clinton, former pres. clinton and probably daughter chelsea, that is going to suddenly be revealed on those tax returns?

    geez, they've been subject to a media and legal ongoing proctology exam for almost 20 years now; i know more about them then i know about my own family! frankly, more than i really want to know.

    if that doesn't qualify as "vetting", then the word has no meaning.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know what they might have (none / 0) (#71)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    that's kind of the point of releasing them.  So people can what's in them.

    As for the "proctology exam" that all ended in 2000.  It's been 8 years.  And stuff at the end, like the Rich pardon, faded rather quickly because nobody cared anymore.

    If you're so confident that there's nothing there, there's no reason to complain when people ask for full disclosure.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes there is (none / 0) (#79)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    when you keep asking as if it hadn't been answered 20 times.

    There's not going to be anything there. So shut up and wait.

    [ Parent ]

    Relax (none / 0) (#143)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    Your touchiness belies your confidence.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it belies my intolerance (none / 0) (#190)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM EST
    with asinine repeated questions about something that has been asked and answered.

    [ Parent ]
    why until April 15? (none / 0) (#61)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    to release tax returns dating back to 2000?

    For that matter, there oughtta be pressure on McCain to release his tax returns, too.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (none / 0) (#66)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    Maybe the copy machine wasn't ready from day one.

    [ Parent ]
    She's probably being strategic (none / 0) (#110)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    Get it all out there at once and force the media etc. to focus (with only a week until PA) rather than go over everything terribly closely.

    I don't much care about her tax returns--or Sens. Obama's or McCain's for that matter. I don't think they tell us anything useful.

    [ Parent ]

    As I understand it, (none / 0) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    Obama's campaign is requesting the earmarks that she might have requested, but that never moved forward.  Sort of strikes me as a thought police kind of question.

    "But the question is what earmarks did you think about Mr. Jones?"

    [ Parent ]

    Terrific research site for earmarks (none / 0) (#103)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    Just for future reference: this site allows you to search for any earmarks sponsored by any candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    and for future reference.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    the Seattle Times did there best to get them all, but they didn't.

    In the meantime, however, the US Govt is now required to track them all in an easily searchable on-line database.

    (Umm, that would be because of the Obama-Coburn bill)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama-Coburn (none / 0) (#161)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM EST
    I keep hearing about that bill but I can't find it.  Do you have a bill number that I can look up?

    [ Parent ]
    I googled.. (none / 0) (#167)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM EST
    ... and got this  on the first link.

    The Bill was S. 2590.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    Well, one, that appears to be a Coburn bill so really his name should go first (nit-picky, I know, but usually the person who does the most work gets first billing).  

    Also, the Coburn-Obama bill doesn't deal with earmarks.  The earmark transperancy bill was S. 1; Sen. Reid primary sponsor.  Obama not a cosponsor.  

    [ Parent ]

    doesn't deal with earmarks? (none / 0) (#176)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    Where in the world are you getting that notion from?  It's all about earmarks (and all other federal "awards")

    [ Parent ]
    From the bill text (none / 0) (#178)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:54:03 PM EST
    Just did a search and it doesn't contain the word "earmark" or "earmarks".  

    From my reading, it seems to apply to any federal awards and grants which certainly COULD include earmarks.  But I don't see any requirement that an item would have to be identified as an "earmark" or that its requesting member would have to be listed.  

    S. 1 does include such requirements.  Also, as S2590 was passed first, it would be weird for S. 1 to include those requirements if they were already in law.

    So I don't believe this would actually deal with the earmark transparency issue.  I think that was a different - later - bill.

    [ Parent ]

    amazing . . . (none / 0) (#185)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM EST
    You seem to be so intent on denigrating anything positive that Obama has done that first you bring to all of our attention that Coburn must have done more work on it because it was called Coburn-Obama and not Obama-Coburn; and now you're saying that it doesn't cover earmarks because it doesn't have the word earmark in it.

    There is no commentator on the planet that thinks this doesn't cover earmarks.  The word earmark is not used, because it covers more than earmarks.  In fact, it covers all:

        * Contracts
        * Grants, block grants, formula grants, and project grants
        * Cooperative Agreements
        * Loans
        * Direct Payments for specified and unrestricted use
        * Insurance
        * Indirect financial assistance


    [ Parent ]

    earmarks (none / 0) (#186)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Earmarks are simply congressionally-directed grants.  If the database does not require the earmark note which member requested it, than it doesn't do what you say it would.  I see nothing in the bill that would require this information.  Is the database up?  Because then we could just check it and see.  

    [ Parent ]
    the premilinary website is up (none / 0) (#188)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:50:15 PM EST
    and is here.

    I don't think you can break it out by legislator, but you can break it out by congressional district

    [ Parent ]

    S. 2590 (none / 0) (#171)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    I think it was called the Coburn-Obama.  But it's been passed and signed into law.  "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that "will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans."

    [ Parent ]
    The other day on Yahoo I believe or CNN (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    The political ticker said: "Obama: What is Hillary hiding?" I am glad to see some papers starting to be released. It will keep them busy for a while. Like a day. Then they will start asking for more and more. The good news is that when she wins the nomination everything will be out there already.

    Yup. That will be (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    the Obama narrative too.....what's behind those redacted segments?  Whooooo...she's hiding something!

    [ Parent ]
    Let me anticipate the attacks: (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by liminal on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    Sure, that redacted bit looks like a phone number.  I mean, it's the right shape and size, and it's just where one would put a phone number were one keeping Clinton's schedule, but Hillary Clinton is the "most secretive politician in America" as David Axelrod told me, so I think it's fair to conclude that the redactions did not involve personal information, but rather secret codes from evil multimillionaires who donated huge sums of money to AIDS research in exchange for 15 get out of jail free cards personally signed by Bill Clinton.

    /snark.

    [ Parent ]

    Aren't all presidential libraries non-profits? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    If they receive tax-exempt status then, I would suspect, the donor information has to be made public anyway.

    Hillary's Experience (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by OxyCon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    You know one of the many sad things in this election is how Obama's supporters denigrate and attack Hillary's record of accomplishments and all of the efforts she made in trying to accomplish great things.
    What makes it sad is that when Bill Clinton was running for President, the right wingers were hellbent on demonizing Hillary as an overbearing b*tch who would be way too involved in running government affairs which, according to them, she had no right to be involved in as a mere First Lady.
    Now we have Obama's supporters denigrating her efforts and her involvement in President Clinton's White House.
    President Clinton even said years ago when he ran for office, as a way to try to dispel the right wing attacks on Hillary that when you vote for him, you get two.
    It's because (none / 0) (#92)
    by mm on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:06:47 PM EST
    They support a NEW kind of politics that rejects the "politics of personal destruction".

    Obama's campaign is a re-run of the 2000 Bush/Gore election.  He's the Ant-Clinton.

    He'd have nothing to say if he didn't have WJC's successful 2 term presidency to disparage.

    [ Parent ]

    1/3 (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    Now about those earmarks and tax returns...

    Waiting on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    Where's his 2005 earmarks?  Where's his Illinois State Legislature records?  Where's his tax returns for every year he's been in political office?

    [ Parent ]
    present n/t (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:47:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not qualified (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    Apparently there wasn't anyone qualified to keep track of his legislative records or his campaign data.  pfft

    [ Parent ]
    2005 (none / 0) (#21)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    Obama already released his 2005 earmarks.

    All I did was google "obama 2005 earmarks" and I found it easily.

    You can see them here.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama isn't good with paperwork (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    he says, so give the guy a break, huh?  He'll get around to it. . . .

    Or we could just ask Republicans, because we can bet that their oppo researchers have a lot of files on him already.  And on Obama's minister, and on Obama's buddy Rezko, and on other things Michelle has said, and much more.

    [ Parent ]

    Has anybody asked him to produce (none / 0) (#36)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:17:03 PM EST
    something that he's failed to produce?

    If there is some evidence that's he's been less than forthcoming on producing any records that have been requested of him, could you please point it out to me?

    Otherwise, it seems that a comparison between Obama and Clinton on this point is not particularly illuminating.

    [ Parent ]

    State senate schedule and other records (none / 0) (#42)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    I'm inept at linking, but google obama schedule request mike allen, and it's the first item.

    Caveat: I didn't do a lot of research on this, and the story is a year old, so maybe this has been resolved with more disclosure.

    [ Parent ]

    Disclosure (none / 0) (#52)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    "In the state Senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois.

    "The stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn't have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn't intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn't have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues."

    Nobody has argued that any such records exist that Obama has concealed from disclosure.

    [ Parent ]

    The article says that other newspapers' requests (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    Went unanswered. And I guess I don't completely believe that he didn't keep a schedule. Even I keep a schedule.

    [ Parent ]
    do you still have your schedule (none / 0) (#75)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    from 12 years ago?

    [ Parent ]
    In the age of computers? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:57:29 PM EST
    Yes I do. It's costless to keep. I started keeping a calendar in 1995 when I had my first real job after graduate school.

    But I admit to being a wee bit more detail-oriented than Sen. Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    And (none / 0) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    These papers should be (or should have been) retained (probably by law.  

    [ Parent ]
    Are you calling him a liar? (none / 0) (#126)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:45:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There's been no more disclosure from Obama (none / 0) (#59)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    on this. Clinton campaign was asking for the records again in a conference call today.

    [ Parent ]
    Please see (none / 0) (#44)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    requests for Illinois Leg papers

    Tax returns for all years in political life

    [ Parent ]

    Point to one instance (none / 0) (#122)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    where somebody has asked him for records that he possesses and won't disclose. Make sure you post a link, please.

    [ Parent ]
    Taxes (none / 0) (#130)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    Here's one (none / 0) (#73)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    Obama, after initial refusal, releases all earmark requests.

    Also

    Obama's politically expedient ethics conversions. Earmarks latest example.

    [ Parent ]

    and where is HRC's disclosure? (none / 0) (#76)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    This is amazing.

    Obama, after intially refusing, releases them.

    And this is supposed to be worse than HRC not disclosing them at all?

    Up is down.  Sky is ocean . . .

    [ Parent ]

    The question was (none / 0) (#88)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    "Has he ever refused?" not "has Hillary released hers?"

    Do try to read and follow along.

    [ Parent ]

    Sometimes its easy to forget what a (none / 0) (#93)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    particular thread of posts is in response to. These posts are all in response to a request from digdugboy:

    If there is some evidence that's he's been less than forthcoming on producing any records that have been requested of him, could you please point it out to me?

    Other posters have been obliging him with the evidence he requested.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing in the article speaks of (none / 0) (#124)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    explicit refusal. You're conflating failed to do something within a certain time with refused, I think.

    [ Parent ]
    Your words... (none / 0) (#133)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    "less than forthcoming" seem to fit the bill.

    And there are still the tax returns from years other than 2006, aren't there? Pretty cheeky to be demanding tax returns from 2000 on from your opponent when you've only released 2006 of your own returns.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh I see (none / 0) (#144)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    Well I think you are conflating Hillary's failure to release her taxes within a specified time period with refused, I think

    [ Parent ]
    so lets get this straight... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:07:03 PM EST
    Its ok that Obama hasnt released his records, because he'll release anything anyone will ask him for...which no one will know what to ask about since they dont have his records.

    The new kind of politics are remarkably convenient.

    [ Parent ]

    Relaxed (none / 0) (#78)
    by QuakerInABasement on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    I'm glad to see that the moderators have relaxed their rigid insistence for "staying on topic."

    [ Parent ]
    April 15 (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    her campaign has said the tax returns will be released.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    That she will release all her tax returns since Bill left the WH (they released all theirs from the time they were in Arkansas,and had to release them every year they were in the WH)

    [ Parent ]
    HRC's "Experience" (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYDem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    I am happy to see the disclosure, most of which I suspect will be of the "ho-hum" variety.  I don't get the reference to "...the dcouments will substantiate her experience argument...".  What's the experience?  That she traveled as First Lady? That she attended conferences?  I thought that "experience" was supposed to mean actual time evaluating polilcy and making decisions based on that evaluation.  On that score, HRC is basically on the same page as Obama.

    There are many ways to get (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    experience.  Reading policy papers and making decisions goes to the elected officials.  That doesn't mean that people who were part of the process didn't get experience.  In fact it is the experiential experience that fills in so many of the blank spots and the ability to be in conversations and to know the dynamics that is experience as well.  Hillary haters discount this because it is valid experience and Obama does not have it.  Talk to someone like Joe Wilson or Richard Holbrook or Wesley Clark and scores of retired generals who have had meetings with her and their answer is a resounding "YES" she does.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I can't imagine (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    better on-the-job training than being married to the compulsively talky and thoughtful Bill Clinton.  The only way you could get more experience would be by being the head of state of some other country first.


    [ Parent ]
    well, having a security clearance (none / 0) (#64)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    so as to know what was really going on with some issues would help . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Security clearance (none / 0) (#82)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    If that's the measure, than Clinton again has more experience than Obama.  Because I'm gonna assume that most state senators don't have one.  So that's security clearance for four more years.

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody is claiming that (none / 0) (#148)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:04:46 PM EST
    Obama has more experience than Clinton.  Rather, Clinton is making the implausible assertion that she's SOOOO much more experienced than Obama the centerpiece of her campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I guess (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    umpty years in the Arkansas governor's office, 8 years in the White House and 8 as U.S. Senator isn't soooooo much more experience than 8 in the Illinois state legislature and 2 in the U.S. Senate.

    You guys really need to come to grips with reality.  You have some good arguments for why Obama would make a better president.  Pretending that HRC's government experience doesn't count isn't one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#165)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    DC Wonk implied that her experience in the White House was not complete without a security clearance.  So if it's a metric for her ....

    [ Parent ]
    no I did not (none / 0) (#172)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    I was answering the snarky question of "what more do you want", and so I replied "a security clearance would be nice"

    I've also already written (use Cntl-F to find) that in my view Clinton has the edge in experience.

    Please note context when talking about my posts.

    [ Parent ]

    too many snarks to handle (none / 0) (#174)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    sorry -- no, I was responding to the comment about being married to a talkative Bill for eight years.  Since she could not sit in on any security meeting, didn't have a clearance, etc etc., those eight years might be less than if she had had a clearance.

    But (sigh) must we make mountains of of molehills.  I've already written, now twice in the past hour, that she has more experience.

    [ Parent ]

    "Basically on the same page"? She (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:57:13 PM EST
    has twice the amount of time as a Senator. Right off the bat, that's a big difference. And then there's her advocacy of SCHIP as first lady, for one.

    And you know, attending conferences is better then not attending meetings at all.

    [ Parent ]

    and way better (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:05:53 PM EST
    than failing to convene any subcommittee meetings because the parent committee has already covered the subject without your attendance.

    [ Parent ]
    is it better (none / 0) (#150)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    than failing to read the NIE before you vote to invade Iraq?

    [ Parent ]
    Experience? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    You thought wrong.  Yours is far too narrow a definition of experience in government or in politics.  Very few people would qualify to run for office under your guidelines.

    [ Parent ]
    I experience is so important to you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by OxyCon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    then please do inform us of Obama's wealth of experience and how they make him superior to the other candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    goodness (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    I guess we are on to complaining about donations to the clinton library and tax records.
    soon to be donations to the clinton library.
    The Obama campaign will (none / 0) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    grasp whatever it takes. They are not going to find anything in this schedule.

    And she is not going to give them much else.

    I think the "experience" argument (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    is another ridiculous issue.

    imo, just like Ellin Woods' "experience" as Tiger's wife will be of no help if she ever had figure out to fade a 2 iron to a tight back right pin from 240 yards with the Masters on the line, no one's "experience" as a potus spouse, senator, POW, whatever, will help when you need to figure out the correct course of action when your naval base gets bombed to the bottom of the harbor, 50+ diplomats get kidnapped by a foreign country, or your entire banking system is on the verge of collapse.

    Regardless of what specific "experience" they may or may not have, you have to trust that the candidate you vote for will have a better ability to deal with the responsibility and issues a sitting potus is hit with than that other candidate over there.

    Using the candidate's relative "experience" as a litmus test of whether they would make the decision that you would think is right is pretty non-predictive, imo, but I do understand we don't have much else to go by besides our hope that they'll make the decisions that uphold the guiding values we believe in and they said they believed in when they were campaigning...

    Agree and disagree (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    I don't play golf, but my knowledge of other sports suggests that sports are mostly learned by physical practice.  Of course there is discussion of ideas and methods among practitioners. But it's the physical--and probably mental--practice that matters more than anything else.  Thus Mr. Wood's discussions with his wife, while they may better her game, would not turn her into a great golfer.

    Sen. Clinton's experience in being in the White House seems to me to be entirely different. In public policy, much can be learned from discussion with others and being involved in making decisions. And I absolutely think she has a much better idea of how to run a White House than does Sen. Obama, based on her experience as First Lady.

    Now, the part that I agree with: You have to trust that the candidate you support will do better than the other guy. When it comes down to it, you're right. I happen to put a lot of stock in the idea that in this regard, her experience does matter. The fact that she has been involved in public policy and public life for so long gives me more confidence in her ability to make the right decisions. (I understand you don't agree with the last part of this; there we part company again.)

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, I think a poster below makes (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    the point the best:

    If the expereince of being a potus' spouse is the determinate factor, then no one in America is nearly as qualified to be our next potus as Laura Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    I responded to that poster (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    It is not the fact of her marriage to the President that gives her her qualifications. That is a red herring.

    [ Parent ]
    its as insulting as it is vapid (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    what was Pickles doing while Hillary was on the Watergate committee.
    before anyone ever heard of Bill.
    even in arkansas.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    And would anyone argue that Eleanor Roosevelt was not more knowledgable about the federal government than Mamie Eisenhower (or have the senators on the Hill)?

    [ Parent ]
    whoops (none / 0) (#97)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    meant "half the senators on the hill"

    [ Parent ]
    Knowledge is not my point. (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:34:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And being on the Watergate (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    committee therefore innately imbues her with the ability to make the right decisions as potus?

    [ Parent ]
    No experience can guarantee (none / 0) (#123)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    one will make the right decisions, but it can make it more likely. I am more apt to make the right decisions in my job because I have years of experience doing it and have learned from that experience. The Watergate committee was just the beginning of Hillary's experience in government.

    And, BTW, experience cannot "innately" imbue anything. Look up "innately". "I do not think it means what you think it means."--Inigo Montoya

    [ Parent ]

    My point is, (none / 0) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    and I think the history of potusii shows, a candidate's relative "experience" is not predictive of whether the candidate will make the "right" decisions as potus.

    I know, potusii is not a word.

    [ Parent ]

    It should be. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Watergate is more trouble than its worth (none / 0) (#155)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    For Clinton and she should avoid it.  It brings up her failing to pass the DC bar and the Zeifman accusations.  Zeifman seems a bit nutty but she should stay away from that stuff altogether.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand your point (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    but I'm not convinced that the difference in the candidate's previous relative closeness to or distance from a potus is the determinative factor in whether they'll make the right decisions as potus.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand that's our dispute (none / 0) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    I think of it not just as closeness to the president, but rather deep involvement in policy and policy decisions. But I understand that others don't view it the same way.

    I'm sure Sen. Clinton will, if elected, make decisions I fundamentally disagree with. For myself, I think I will have more disagreements with Sen. Obama, if elected.

    [ Parent ]

    Nicely said, (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The level of interest and (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:03:38 PM EST
    participation has a lot to do with the any person's experience and the quality of that experience.  Laura Bush is not known to be that interested in government and policy and she didn't pursue an education to prepare for it either.

    Abigail Adams probably would have been a great politician in her day had the culture allowed women to participate in government.  Most historians agree that she was an important influence on how our democracy was shaped even though she herself never held public office.  She might have been a better president than her husband was - we'll never know - but I'd say she had experience and the level of interest that would have qualified her for the job.

    I know that the idea that First Ladies and other political wives can be important players in their own right is inconvenient to the Obama campaign, but the reality is that there are many women who have served this country well through their husbands' positions.  To disregard that fact is kind of an insult to the many generations of women who were unable to be officially recognized for their contributions to this democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    And this extends beyond political wives (none / 0) (#102)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    I think this is one thing the Obama campaign didn't understand: women who have contributed to their (non-politician) husbands' careers feel slapped in the face by the attack on Hillary's claim of experience. Now, I believe she contributed in her own right, and in a far more substantial way than many wives. And maybe people shouldn't project, but they do. Slapping her for her claims of experience while she was "only" First Lady is a blow felt by many wives.

    (Very nice comment, inclusiveheart)

    [ Parent ]

    hold on (none / 0) (#128)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    I think the bulk of his attack has not been disparaging because she's was a POTUS-wife, rather that she's been wrong on issues. (Health care while 1st Lady; 2002 Iraq vote; etc.)

    This, btw, is the same line of attack that Bill Clinton used against Bush.  To wit: what's the point of experience if one has been making the wrong decisions during that experience?  Doing the same (wrong) thing with experience is not a good thing.

    It's a valid point.  In this case, a bit less valid because Obama and Clinton are so close on so many issues (although you'd never believe that reading reader comments here)


    [ Parent ]

    That line of attack is completely (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:24:49 PM EST
    valid imo.  Disagreeing with her political decisions and policies is fair game without question.

    I take issue with people dismissing her experience in the White House and even her achievements as Jr. Senator from New York (including winning the office) entirely on the basis of her being married to Bill Clinton.  I will not make the claim that she did not benefit from Bill's political achievements, but I also will not accept any argument suggesting that she did not bring her own skills and talents to the process of winning the White House in '92, acting as First Lady, getting elected to the Senate and serving as a Senator - Bill is simply not that all-powerful for one thing.

    There are people in politics, as we all know, that are nothing more than shells of their fathers and other relations, but I really don't think that Senator Clinton can be counted among them.  She was perceived to be extremely threatening when she came to Washington primarily because she was a force unto herself.  She is smart, driven, interested, educated and dedicated.  Disagree with her all you want, but making her out to be any less because she was "only married to Bill" is, imo, not an honest assessment of her or other women like her.  That's where some Obama supporters and surrogates have taken this too far and how they have clumsily insulted women - stumbling back into a less enlightened era when the role of women was casually dismissed or credited to their husbands.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. Since this whole series of comments (none / 0) (#177)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    seems to have been started by my Laura Bush comment, I do hope that you didn't read anything like "Hillary is only where is because she's Mrs. Bill Clinton" in my Laura Bush comment...

    [ Parent ]
    That's what you hear (none / 0) (#149)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST
    Others hear something different. Everyone brings their own experiences to the table and listens through that filter. Being able to anticipate how something will come across to others is a good skill. I think he usually does quite well on this skill, but not always.

    I agree it would be a valid point if she were wrong all the time. (Pres. Bush has loads of experience, but I'm not ready to let him keep the keys for another four years.) I do not think she is wrong all the time. They agree on so many issues, how could that be true? On health care, she was way ahead of the times. No one could have gotten that done in in the early 1990s. On the Iraq war vote, I believe she was wrong. Her vote definitely bothers me, though I do not view it as disqualifying.

    (Apologies TL, for wandering seriously off topic.)

    [ Parent ]

    I happily agree with you (none / 0) (#158)