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

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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!


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

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

    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.


    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?

    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.

    that may well be true. (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?"


    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.

    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)


    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?

    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.


    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.  


    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")

    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.


    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


    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.  

    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


    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."

    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!

    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.



    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.


    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?

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

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.  

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

    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


    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.

    Here's one (none / 0) (#73)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    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 . . .


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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."

    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.

    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)

    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.

    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.

    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 . . .

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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 ....

    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.


    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.


    "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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.)


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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)?

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

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

    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


    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.


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

    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.

    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.


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


    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)


    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)


    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.


    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...

    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.)


    I happily agree with you (none / 0) (#158)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    Yes, they agree on so many issues.  So, she has to make a big deal out of experience, because she thinks it's the trump issue; and he has to minimize that because he doesn't have her experience.  And, thus, mountains get made out of molehills.

    And, in fact, I think mountains are made out of molehills for most of the differences between HRC and Obama.  

    I dearly hope we can keep it in perspective because the real mountains are the differences between either of them and McCain.

    In my view: yes she has more experience, but it's not a deal-maker or deal-breaker for me; it's just one of many factors.  On this factor, I'll give her the edge.  But I don't see slamming (not that you are, but others are) anyone about it.


    And (none / 0) (#67)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    I did not say that her marriage or her experience in the White House was "the" determining factor.

    Laura Bush as POTUS? (none / 0) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    Laura Bush has never bestirred herself to be involved in anything other than the care and feeding of George, watching TV with him so she can get a sense of how depressing coverage of violence in Iraq is to ordinary folks, and making sure he doesn't drink and eat pretzels at the same time.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    Every job interview I've gone on, they've asked about my experience and how it will help me perform the job I am seeking.  As someone who is looking for a job right now, it's frustrating because I see many jobs I think I could do but I won't even get an interview because I don't have (wait for it)...


    Why should we demand any less from our President?  Our current president had little experience and look where we are today.


    oh c'mon (none / 0) (#68)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    and Lincoln had very little experience, and Nixon had a tremendous amount of experience.  It's not the great predictor that many are making it out to be.

    In fact, Bill Clinton was very articulate in explaining why experience in Washington was not necessarily important back when he ran in 1992.

    It'd sure be nice to actually talk about substantive issues.  For a change.


    We absolutely cannot talk about issues (none / 0) (#72)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:51:49 PM EST

    I think she framed it wrong and tripped herself up on this one from the get-go. She should have talked about concrete accomplishments, not this vague experience idea that is, to a great extent, in the eye of the beholder.


    Okay, here's an issue. Obama wants Hagel (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    in charge of Defense and Lugar in charge of State.
    What do you think of that?

    this is off topic (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    stay on topic...the release of records and what they might or might now show or the impact of them.

    Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#147)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    ... why did you delete the comments responding to this false (off-topic) assertion, but you left the false (off-topic) assertion up?

    Because its not false?? (none / 0) (#154)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST


    Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

    Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a "stretch".

    Yup... (none / 0) (#162)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    ... still false.  

    Obama has not said that he wants Hagel and Lugar in those positions.  He has said that he wants to "appoint cross-party figures" "such as" Hagel and Lugar.  

    You will not find one quote from Obama saying that he wants Hagel and Lugar to be the Sec. of State and Defense Sec.


    I deleted the comments (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    talking about Hagel that were not in reference to Obama or Hillary's experience. Hagel is not the topic. Plus, his campaign staff confirmed he was thought Hagel would be ideal for defense secretary.

    Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary.

    And in 1993-94 (none / 0) (#104)
    by badger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    Clinton was the posterboy for the kind of mess an inexperienced President can create. As was JFK (Bay of Pigs), or 8 years of Bush. Besides those 3 and maybe Warren Harding, it's pretty hard to find a President who didn't have substantial relevant experience in Congress, the military or elsewhere in public life.

    So you're either suggesting that a) Obama is another Lincoln (which is dubious) or b) 1 out of 5 inexperienced Presidents not making a mess at least initially is good odds. Wanna play poker?

    The fact is that out of all those other Presidents with tons of experience, a lot of them weren't very successful (and no, Nixon is not one of those - he was a crook, but has a substantial and even progressive record of accomplishment). It's (d'oh) a difficult job, even for someone with experience and skill, both of which Obama clearly lacks.


    Experience (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    the reason why so many Clinton supporters don't understand the argument against her experience is that we were there watching her get experience all those years.  We saw her on equal terms with her husband and heard her "women's rights are equal rights" and saw her taking on challenges that no modern first lady had ever dared to think about.  So, those who seek to cast her in an inferior, Nancy Reagan-ish role, not only insult HRC, but insult the rest of us who watched her work.

    No you didn't (none / 0) (#157)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST
    Unless you were on the WH staff you hardly saw anything.  That kind of work doesn't go on at press conferences.

    Yes, we did -- and for you to say (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    now that we didn't see that is a new low for you -- calling us lying and delusional.

    You can see some of her speeches online now, read transcripts, etc.; I've used them in classes.

    Will you do so?  No, you can't.  You can't bring yourself to do so, that's clear.


    Your emotional umbrage-taking (1.00 / 0) (#180)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:24:03 PM EST
    fails to impress.  I thought "speeches" didn't amount to much.  Have you forgotten that talking point already?  You didn't see anyone working on policy issues unless you worked in the WH or on the hill.  Did you?  No, you didn't.  That's clear.

    disclosure is good (none / 0) (#32)
    by gnipgnop on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    Disclosure by both Obama and Clinton is good because we need to learn as much as we can about these candidates.

    What I do not understand is why people on this formerly logical, fact-based website, hate Obama so much?

    I am so disappointed in Talkleft, a website I used to follow all the time, but which now is so dominated by biased people and people so pro-Clinton that they bend everything their way, it is getting really hard to stomach.

    I don't know if Obama or Clinton is the best possible nominee, but our goal should be defeating McCain. Right? Do you really believe McCain is better than Obama? Do you believe if Hillary cannot be the nominee, you would prefer McCain over Obama?

    If your answers are "no" then you need to restore some balance in your thinking.

    OK, attack me now.


    I don't hate Obama, but I want the best ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cymro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    ... Democrat to be President.

    I am convinced that Obama is not the best of the two Democratic candidates. And I am seriously concerned that Obama, if he were the nominee, would lose to McCain after the Republican attack machine gets to work on him. We need to put Obama in the VP spot and let them try to find some new way to attack Hillary, which is a much tougher proposition.

    From what I read, I believe that the majority of Clinton supporters here feel similarly.


    "hate Obama" [eye roll] (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    I have doubts about Obama.  I have a lot of doubts about Obama.

    But I don't "hate" Obama or his supporters.  I admit to not having a great deal of respect for the non-issues oriented Hope!Unity! supporters.  You need more than a catchy and optimistic slogan to convince me of anything.


    why should we attack you? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    we realize you're probably accustomed to the Obama echo chambers that are quite different from the objectivity provided here.
    And no - we don't hate Obama.

    no, you won't get attacked (none / 0) (#70)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    well, not directly, anyway.  Just attacks against the more generic term "Obama supporters"

    I think for the most part we are very balanced (none / 0) (#99)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    ...in our thinking. And for myself I think Obama is light years better than McCain. I believe that a lot of Clinton supporters may have parked themselves here for the duration so that the level of support for the candidates may seem unbalanced, but our thinking is pretty clear, IMHO. We are allowed, still aren't we, to be partisan? Or am I supposed to say one good thing about Obama for every good thing I say about Hillary?

    one good thing about Obama (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    if this is so I am developing something like the national debt.

    You're right of course (none / 0) (#109)
    by badger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    I have it on good authority that we're just a "shrinking band of paranoid hold-outs".

    And glad that no Obama supporter would ever attack or insult us.


    paranoid hold-outs (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM EST

    I'm all in! (none / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    Are we a (none / 0) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    shrinking band of paranoid hold-outs, or a screeching band of paranoid hold-outs?

    Either way, are we in our death throes? Not me. I'm still kickin'.


    Corrente says (none / 0) (#137)
    by badger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    'shrinking', but I haven't verified the original source as I no longer read that blog.

    But maybe we could compromise on 'shrieking' - I like the sound of that, and it has the necessary male chauvinist undertone besides.I'm surprised the original author missed that opportunity.


    Would you also suspect that (none / 0) (#38)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    Laura Bush's travel records would demonstrate that her experience as first lady qualifies her in some way to be President of the United States?

    If not, why not?

    Hey, she's at least as qualified (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    as her husband is!

    Depending on what the records show, as far as meetings and conferences and such, I would think that they would add some to her experience. But I doubt we'll be seeing Laura's records anytime soon,and i doubt they will be as extensive as Hillary's were..


    It's not the fact of travel (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    It's what she did (or didn't) do. Look, Mrs. Bush is a much more traditional First Lady than Sen. Clinton was. I don't think she has been involved in lots of policy discussions, although I'd be surprised if Pres. Bush didn't rely on her for advice. I don't think she is calling on members of Congress to lobby for her husband's agenda.

    I have no problem with the role Mrs. Bush seems to have played. But I don't think it's outlandish to believe that Sen. Clinton had a very different role during her time in the White House. In fact, that is why some people strongly dislike her--the failure to bake cookies apparently makes her evil.


    The question was about travel records (none / 0) (#132)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM EST
    and Jeralyn's suggestion that Hillary's travel records would somehow demonstrate "experience" supporting her claim to be more qualified for president of the US. You're talking about policy discussions that aren't about travel records.

    you have it backwards (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    Her opposition is hoping the records will show her lack of experience. Judicial Watch is an opposition group that has been after the Clinton's for more than a decade.

    I'm suggesting they will show the opposite.

    As to Laura Bush, there's no comparison. She has no expertise or law degree and could not be involved in the way Hillary was. Hillary has 35 years of professional involvement in public affairs, even as a private lawyer. She brought that expertise to the White House (and probably the Arkansas' governor's mansion before that.)


    Judicial Watch (none / 0) (#152)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    ... is always after public officials, not just the Clintons.

    It was Judicial Watch that was suing for the release of WH visiting records vis-a-vis Abramoff, was it not?  And Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq with a possible connection to Cheney, and trying to find out about the Saudis who got to fly home the days after 9/11, and they sued Cheney about the Energy Task Force, and so forth.

    It's way more than just the Clintons or just Dems


    Laura Bush (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    Taught school for one year, realized she hated it, went back to get her masters in library science, worked in a library for three or four years, then married Georgie.  

    You don't know derision until you mention to a working librarian, "Laura Bush was a librarian!"  She is to libraries what Bush was to the Air National Guard.


    You wrote (none / 0) (#159)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    I'm not sure why her social activities are relevant, but I suspect in total, the documents will substantiate her experience argument.

    What do you imagine Hillary's experience argument to be, and how will these documents support that argument?


    did Laura Bush (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    participate in the Watergate committee?

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    Comparing Laura Bush to Hillary Clinton is something else.  I wonder why you thought they were the same: gender, perhaps?

    You do realize that at the beginning of the Clinton administration, HRC was demonized for being too powerful and involved in her administration and now she's being dismissed--on overwhelmingly gendered bases--as nothing more than some traveling hostess.


    Freudian slip: not "her" administration (none / 0) (#100)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:10:59 PM EST

    I'm not comparing Laura and Hillary (none / 0) (#135)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    I'm asking Jeralyn if she would equally suspect that Laura Bush's travel records give meat to some "experience" argument.

    answered above the first time you (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    asked it.  

    Hey (none / 0) (#89)
    by tek on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    don't diss Laura.  Bet she knows more about governing than Dubya and Cheney combined.  His campaign had to shut her up because she kept airing ideas that were actually practical and basically Democratic.

    I am not dissing ms Laura (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    I am pointing out that any comparison of her career in politics and Hillarys is laughable.

    There are times when I am just mystified (none / 0) (#47)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    by the Clinton campaign.  If you had asked me months ago if i thought that there was any dirt in the Clintons' tax returns I would have said no.  But her dogged insistence on not releasing them, even for past years, really makes me wonder.  I actually still think its not likely I just don't know why she would not release them if there is nothing bad in them.

    The statement that she will release them in the general seems to fly in the face of her whole argument about how important it is to test the potential candidates in the primary.  

    I just don't get it.  She could get this out of the media anytime she wants to.  

    Complex matter (none / 0) (#91)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    As not only a very wealthy woman but a powerful politician, her releasing her tax records are much more complex than yours or mine.  Just being that wealthy involves boxes of paper.  And because any hint of controversy can be inflamed into a national scandal, her team of lawyers have to run through every possible scenario before releasing them.

    Besides, she and her husband have a long history of releasing their tax records so to think that all of a sudden there'll be something that will influence--or should influence--one's vote is odd, at best.


    Corrections (none / 0) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    One of the problems of complex tax returns these days is that the 1099 and K-1s always come late or are constantly being revised.  Frankly, it is really bad these days.  If you file early, with complex taxes, you have to keep filing revisions.  Which would make you look dodgy.  I know.  Even after the 15th you get revised k-1s etc.  It's ridiculous.

     What are they going to see in her tax returns?  How much money she makes?  That she owns stock in XYZ corporation?  Anyway, Obama has a whole bunch of years missing.  


    Honestly (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    after all the Clintons have been through, they probably have their tax returns thoroughly vetted by the nastiest forensic accountant they can find just so they know whether or not to sign on the dotted line.

    I keep saying this: if there was something they wanted to hide, they would have hidden it a long time ago.

    And, let's be honest, there are embarrassing things on tax returns.  I bet Michelle Obama is finding it kind of hard to keep it real considering the world now knows that she uses a physical trainer four days a week and has a full-time housekeeper.


    I think the potential trouble (none / 0) (#163)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    ...will be: who has Bill Clinton been getting big fees from?

    And then, just like the guilt-by-association of Wright and Obama, we'll get to go through the guilt-by-association because some (I'm making up this example) company that's either Arabic, or has ties to OPEC, or ties to some other oppressive country, has paid consulting fees to Bill Clinton.

    I think the above is probably true, and I think that it will probably be a situation where it should be fairly irrelevant (like Wright, Rezco, Norman Hsu), but political opportunists will try to make big hay out of it, and we'll just have to see if it gets traction or not.  (Oh, yeah, and while I'm making predictions, let me add: readers here will probably blame Obama for any of the fallout).

    And in the meantime, why hasn't anyone asked McCain to release his returns?


    But what about past year returns (none / 0) (#184)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:01:42 PM EST
    I can understand a delay in 2007, but what about past years?  And I keep hearing Hillary supporters talk about how important the vetting process is, if there is embarrassing stuff on the returns don't we need to see it now?

    She said (none / 0) (#94)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    she is going to release them on or around tax time.  This will be before Pennsylvania.  If she does, is this transparent enough?

    Its fine with me (none / 0) (#183)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    she just keeps it a story till then.

    HRC's Wellsey Thesis (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    It seems like HRC and BHO share an important influence, Alinsky. And both seem to have rejected his idea that change has to come from outside the system.


    As Sirota pointed out this morning (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    in an interview at the Take Back America Conference: it's pretty hard to be considered a change agent or the leader of movement politics when, at the same time, trying to become the establishment's candidate.

    Why Is That? (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. Both HRC and BHO obviously believe that change is best accomplished from inside the system.

    Yes, apparently, they do believe (none / 0) (#120)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:36:50 PM EST
    change should come from inside the system. That's their shared evolution on the issue. You're the one who implied there's hypocrisy in their original embracing of Alinsky, only to reject his approach now. Sirota's point was that it's nearly impossible to name a public leader who is both a movement candidate and an establishment candidate.

    Implied Hypocrisy? (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    Sorry not me. I was impressed that both BHO and HRC share a common bond with Alinsky. In HRC's thesis, which is well worth a read, she points out that Alinsky's greatest enemy was the status quo. IOW things change and to embrace doctrine rigidly without constant reevaluation usually predicts failure.

    From HRC's thesis:

    Alinsky, ever consistent in his inconsistency, recently expanded
    his radical commitment to the eradication of powerless poverty and the injection of meaning into affluence. His new aspect, national planning, de- rives from the necessity of entrusting social change to institutions, specifically the United States Government. Alinsky's trust in the "people" must be distinguished from his distrust of the status quo and the people
    who make up that mysterious condition

    in a sane world (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    this would be true.
    to bad we dont live in one.

    Alinsky (none / 0) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    offered Hillary a job, he liked who she was.  I still use that as one of my metrics.  If she passed the smell test with Alinsky, even though it was years ago, I still think she smells good.  The old codger did not fall for anyone.  

    I feel the same way about Cass Sunstein (none / 0) (#160)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:19:04 PM EST
    How about Rezko? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:28:57 PM EST
    Ok, it's sarcasm.  

    Well, Obama has stated that he (none / 0) (#105)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    has little experience in matters of FP and Defense. When we have a weak President, I don't see how it's a good idea to hand 2 of the most important departments over to arch conservatives. There aren't that many redeeming qualities to either Senator.

    Dick Cheney (none / 0) (#181)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:26:15 PM EST
    Of course, Dick Cheney had immense experience in foreign policy and defense.  Where did that get us?  Hillary as a senator has little such experience.  Unless minutes of cabinet meetings, etc, are released and she was there, you can't assume that she got this experience as first lady.  Al Gore would know-he was there-...why hasn't he endorsed her if she is clearly effective and experienced???

    Depends, it could go the other way (none / 0) (#182)
    by faux facsimile on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    "Throw the bums out" can be a powerful political sentiment. Anti-establishment sentiment took Carter to the presidency, and have helped propel Reagan, Perot, Clinton and even GW Bush.