Myths & Facts about Hillary's Schedules

I've been hearing a lot of BS about what those recently released papers of Hillary's do or don't mean   I'm tired tonight and have a lot of work to do on another project, so I'm going to let Hillary's press office do the talking for the most part on these documents.  The campaign released a memo earlier today that sets the record straight so pay attention...

Source

MYTHS AND FACTS: FIRST LADY SCHEDULES
3/20/2008 11:06:10 AM

Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have control over which documents are released from the Clinton Library.

Fact: Under federal law, records at the Clinton Library are the property of the U.S. government--not Hillary or Bill Clinton. These records are in the custody and control of the National Archives.

As noted in the Washington Post, "Presidential papers can't be released at the snap of a finger"; so "[c]alling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it's theater that has no bearing on reality." [Washington Post, 2/8/08; 3/1/08].

Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have control over when documents from the Clinton Library are made public.

Fact: The Archives released these schedules in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The Archives processes those requests on a first come, first served basis, and is required by law to review every line of every page.

As the Archives itself has said: "`We're releasing them tomorrow because they're ready tomorrow . . . It was as soon as we could get them out.'" [Washington Post, 3/18/08].

Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have delayed the release of her White House records by preventing their release from the Clinton Library.

Fact: Hillary and Bill Clinton do not decide when records can be released from the Clinton Library--the Archives does and has said so publicly on the record.

By law, before releasing any documents, the Archives must conduct a page-by-page, line-by-line review of every record to ensure that confidential, security, and personal privacy information is not improperly released.

The Archives has repeatedly stated that that this painstaking process is cumbersome and responsible for the bulk of the time it takes to review and release material. In this case, the Archives took approximately 6 months to complete its review of more than 11,000 pages. For his part, President Clinton's representative completed his review in less than 30 days -- weeks ahead of the time allotted for his review.

Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton are responsible for the redactions in the White House schedules.

Fact: The Archives made the redactions. According to the Archives, the majority of the redactions in the schedules pertain to the privacy interests of third parties, including their social security numbers, telephone numbers, and home addresses. This information is withheld under federal law.

In fact, President Clinton asked the Archives, to the extent it could under applicable law, to release extensive material in those records that otherwise would have been excluded.

Myth: Bill Clinton instructed the Archives to redact large portions of these documents in a 2002 letter.

Fact: President Clinton's 2002 letter has been misunderstood. In 2002, President Clinton issued an "easing" letter to the Archives that waived his right to restrict access to most of the confidential advice he received during his administration. The Archives has said this guidance is the least restrictive of any President covered by the Presidential Records Act.

Myth: The schedules undercut Hillary's claims to involvement in the policy efforts of the Clinton Administration, or to have gained valuable experience from it.

Fact: They do no such thing. The schedules can not and do not speak to the substance of her meetings with staff, advisers, Administration officials, citizens, activists, foreign leaders, and others with whom she worked on policy issues. That should be no surprise - it's not what they were created to do.

What the schedules do show is an incredibly active and involved First Lady, and add detail to the already voluminous public record about her work.

Those who claim the schedules undercut her efforts on such issues as the Family and Medical Leave Act, or her work for peace in Northern Ireland, or her efforts to support America's foreign policy around the world are flying in the face of the public statements of the principal individuals involved in each, and decades of reporting on these issues.

Myth: The schedules show that, while Hillary may have been engaged in the substantive policy work of the Clinton Administration in 1993 and 1994 during her work on Health Care, she retreated to a ceremonial First Lady role for the rest of her time in the White House.

Fact: The schedules show no such thing. They demonstrate that Hillary remained an active participant and contributor to the work of the Clinton Administration in addition to fulfilling her ceremonial duties as First Lady .

The schedules are just that: schedules. They can not and do not speak to the substance of her meetings with staff, advisers, Administration officials, citizens, activists, foreign leaders, and others with whom she worked on policy issues. That should be no surprise - it's not what they were created to do.

Myth: Contrary to her stated opposition to NAFTA, Hillary Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage.

Fact: It is no secret that passing NAFTA was a priority of the Clinton Administration, but numerous contemporary accounts make clear that Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA, and her position on NAFTA was and remains consistent.

For example, one of the NAFTA meetings she attended was run by David Gergen who has clearly stated that Hillary Clinton was opposed to NAFTA. According to Gergen, Hillary "was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly." He said: "If I could just add one other post script, Anderson, on NAFTA, I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]

And speaking of NAFTA, there were a few snide remarks left in the comments of my post last night on Hillary's docs and the following puts all that to rest.  This from the guy who organized that meeting everyone's nattering on about - David Gergen...

Source

Fact Check: Organizer of NAFTA Meeting Said Hillary Was A NAFTA Critic
3/20/2008 1:10:02 PM

Once again the Obama campaign is demonstrating that Senator Obama's words can't be trusted. Last year, Senator Obama said that he would not engage in personal attacks. Now, after losses in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is explicitly attacking Senator Clinton's character. Instead of attacking Senator Clinton, Senator Obama should explain to the American people why his top economic policy advisor was telling the Canadians that his promise to fix NAFTA shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact is that independent accounts make clear that Senator Clinton did not support NAFTA and that she is the candidate Americans can trust to fix it. --Campaign Spokesman Phil Singer

The Obama campaign is claiming that the fact that Hillary attended a meeting on the subject of NAFTA organized by David Gergen is proof that she was a champion of NAFTA.

Here's what David Gergen said about Hillary's views on NAFTA:

I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]

Watch David Gergen here:


Tags: 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton, president (all tags)

Comments

129 Comments

Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I've been saying all along - Hillary's travelled extensively and played a sigificant role while in the White House.  You can't match her experience in just a few short, last minute trips overseas between primaries.

by alegre 2008-03-20 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I am personally kind of glad that it took them so long to LEGALLY come out (by way of normal process). By now, Hillary probably has at least a few statements of Obama's in which he doubted her experience that she can throw back at him.

How sweet will that be? And...it will  make it harder for him to attack her on the issue of 'experience.'

by apolitik 2008-03-20 05:20PM | 0 recs
Absolutely!

I don't think we'll be hearing any more attacks on Hillary's experience anymore... Unless the Obama campaign wants to look ridiculous as the facts refute their silly claims.

by atdleft 2008-03-20 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

On the other hand, I think those stories are about to get started.  And there probably will be ads about the inconsistencies between the papers and Hillary's claims. There's an amateur ad on NAFTA on The Field right now.  http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=921

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

Tell him to read my diary.

Doh!

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

I'm sure he reads the Clinton pr spin, but he reads other material, too -- So he knows that this diary is, to put it mildly, skewed and incomplete.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

in what way? all you have is this hysterical argumet, trying to discredit the source. you don't address the content.

by campskunk 2008-03-20 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

Come on.  The source?  The sources in the diary are from directly from the Clinton Campaign, and Gergen himself, a known Clinton loyalist.

Let's say you accuse me and my brother of telling a fib about the giant fish we caught at Lake Obama.  Now, the angler with the biggest fish wins a new boat.  'Course, we don't have the actual fish, or even a photo, but you should just take our word for it.  

I'd say: "Hey Man, swear, on my mother's eyes, we're not lying."

You'd say:  "How can I believe you?  Where's your proof?"

I'd say:  "Well, ask my Bro.  He was there, dude!"

My brothers testimony would be good enough for you right?

Wait, maybe the the guy who watched me and my Bro sit on a tailgate and drink beer all day instead of fishing would be a better "source".  Or not, just depends how gullible you are.

by fogiv 2008-03-20 09:03PM | 0 recs
lame

Save the skit for creative writing 101, this is a blog.

by earthoat 2008-03-21 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: lame

If you don't like that apt analogy, then check other reputable sources about her calendar aside from the Clinton campaign itself.  No one can develop an informed opinion about the question of Clinton's experience by looking only at data and commentary offered by the Clinton campaign.  I'm not impugning them as a source; this is merely an elementary truth for anyone wanting to make an informed judgment about an issue.  Even if a source is non-controversial, you should whenever possible avoid basing claims on a single source.

For example, most major newspapers are writing articles on this subject.  WSJ reports that, on many state visits that Senator and President Clinton both made, her schedule shows her role effectively limited by protocols involving the spouses of heads of state.  So she goes to a Chekhov play with Raisa Gorbachev or attends tea with another leader's wife.  She doesn't attend any serious talks or negotiations involving the leaders or other key players.  I'm not trying to slam Senator Clinton here, just directing you to facts.

As for the question of Senator Clinton's views on NAFTA, it seems clear to me that she never believed in it herself.  Good for her!  But Alegre and other Clinton supporters consistently refuse to acknowledge the undeniable fact that Senator Clinton is on record -- over a period of a decade -- speaking and writing publicly in praise of NAFTA.  In "Living History," her autobiography published in 2003, she refers to it as one of her husband's "successes."  Even then, when he was two years out of office, she was not criticizing NAFTA.  Nevertheless, Alegre and other Clinton supporters decried Obama as a liar for stating that Clinton supported NAFTA.  How can anyone claim that her public statements -- repeated many times -- are not fair game for Obama to cite?  To make such a claim is effectively to say "It doesn't matter what Senator Clinton says in public about an issue.  You cannot judge her by what she says."

by deminva 2008-03-21 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

Actually Gergen is an Independent and was a political consultant and presidential advisor during the Republican administrations of Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-21 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely!

Agreed....  fact-check....?  And a link to the Clinton site...?

Don't get me wrong, I realize how they named it as factcheck.org is rapidly growing in popularity, they however are non-partisan and have endorsed no one.

by JenKinFLA 2008-03-21 05:41AM | 0 recs
by kristannab 2008-03-21 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

That's a good point.  A lot of us knew she was telling us the truth when she said she'd gone all over the world on behalf of Bill and our government.

I guess that's because we were paying attention at the time.

I wonder what Obama was doing.

by alegre 2008-03-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Oh yeah - we may never know...

He's never released his papers during his tenure in the IL state legislature.  Says he lost them or some such nonsense.

by alegre 2008-03-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I don't know how many times people have to explain this on this site.

There are federal laws dating back to Watergate governing the preservation of WH papers.  They are not supposed to throw anything away, they have staff members to keep track of the papers and catalogue them, and then they are under the control of the National Archives.  These are well-organized, extensive operations.

On the other hand, most state legislatures have virtually no staff for ordinary legislators. Only the party leaders have staff of their own.  And there are no laws requiring that papers be kept, preserved or catalogued.

As someone who has consulted with state legislators, I can tell you that virtually none of them hold onto that many papers.  It just doesn't happen.

So the idea that somehow Obama has not been open about his state level papers makes no sense.  They just don't tend to even keep them. They are sort of like college notes that you might keep, but often throw out when you move to a new place...they are not like WH papers which are shipped to climate controlled facilities for preservation.

Got it?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

On the other hand, Kerry talks about his extensive legislative experience (he even said it's more than Hillary's!!)

How convenient that now Obama is arguing the job wasn't that big of a deal, and more like taking courses at a college.  You'd think he has some papers left?  

by ghost 2 2008-03-20 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I didn't say the job of state legislator is like taking course at college, I was using an analogy regarding the way the papers are treated.

By the way, legislators in the US House and Senate don't have to keep their papers either.

The law on preservation of WH papers comes from Watergate.  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Soooooo... he walked out of his office with NOTHING then?

No papers?

No daytimers or week-at-a-glance booklets even?

No scrapbooks of his many and glorious ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

Somehow given the size of the guy's ego, I sersiously doubt he's lost - every - scrap - of - paper!

On the contrary - I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's been saving bits and pieces for his presidential library since he was 20.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

This is so beside the point. Hillary's the one who claims she has all this foreign policy experience, got SCHIP and FMLA passed, etc., from when Bill was in the WH.  Since she says a lot of that worked happened from behind closed doors,  you need to get information from schedules to validate her claims.

On the other hand, Obama points to the actual legislative work he did as a state legislator. Schedules and diaries are irrelevant to that - You can interview people from IL, read newspaper accounts, look at the legislative record to see what he did.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Don't you mean "Kindergarten"?

by dantes 2008-03-20 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

That is as difficult to believe as Obama's story that he attended Wright's church for twenty years and never heard the incendiary things.  It appears that Obamaphiles will swallow anything.  It is no wonder that he was desperate to try to force Hillary to concede a couple of weeks ago.  He knew that he was losing traction.

by macmcd 2008-03-20 07:26PM | 0 recs
Clueless

My father was a state legislator. At that level you don't even get your own secretary.

Before he was a state legislator, my father was a psychiatrist. He has boxes and boxes of files in storage from his days in private practice. From his days as a state legislator? Virtually nothing. No schedules, no memos, nothing. All that exists is the public records of the legislature and the local media.

The suggestion that Obama is hiding something is completely disingenuous.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2008-03-20 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clueless

Did you ask your father why he didn't keep any record as a state legislator?  

He seems to understand that paper trails might be handy in the future as he kept box of files as a psychiatrist.  

by JoeySky18 2008-03-20 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Clueless

For what purpose would he want a paper trail?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Clueless

I have 2 filing cabinets from my 8 years as an engineer for Siemens.  They are CYA files.  I documented EVERYTHING to cover my ass.

by Dave B 2008-03-20 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clueless

Wow.  Good for you.  Maybe we can arrange for the poster-to-which-you-responed's father to give you some time on the couch?  He was a psychiartrist, after all, maybe he can help you "let go" a little, eh?

by fogiv 2008-03-20 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clueless

Engineers do have that tendency....

by politicsmatters 2008-03-21 05:02AM | 0 recs
Don't Even Get Your Own SECRETARY?

Sorry - not buying it.

I'm a paralegal and have had jobs where I had a secretary.  I seriously doubt a State Senator didn't have clerical help while he was in office.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Even Get Your Own SECRETARY?

How about doing some research before you decide what is true?  In my state, college interns are assigned only to the office of the leadership in the state legislature. Ordinary legislators share secretarial help from a pool.  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:17PM | 0 recs
Exactly

In Illinois it's something like one secretary for every three to five members. Anyway, what kind of paper trail do you keep as a state legislator? Bills and amendments you submit become part of the public record. Your votes become part of the public record. Statements you make on the floor become part of the public record.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2008-03-20 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Even Get Your Own SECRETARY?

Well, as a paralegal, you'd know all about serving as a state senator.  Please forgive the direct testimony of people who are in a position to know better (i.e. the poster who's father was a state legislator).  They're just dumb or crazy.  

Although, as well as a paralegal knows elected state office, I suspect it's not as well as Hillary knows how to be a President --- after serving as First Lady.

by fogiv 2008-03-20 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Clueless

That is an odd claim.  

I am guessing that Obama would be very uncomfortable with it being made public how many times he met with Rezko so he probably had little interest in providing documents.  Luckily that will probably come out via Rezko's crowd.

by macmcd 2008-03-20 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Here's what I don't understand.  Obama supporters claim that his time in the Illinois Senate is so much more experience than Hillary has, because her time as first lady doesn't count, and her having more time as a US Senator doesn't mean much because, again, he had so much more time in the Illinois Senate.  But he's not releasing papers, because they just don't keep that stuff on the state legislative level.  So if it's such an important job, why don't they keep any papers?  Why does she have papers and he doesn't?  Is it because he's hiding something, or is it because he just didn't have an important enough job that they bothered to keep papers?

by hearthmoon 2008-03-20 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

There are a number of reasons, some of which are clearly laid out above.

One to highlight is that NOT EVEN US SENATORS AND HOUSE MEMBERS are required to preserve their papers. Most people think they have pretty important jobs, no?

This is only something for the top officers in the executive branch.  The legislation dates back to the Watergate era when President Nixon had tried to keep his papers from investigators and, later, historians.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

So First Lady is a top officer in the executive branch.  You've finally conceded a point.

by hearthmoon 2008-03-20 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I was using the term loosely.  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:21PM | 0 recs
By that rule...

Laura Bush is a top officer in the executive branch.

by kraant 2008-03-20 07:06PM | 0 recs
ok that just stupid
First Lady is not any officer.
She is a spouse of the President. It gives her 0 official power.
by kindthoughts 2008-03-20 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Really?  Did I miss her Senate confirmation hearings?

by rfahey22 2008-03-20 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Perhaps it is because a lot of what he takes credit for was something other people worked on only to have all the credit go to him. (link)

by Mike Pridmore 2008-03-20 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

He didn't have a secretary.

No staff.

Zero - zip - nada.

At least that's what his followers are claiming here.

Must not have been much to the job if they didn't think he rated clerical help.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

If you want to measure importance by having secretarial staff, go ahead. But that seems a wee bit silly to me, as it fundamentally understands the reality of state legislative work in the US.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

oops - fundmentally misunderstands

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

It is difficult to imagine that someone who held a position of power in any governing body who did not have any staff can make the claim that they are the most 'ready on day one' to take the helm of the office of President, and oversee a staff of such magnitude.

Heck, if such a person admittedly did not keep any records on his own, I'd have to say that fact alone shows a serious lack of being ready on 'day one'.  I know I certainly wouldn't want such a person answering a phone call at 3 am on behalf of the safety of my country.

by emsprater 2008-03-20 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I'm with you. I have all kinds of documentation about my life, whether I need it or not.

One wonders why there was none kept...

by splashy 2008-03-21 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I know I'm new, so I should probably just keep my mouth shut, but...

Papers from the Illinois State Senate are kept in the archives.  Which papers are retained are clearly laid out in the Illinois State Records Act.  Personal correspondence and things like memos and date books are not retained.  As first lady, there are more stringent rules on what is to be kept and archived.  

I would argue that State Senators do indeed have an important job, but it does cost taxpayer dollars to maintain archives.  Do we really want our money going to the maintenence of every shred of paper that ever crossed a politicians desk?

As has been pointed out, Hillary herself did not release her schedule and I highly doubt she keeps a copy of it in a box at the bottom of her closet ;)  Why Obama would be expected to do so is a little much in my opinion.

by asherrem 2008-03-20 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Thank you for the concrete information you've provided about the law and practice in Illinois.

And you also make a good point about the costs involved in keeping these documents.  Presidential papers are kept in climate-controlled archival areas, which are costly to build and maintain. Plus they are not good unless the papers have gone through a cataloguing system.  Doing this requires specialists who know how to create the sort of finding aids and indexes that will be useful to researchers. Having used archival materials for my own research I can tell you how important it is that these materials are handled properly.

To do this with every state legislator would be expensive and, given the many other demands on states for services such as assistance to foster parents, health care, education, roads, respite care, public health, etc., it's hard to argue that this is the best use of the taxpayers' money.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-21 05:08AM | 0 recs
Without saying anything

About the worthiness of that accusation, I'll note that other candidates have had the misfortune of misplacing billing records from their law firm and have suffered greatly for the mistake.

One would think their supporters would be more charitable in response to what they see as similar circumstances for other candidates . . . but I suppose it's only okay if you're a Clinton, right?

by Drew 2008-03-20 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Without saying anything

Ouch!

by fogiv 2008-03-20 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Well it certainly isn't going to help him when people like the Irish Prime Minister speaks up in support of Hillary.

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/new s.cfm?newsid=19398210&BRD=2185&P AG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=

by apolitik 2008-03-20 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

And, as I'm sure you're aware, other Irish political figures have said that Hillary overstated her claims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

But I don't think that you are aware that  your source David Trimble opposed President Clinton's appointment of former US Senator George J. Mitchell as the chairman of the multi-party talks which resulted in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (GFA) of 1998.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-20 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Don't bother.  He's been debunked countless times on another thread and refuses to concede the point.  But he got tricked into conceding a point above, by moi.

by hearthmoon 2008-03-20 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Well, I don't see how what you posted debunks my point in any way. Others see Hillary's role differently and you know that's the truth - and your explanation for why we should overlook that difference is vague at best.

And I'm not a he - I'm a middle aged white woman who is a mother and a union member and a life-long Democrat and feminist.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

I was using the term loosely.

by hearthmoon 2008-03-20 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Ha!  I appreciate that!

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

One guy.  That's it.  David Trimble who opposed Bill's appointment of George Mitchell as his special envoy to Northern Ireland in the first place, and treated the women at the talks tables with little or no respect.

The guy left office as First Minister of the develoved government after refusing to impliment the Good Friday Agreement and all he said was that she wasn't involved in the talks - which is in absolute line with anything she's ever said.  She never claimed to run the effort or even sit in on the talks.

Those claims of Trimbles mean nothing in relation to Hillary's work.  Give it a rest.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

Alegre:

If you're paying attention and want everyone to know the truth, I suggest you read more news articles on the substance of Senator Clinton's official schedules.  For example, as we all know, she accompanied her husband on many official visits overseas.  I don't know anyone who denies that.  It would be silly.  For eight years, we saw them traveling together on many, many occasions.  However, her official schedule provides insights into what she was doing on those visits.  In most instances of joint travel with her husband, the President, she was clearly doing the sorts of things protocol dictates for First Ladies (and more broadly, for the spouses of heads of state).  The same things Laura Bush often does.  We know that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton at times made public speeches on important issues during her travels.  But her official schedule makes clear that she was most definitely not accompanying President Clinton into the closed-door meetings he was having with his peers.  She was instead forced to do things like have tea with another president's wife, or attend a play with Raisa Gorbachev.

I don't say this to demean Senator Clinton in her role as First Lady.  However, she has explicitly claimed that her time as First Lady bolsters her argument that she has more necessary experience than does Senator Obama, especially to be Commander in Chief.  For all I know, she and Bill spoke extensively about every issue and decision he faced.  But her official schedules do not bolster her argument in some key areas.

by deminva 2008-03-21 08:00AM | 0 recs
Interesting definition of opposition.

In public, she supported NAFTA; she campaigned for NAFTA; she helped craft the strategy that would pass NAFTA.  Indeed, in every way that is of any importance, she supported NAFTA.

But in her heart, apparently, she opposed it.  

Remind me, what the hell good did her supposed personal opposition do anyone?

And if she were to become president, what else can we expect her to "oppose" in the same way?  Really, what will she "oppose" until it, like NAFTA, becomes the law of the land?

Honestly, this is why I can't support Clinton in the primary.  It's the same as it was in the previous Clinton administration - she does everything in her power to support the bad policy, then laments that she could have done nothing else.

I don't want another eight years of a president who pretends she is powerless to avoid responsibility for her policies.

by Drew 2008-03-20 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting definition of opposition.

I'm right with you. Who cares if she opposed NAFTA in her heart if she actually worked to get it passed and then praised it afterwards.

I'm not saying that she should have come out in opposition when her husband was trying to get it passed.

But if she really didn't think it was worthwhile, I'm sure she could have sat out that issue and worked on something else at the time.

Instead, she put her time, energy, brainpower,and reputation trying to get it passed.  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting definition of opposition.

Or, if she felt she had to help her husband on an issue she personally opposed, at least have the scruples not to attack her opponent for saying she favored it, when there is an extensive record of her speaking favorably about it.

by deminva 2008-03-21 08:02AM | 0 recs
Prove It

All I'm seeing here is a lot of BS - prove it.  Give us links pal.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:17PM | 0 recs
Read your own spin.

Clinton's own schedule shows that she participated in the efforts to pass NAFTA.  The best she and her campaign can do is point to David Gergen - hardly an honest broker, here - who refers vaguely to her "enthusiasm" for the policy.

Regardless of how "enthusiastic" she was, she nevertheless worked on behalf of the administration to pass NAFTA.  

At best, you can claim that she was a good soldier, fighting for her administration's policies, in spite of her personal opposition - but for me, even that's unpersuasive.  She was First Lady, not some bureaucrat.  She could have declined and pursued efforts for which she could have mustered more "enthusiasm."  She didn't.

So the question remains: what does she claim to oppose now that she'll support later, albeit with a degree of "enthusiasm" that she can later claim as "opposition."

by Drew 2008-03-20 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Prove It

Alegre, thanks again for your hard work, and your steadfast energy in the face of fact-free onslought.   I still think you remind me of someone...

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-20 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Prove It

The NYT has looked at the schedules:

The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/pol itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=3&hp

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 09:39PM | 0 recs
So when is Abe Lincoln II

going to make his shit public?

by earthoat 2008-03-21 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re:Tell You What

Since no Clinton supporters have jumped in to say, "Gosh, good points," I'll do so.

Good points.

Why is it that lots of Clinton supporters are quick to agree with Alegre that these schedules clearly prove every claim Clinton made about her experience.  Then, we you offer substantive rebuttals, we get a field of crickets.

by deminva 2008-03-21 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re:Tell You What

alegre just copies this stuff from the Hhub, which has even been discounted by Tapper, who is usually attacking BHO.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html

by 1jpb 2008-03-21 08:46AM | 0 recs
Kinda like the way she opposed the Iraq war

by voting to authorize it.

by rb608 2008-03-21 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

alegre, we're a better progressive community for your writing and activism. Hillary 08!

http://noratings.blogspot.com/

by JFK464 2008-03-20 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

She just does a cut and paste from the Hhub.

By the way Tapper who has been a huge BHO attacker said this about the Hhub product:

The Clinton campaign sent out talking points for supporters today, which included this odd little "myth" versus "fact."

"Myth: Contrary to her stated opposition to NAFTA, Hillary Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage.

"Fact: It is no secret that passing NAFTA was a priority of the Clinton Administration, but numerous contemporary accounts make clear that Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA, and her position on NAFTA was and remains consistent."

OK, first of all, that "Myth" is not a "Myth" -- it's a fact.

Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage. True statement. Period. End of story.

As we reported yesterday,  on November 10, 1993, Clinton headlined a briefing and rah-rah session for businesswomen to support NAFTA.

And as the AP reports today, the recently released 11,000-plus pages of her First Lady "schedules show her holding at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping to win congressional approval of the deal."

Our friends at the Clinton campaign should look up the word "Myth" in the dictionary.

But the more troublesome question I have is one the Clinton campaign has repeatedly refused to answer ever since we talked to two attendees of that 1993 meeting in which then-First Lady Clinton was telling businesswomen NAFTA would be good for the country and the economy.

If "Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA" at the time, as her campaign now claims, why was she telling the American people that it was good for the economy?

Why did one attendee of that November 1993 meeting -- unaffiliated with any campaign -- recall the meeting to me by saying Clinton's "remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive of NAFTA."

Clinton is not claiming her position has evolved, mind you.

She's saying she opposed it at the time. And the facts are: she publicly and privately spoke in favor of it at the time.

So....was she being sincere then?

Or is she being sincere now?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Those 11,000 Pages of Schedules Prove What

We'd be an even better community if Alegre engaged in honest, fair debates with those who disagree with her.  I have read many of her diaries and have never seen Alegre acknowledge any point, no matter how well sourced, that weakens her initial argument.

by deminva 2008-03-21 08:07AM | 0 recs
I can't say enough good things about your diaries.

I learn more from reading them than I do reading the LA TIMES.  Great job on doing your homework and getting your facts together.  This is another one for my HOTLIST, and the substance is great "watercooler talk"!!!   Highly rec'd!!!

by Sandy1938 2008-03-21 07:07AM | 0 recs
Give it up. The primaries are decided. Obama won.

Let's have a group hug and turn our attention to McCain.

by cypruspoint 2008-03-21 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Myths & Facts about Hillary's Schedules

Thank you for a well researched and factual diary once again.

by americanincanada 2008-03-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Thanks :)

As for the diary iteslf - yeah it's factual but I didn't have to do a lot of research tonight.  This was up on FactHub so thank Hillary's cracker-jack campaign staff for the great research.

I really am zonked - been staying up until 1 am a lot lately and when you have to get kids up and ready for school at O'dark-thirty each morning and then go to work for 9 hours... whew!  I need to get to sleep early tonight!

by alegre 2008-03-20 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks :)

Too bad they left out the part about how the Clintons good friend Bruce Lindsey signs off on what papers are released.

By the way, where are the last seven years of the Clintons tax returns?  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks :)

WTF is your problem?

Read the diary - that should keep your lips moving for a while.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks :)

Good spin.  Doesn't work here, try back over at the orange sewer.

by emsprater 2008-03-20 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks :)

Good spin?  Do you realize how silly that sounds?  The diary is literally cut and pasted from the campaign website.

If you want spin fresh from the tap, where do you go?  The website of ANY campaign.

Maybe I could just make a diary out of every email I receive from barackobama.com?  I won't think about it, you know, just regurgiate here.

I used to think that Democrats represented the thinking class.  Clearly, that's not the rule around here.

by fogiv 2008-03-20 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks :)

The Hhub may not be a neutral source.  Why don't you check out the New York Times:

The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/pol itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=3&hp

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 09:42PM | 0 recs
Hhub caught

She gets the stuff from the Hhub, which has been shown to be false.

Tapper, a BHO attacker has even shown the errors of Hhub.  Look for yourself:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html

Do you want to vote for a candidate with manipulations on their website?  You should be insulted that HRC thinks you can be fooled into voting for her.

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 10:08PM | 0 recs
Hillary's Schedules
wow, was she ever busy. I hope Obama publicly admires her for that work, since he's made the claim that she was hiding something in those papers and didn't want them released.  It's time to be fair?  
And again when she releases her taxes.  
by anna shane 2008-03-20 05:22PM | 0 recs
He should now...

Because the documents prove that she has NOTHING to hide. :-)

by atdleft 2008-03-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Schedules

FYI, this diary wouldn't exist if there wasn't a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit pending to force this public information out into the open.

Clinton volunteered nothing.  N O T H I N G.

The OP's previous diary about this document dump suggested that Hillary released her records and Obama didn't.  Pretty funny that was.  
But at least that diary had some writing in it, plus it was a funny, kooky, backwards premise that made you think a little...and then shake your head.

by haystax calhoun 2008-03-20 09:19PM | 0 recs
I hear Obama's might scared of releasing
his own records.
What's he afraid of?
by earthoat 2008-03-21 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I hear Obama's might scared of releasing

See above - there's a long discussion about this, demonstrating that state legislators do not preserve their papers.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-21 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Myths & Facts

Great info!

by Mike Pridmore 2008-03-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Myths & Facts

Thanks!

by alegre 2008-03-20 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Myths & Facts

How can you take credit and thanks?  You could just put a link to the Hhub.  This diary, like many on myDD, is propaganda directly from the campaign.

Aren't you pushing your luck since you want to support HRC, and HRC has a problem with taking credit for the work of others.

Try the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/pol itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=3&hp

by 1jpb 2008-03-20 09:47PM | 0 recs
Ads and stories to come

I think the most important stories to come out of these papers now, which will be getting fuller play in campaign ads and more stories are:

1. Hillary has one meeting on SCHIP. This contradicts her claim that she was very involved in its creation, a claim undermined by Hatch, Waxman and congressional staff in an article in the Boston Globe.

2. She had no meetings on the Family and Medical Leave Act, something she claimed she was involved in helping to pass.

3. She had five meetings on NAFTA where she told members of Congress and other leaders that they should support it, thus contradicting her claims from Ohio.

4. The vast majority of her foreign policy experience consisted of tea with foreign leaders and their wives, plus visits to hospitals and various ceremonial functions.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 05:42PM | 0 recs
You Didn't Read the Diary

Did you.

by alegre 2008-03-20 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

Of course I read it. But I also read things outside of the what the Clinton pr machine puts out, and their spin is not the only frame of interpretation that has been put on the papers, nor will be in the coming weeks.

So do you still think she helped pass FMLA? Was real involved in SCHIP?  If so, why only 1 meeting on SCHIP and none on FMLA?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

Let's play the positive game shall we.  I have enough of the negative campaign.

Please tell us about your candidate's achievement in foreign policy.  Or what is his plan on foreign relation that is more superior than our candidate.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-20 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

He can't - he's got nothin'.

All these punks can do is lie and tear down the record of a good and decent public servant.

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

So you want me to change the subject of your diary because you don't want to answer questions and criticisms?  

I'll write my own diary when I feel like it.  Right now I'm staying on the subject of your diary.  

Most people don't expect to post something and then just have everyone write "great job, well researched," do they?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

He's got nothin' but Spam.

Never cared for the stuff myself but Monty Python did a great skectch about it back in the day ;o)

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

That's laughable.  When diaries about Obama's grandmother disappear from the front page, I'll be convinced that people want an open and positive exchange of ideas around here.  One of the arguments in Clinton's favor, for a long time now, was that she's been "vetted."  This is part of that process, just like it was with Rezko and Wright.  If she wants to campaign on the experience of the eight years of the Clinton Administration, then she should be able to explain her actions during that time.  Certainly McCain would require no less.

Also, Gergen's recollection has been contradicted by two participants in the NAFTA meeting that is at the heart of this controversy, per ABC.  Conveniently, that factoid didn't make it into this diary.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-20 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: You Didn't Read the Diary

Right.  And yet, Politicsmatters has asked a few very simple questions.  Your response:  an accusation of negativity and a barrage of off-topic questions.  Attack, change subject, re-direct.  Wolfson style!

Didn't your Mama ever tell you not to answer a question with a question?

by fogiv 2008-03-20 09:34PM | 0 recs
Facts about Hillary's Schedules

What surprises me the most is how Team Obama, Obama shilling media, Obots, and Republicans trash Hillary's experience when there is clear evidence, multiple sources of well documented evidence, personal accounts of people there at the time. They are like children that keep saying "Why?" over and over and over again to everything that is said.

Anyone have any good parenting tips?

by grlpatriot 2008-03-20 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

"Anyone have any good parenting tips?"

Yeah.  When your kids come of age, stop being demeaning toward them.

by freedom78 2008-03-20 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

Your "evidence" is not as clear as can be.  There are gaps and problems with it.  Attacking people who point those out doesn't make the case for Clinton any more persuasive.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-20 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

sorry, this is the same hysterical attempt to discredit the source. you can't address the content. please try again.

by campskunk 2008-03-20 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

Here's content:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html

"Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. 'They're all saying, 'What's this all about?' We all heard it firsthand.' She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today."

by rfahey22 2008-03-20 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

jake tapper, in the bag for obama, has hearsay "evidence" from two after-the-fact anonymous sources, whch you seem to prefer to contemporaneous documentation.

i said CONTENT. not slander from people too cowardly to go on the record.

by campskunk 2008-03-20 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

It's enough content for follow-up questions.  When the documentation provides nothing but date/time/place and a short written description of most activities from that period, such evidence will have to suffice as a basis for inquiries.  Since when were you high on journalistic standards, anyway?  You turned Obama's comments about his grandmother into some sort of racist screed against the white race.

by rfahey22 2008-03-20 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

By the way, way to discredit the source, the very thing you mocked above.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

the sources won't identify themselves, and neither will jake tapper. i can't discredit someone if i can't find out who they are.

by campskunk 2008-03-21 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

You don't think it's possible that they're still public servants who don't want to burn any bridges in the event of a Clinton presidency?  The very fact that people are coming forward at all means that this claim is worthy of investigation.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-21 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

It's not hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence would be if the sources said they heard it from someone else. He is using anonymous sources, as it a standard practice in journalism, as I expect you are well aware.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-21 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

Broken record every one of them.

I guess sometimes you just have to ignore them and carry on a discussion with the saner members of our commuity ;o)

by alegre 2008-03-20 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts about Hillary's Schedules

I thought you decried this sort of thing - completely fact-free attacks. I thought you had to come to a place where there was greater civility, yet you imply that your critics are not sane.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-21 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Myths & Facts about Hillary's Schedules

Myth: The Clintons have been forthcoming and helpful in getting their records into the public eye.

Fact: Bill Clinton has put a legal hold on many of the documents from his Presidency.  These documents cannot be viewed by the public until a certain time frame (12 years) has passed or until he releases this hold.

Fun Fact: Bill can't release his hold, because he's embarrassed about spilling a Zima on these records.  Er...maybe not.

Myth: It's reasonable for the Clintons to release their tax returns on tax day.

Fact: Actually, previous year's tax returns were due on PREVIOUS tax days.

Fun Fact: The Clintons' prior returns cannot be made public, because the Masons stole them as part of their plot to control the world's recycled paper supply.  Pretty sure this one's true.

by freedom78 2008-03-20 06:23PM | 0 recs
I'm troll rated...what a joke.

OH NO!  I've been troll rated FOR TELLING THE TRUTH and for making a COMPLETELY NON-OFFENSIVE JOKE!

Whatever will I do?

by freedom78 2008-03-20 06:43PM | 0 recs
Why not try a boycott? nt

by Radiowalla 2008-03-20 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why not try a boycott? nt

Nah.  I don't need to exist only where everyone agrees with me.  I'll leave that to Republicans.

by freedom78 2008-03-20 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Myths &

Why do you make entire diaries linking Hillary's Campaign website.  What's the point.  Just put up a link to facts.Hillaryhub.com and let Wolfson do his speaking for you.

by shalca 2008-03-20 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Myths &

It's what passes for journalism in these parts.  Sad, I know.  Does that mean that Clinton herself is on strike from DailyKos?

by rfahey22 2008-03-20 08:27PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the cut & paste

I couldn't find Hillary Clinton on the internets :@

Hey MyDD mods, how bout a link to hillaryhub right up front and center?  We're busy here, with kids to feed and planes to catch.  No time to root through all these diaries.  We need to mainline our talking points, and NOW!

by haystax calhoun 2008-03-20 08:56PM | 0 recs
About Hillary being unenthusiastic

about NAFTA...

Contemporaneous reports about the run-up to Colin Powell's presentation before the UN in 2002 say that Colin Powell was extremely unenthusiastic about making the presentation.

I suppose Colin Powell's supporters might try to use that as an excuse for his presentation.  But the fact remains: he DID present it to the UN.  His lack of enthusiasm for his dirty job is no excuse at all.  Any claim he could ever make that he was against making the presentation are irrelevant.  He wasn't against it enough to stand up and say NO when he was called upon.

And the same should be said of Hillary.  She may have been "unenthusiastic," as Gergen suggests, but that is not the same as opposition.  Opposition would be her denouncing NAFTA, or refusing to endorse NAFTA, or at the very least being passive enough to fake a bad case of bronchitis when it was her job to boost NAFTA.  But, no, she made presentations in favor of NAFTA.

Most reasonable people, I think, would conclude from this that her after the fact claims of being privately against NAFTA are irrelevant and contrary to the real facts.  It's inescapable.  I appreciate the efforts of Hillary supporters to spin this away, but this can't possibly make sense to anybody who isn't already desperate to be persuaded.

And it's not character assassination to point this out, at all.  This is a major issue in the campaign.

by Dumbo 2008-03-21 02:04AM | 0 recs
Re: About Hillary being unenthusiastic

This is a great point.  How many politicians are allowed to have it both ways on legislation that they helped to enact?  Either she did have the behind-the-scenes influence that she claims or she was a mouthpiece for the administration.  Someone who claims to have 8 years' experience in the White House does not get to pick and choose which elements of that experience are relevant and which are not.

by rfahey22 2008-03-21 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Myths

So Wright was invited to an event in 1998 with PRESIDENT Bill Clinton..so what?  This was BEFORE his statements that the government was responsible for 9/11 and Wright was not Bill Clinton's close friend and spiritual adviser.  Moreover, the Obama camp loves to say that they should not have to run in opposition to Bill Clinton...well if they do not then how does this picture matter?

by ericrsiny 2008-03-21 07:03AM | 0 recs
Alegre

facts.hillaryhub.com is not a source, and I'm disappointed that this website allows diaries like this.

by amiches 2008-03-21 07:03AM | 0 recs
Facts and verification

Yes, folks, this is something from Hillary's Fact website. Oh my god! What do you expect with the Obama shilling media. If you read the info, you would see many cites from news sources. You also have to realize that some of the information comes from personal accounts of people there at the time. Wow, real people that can actually give a first hand account. You just cannot get any better verification than that.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-21 07:45AM | 0 recs
Great diary, thanks

The Obamabots here seem to have a big problem with facts. Maybe because when the facts come out Hillary is cleary the most qualified and would likely be the best President of the three remaining contenders.

by Christopher Lib 2008-03-21 07:54AM | 0 recs
speaking of myths

Why are you quoting here, without correction, an article that contains the false accusation that the Obama campaign somehow winked at the Canadian government about NAFTA?  That has been repeatedly debunked, and both the CBC and the Canadian government have apologized for the erroneous report.

by writerswrite 2008-03-21 08:13AM | 0 recs
more myths and facts

Myths and Facts about Hillary's Balkan adventures --

The Washington Post reports today that her story earns two Pinnochios -- in other words, there's no truth there. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_p ar.html

Summation at the end of the story:
Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

Full story:
"    "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
    --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.
The Facts

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control of Big Red One," the 1st Infantry Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian." Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me.

Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport."

by politicsmatters 2008-03-21 08:49AM | 0 recs
Go Alegre GO!

My all time favorite quote of alegre:  "I'm tired tonight and have a lot of work to do on another project, so I'm going to let Hillary's press office do the talking for the most part on these documents."  That is so BIG of her to pass off to the little people running the HRC campaign.  Alegre has done more to hurt HRC than she will ever know.  

by Uncle 2008-03-21 09:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------