Political Punch

Ralph, if only one-half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages and 20 million e-mails are now made public, how do we know exactly which topics and categories are available. Has a list of the released papers been made public? BUT even more importantly, how do we know that ALL of the papers on a particular topic or category are ready to be released?

Obviously there is no urgency to make these papers available. They have intentionally limited the staff to delay as long as possible the release of this information. At the rate they are going, the sensitive information will not be released until Sen. Clinton's second term, should she be elected and re-elected.

OF COURSE everyone wants to know if there is any dirt. But they also want to know whether the information corroborates what Sen. Clinton is claiming on the campaign trail.

James, the information they need to glean the involvement of Hillary with these matters are largely there. What they want are the decision-making process. The problem with that is that there are times when there are things discussed that are personal or that may be embarassing to some other individual. That's the reason why these things are not normally disclosed. Now, if all Obama wants is to find out what Hillary has done for healthcare - it's all there. He is disingenous to suggest that what his investigators were looking for were just that. They were looking for dirt. And the investigators admitted as much.

Ralph, did you even google Michael Isikoff's report to read his column? He also wrote the following:

"An archivist explained to Smith (author Sally Bedell Smith) that the release of materials was tightly controlled by the former president's longtime confidant Bruce Lindsey. Could she look at memos detailing the advice Hillary gave Bill during debates over welfare reform? Smith asked. No, the archivist said, those memos were 'closed' to the public because they dealt with 'policy' matters. What about any records that show what advice Bill gave his wife about her 2000 U.S. Senate campaign? Those, too, were closed, the archivist said, because they dealt with 'political' matters. 'He essentially told me I had no chance of getting anything,' says Smith, whose book, 'For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton, the White House Years,' hits the bookstores this week."

Michael Isikoff also writes: "Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives."

So your statement, "If all the other candidates want is to find out the extent of Hillary's involvement in the the many activities in the White House, these documents are largely available" DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE.

"Another restriction: 'communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature.'"

What you fail to understand is that restrictions are the status quo and the request to lift restrictions are just requests. They need not be followed. These are not "instructions" from Bill Clinton. Also, the requests made by Bill Clinton are very reasonable. Every presidency does it like that for a number of very good reasons and Clinton has been more cooperative than most by asking to expedite the release of the overwhelming majority of the documents.

If all the other candidates want is to find out the extent of Hillary's involvement in the the many activities in the White House, these documents are largely available. (The bottleneck here is the understaffed archives) But, in truth, that is not what they want. What they want are private communications, the decision process on appointments and whatnot. These are, of course, irrelevant but would give them a way to twist and misinterpret every word, every decision, every private utterance. In other words, they're looking for dirt and Obama is disingenous in saying that all they want is to get an appreciation of Hillary's experience - those documents are available.

Ralph, Michael Isikoff reported, in his column in the Oct 29, 2007 issue of Newsweek, the following:

"But documents NEWSWEEK obtained under a FOIA request (made to the Archives in Washington, not the Clinton library) suggest that, while publicly saying he wants to ease restrictions on his records, Clinton has given the Archives private instructions to tightly control the disclosure of chunks of his archive. Among the document categories Clinton asked the Archives to 'consider for withholding' in a November 2002 letter: 'confidential communications' involving foreign-policy issues, 'sensitive policy, personal or political' matters and 'legal issues and advice' including all matters involving investigations by Congress, the Justice Department and independent counsels (a category that would cover, among other matters, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and the pardons of Marc Rich and others). Another restriction: 'communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature.'"

I just hate intellectual laziness whenever I see it.

To those who still criticize the Clinton camp for unreleased documents: it's either you are incredibly stupid folks or you don't even bother to educate your ignorance on the subject.

The release of the documents is covered by Federal Law and is under the SOLE dominion of the Presidential Archive. Hillary Clinton and Bill are not stopping the release of the documents. Check a well known fact-checking site for the real score on this issue.

What's fallacious about the arguments, Tess? And I see that you're not up to the challenge. Are you willing to back off your earlier point for the sake of intellectual honesty, then?

Also, you mentioned the "kindergarten" wish of Obama in your earlier post. I agree that it was not wise for Clinton to include that in their response. But did you know that it all started with Obama's insinuation that the Clinton's had an agreement about the presidency? Did you know that the insinuation is based on a Republican attack point that has been already discredited? Did you know that this was the Republican LIE from Obama that the Clintons were responding too? Did you also know that in their response they were able to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Obama on this point?

Of course, it was all largely forgotten because of the kindergarten comment but let us not forget who started it (OBAMA) and that it was all based on a lie that OBAMA never apologized for. This is already becoming a pattern for Obama - using Republican attack points against fellow democrats and against progressive and respected writers like Paul Krugman.

I see that no one wants to take up the challenge. That's all I need to know about how you Obama supporters operate. You sling mud left and right and then pretend to be the victim when challenged.

If Obama is so open about it, why is it a slur to bring it up? It is a legitimate question - that he is not vetted. Hillary found it distasteful, but I thought that was a legitimate point. It was factual, it was accurate.

Obama attacked Shaheen? Huh? Okay, imagine the reverse. Imagine Gibbs said, "I just know those Republicans are going to insinuate about all these bimbos Bill has been hanging out with." Would you not find that objectionable? I would and I am an Obama supporter. And if someone asked Axelrod about it and Axelrod said, "well you know the Clinton's have had a difficult marriage. Bimbos are bad for marriages." Would that be okay? If someone asked Axelrod why he said what he said, do you think that would be an attack? Look I liked that Hillary apologized--hey sometimes people take it too far--but then Penn did it again that same night and now we know it was not a mistake at all, it was their plan--to go after what everybody knew any way and get Obama talking about drugs instead of what ails america. Come on. Seriously.

Ralph,

First off, your "arguments" are simply fallacious, not to metion silly. But, again, this is a reflection of the candidate you support. I have read his books and have seen numerous videos of him giving talks to audiences and saying that he's is not proud of what he did in high school and college. See, what you have a problem with, is the fact that he had the "audacity" to overcome it. He had the nerve to not let his life be destroyed. He had the audacity to not have overdosed or ruined his beautiful mind. THAT, Ralph, is what you have a problem with.

Because guess what? There are a lot of people like Sen. Obama, who messed around and used even harder drugs, and they, thank God, overcame it. And that's an amazing thing because there are people who aren't as lucky as Obama, who become addicted, can't funtion and their lives are truly ruined. And you know what, there isn't a family out there that isn't in some way, touched by problems with drugs. Whether it's a disaffected teen acting out or a mother of small children hooked on meth, it affects all walks of life. And, Ralph, this is part of the reason this smear on this honorable man is not sticking to him. It just makes Hillary look not only downright mean, but out of touch with a reality that many Americans are, unfortunately, far too familiar with.

So, Ralph, you and the Clintons want this man to apologize, not only for having the gall to speak his truth, but for overcoming this challenge he faced in his teen years. Sorry it didn't ruin his life, Ralph. So what should Obama and others who've done drugs or have been addicted to drugs do. Should they flagellate themselves for the rest of their lives? Should they hide in a cave for the rest of their lives? Should they lay down and die? Should they not be allowed to strive for the highest heights in their careers and live their lives to the fullest? Honestly, Ralph. What is it that you think he should do? Drop out of the race and have Hillary nail him to a cross for his sins?

You stated that you want inaccurate information from the Clintons. Oh, that's easy. Let's take this drug thing. Using the classic Clintonian smear tactic, presenting a nasty smear in the form of a question, she had her NH co-chair suggest that Sen. Obama was a drug dealer. Please, I'd really like you to let us all know how that's not a dirty smear, but the truth.

And believe me, Hillary is of no worry to me or any other supporter of candidates to don't follow the sad Democratic traditoin of Clintonian politics. I think it's safe to say, with kindergate and these pathetic drug attacks, this is far from the organized bullet proof machine politics of their heyday 20 years ago. The way she is running her campaign, I think it's safe to say she's in over her head and her campaign is more suited for a low budget chaotic junior high student council race.

As for qualifications, there isn't a candidate out there with a better background to tackle the challenges that our country faces today. There are hundreds of accomplishments to list from his 20 years of public service. From working on the ground, face to face with real people, as a community organizer, to getting healthcare for kids and passing racial profiling bills in Illinois as a state senator and to his highly lauded stance to talk with not only our friend but our enemies in a hostile world, Sen. Obama has all the right experience at the right time.

Tess:

And yet here you are attacking Hillary. It's not his drug use that is in question but his response NOW as a US Senator when he was asked about his drug use. He was TOO CAVALIER about it. He said it was just a waste of time when asked why he stopped it. Can you imagine? Not that it destroys lives, not that it's dangerous but that it's a waste of time. So if you have time to burn, it's fine?

"There's a reason your candidate is sinking in Iowa, NH, and SC like weighted dead body. People are tired of this kind of nasty Clintonian/Rovian do and say anything to win, no matter how vile, type of politics. "

Don't worry about Hillary Clinton. She will win the nomination with her hands tied behind her back. If you have to ask about nasty Rovian tricks - you should look no further than Obama.

Okay, here's a challenge. Name me ONE inaccurate information that the Clinton camp has said of Obama or its own campaign (it has to be unequivocal) and I will give you three inaccurate information that the Obama camp has said about their campaign or Hillary's.

You see, you need to be objective and my challenge is open to evey Obama supporter here. I will show you that when it comes to Election dirt in this campaign - no one and I mean NO ONE tops the OBAMA camp.

The problem with Obama supporters is that they refuse to be objective because they have bought so many of the Republican lies that they can no longer explain their position. Also, if they would even bother to be objective for just a second, they will see that Obama is the least qualified entrant since World War II.

Good thing Keira that Bill Clinton is not running. And even if he is, that issue has been vetted. Obama's inexperience, flip-flopping on major issues and drug use have not been vetted.

And James, if you watched the debate yourself, you would say the same thing. You only need to be objective about it and not be an Obama fanboy all the time.

Are you serious, Ralph?
So his judgement from the ages of 16 to 20 is up for examination now. Well, if that's the case, from the ages of 16 to 20, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl and served as the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley. If you're saying that the the judgement of a child is fair game, then which is worse for advancing a Democratic agenda? Doing drugs and partying in high school and college or pushing a Republican agenda which included opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a promotion of the southern strategy? Sorry, if you want to claim 11th grade thru Sophomore year in college as a time period that needs to be vetted, then, using your logic, Hillary loses big time.

There's a reason your candidate is sinking in Iowa, NH, and SC like weighted dead body. People are tired of this kind of nasty Clintonian/Rovian do and say anything to win, no matter how vile, type of politics. It's always interesting to read the comments of Clinton supporters like yourself. It's always attack, attack, attack when it comes to Obama. But it's never based on policies or facts at all. It's these desperate smears that make little to no sense, not to mention the fact that they're not even remotely based in truth. So fair minded people have to end up reading Hillary shilling drivel like yours, suggesting that he only quit drugs because he had better things to do, or that he's a flip flopper, or that he's cheating in Iowa. Really, do you realize how downright pathetic you sound?

But yours is a typical post of a Hillary supporter and a typical example of why, with every passing day, this primary election, which was to be her coronation, continues to look like there will be a crowning of someone else.

Doom and gloom and lies and fear of Republicans and more lies and kindergarten papers and now this. Do you not understand that you and others like you really are not helping "your girl"? I know this kind of nastiness is the "fun part" for you all. Well, since there isn't an ounce of sincerity or inspiration in her candidacy, I guess negative attacks and lying is the only joy you all can find right now. So you can have that, while those of us fighting the good fight, not for dynastic power but change, will have Iowa and go on to change this country and make history.

Ralph,
Adultery destroys families and Bill Clinton was doing it in middle age and his wife thought it was no one's business, even if he was having sex with a taxpayer paid federal employee on the White HOuse payroll.

Has HIllary Clinton ever answered whether she'd ever used drugs? I remember in 2003, there was such a question at a debate and I think Lieberman was the only one who hadn't.

Also, since it was pure speculation with no evidence on Shaheen's part to float drug dealing rumor possibilities, how about we find out now whether Hillary Clinton had an abortion? Thats definitely going to be floated by some third party in the general election campaign. I have a relative in Missouri who got a mailer saying John Kerry would have to take orders from the Pope. Its impossible to trace these things so you can bet on Hillary had an abortion mailers.

Ralph the reason why you saw Obama stammering yesterday is because you had too much to drink!

What Bill Shaheen said was not an attack but a matter of grave concern. Obama SHOULD be vetted now. His drug use in the past is a legitimate question if he's running on the strength of his judgement. If Obama wishes to hide by attacking the messenger, then it only shows that he is not ready to be the Democratic nominee. The Republicans will not shy away from this.

The Clinton campaign has been too chivalrous about this, but it's a legitimate point. The troubling part is not the drug use but his opinion of his foray into this illegal activity. He says that the reason that he stopped was because it was a waste of his time. Not that it is dangerous. Not that it destroys your life. Not that it destroys families. Can you imagine this cavalier attitude not becoming a serious concern?

And the drug use is just the tip of the iceberg - there's his flip-flopping on major issues, there's his using questionable tactics to catch up in Iowa, there's his inexperience which was so glaring in the recently concluded debates.

The debate showed how shallow his knowledge of the issues are - how he stammers when he's out of his depth, how he changes the topic. It's quite obvious that the other candidates on the stage with the exception of Edwards have a better grasp of the issues. It's embarrassing to watch.