Dear Reader,
First, thanks for reading, and for your impassioned note. I see that you did not take the time to read the link I graciously provided. According to NEWSWEEK, not the RNC, Mrs. Clinton rejected the idea that she could accelerate the process (of releasing over 3 Million documents) by encouraging her husband to lift restrictions he has placed on confidential communications with his wife on policy matters.
"Well, that's not my decision to make," she said. In 1994, according to another National Archives document obtained by NEWSWEEK, President Clinton formally designated both his wife and his close adviser Bruce Lindsey as co-representatives for control of his papers in the event of his death or disability.
Lindsey now reviews all White House papers at the library before they are cleared for release; Hillary, Carson says, "has never been involved in the clearing process.
Bruce is the designee." But that has not stopped Clinton's principal rival, Sen. Barack Obama, from hitting the issue hard. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, he called Clinton's responses on the records issue "disingenuous." "She can release these papers," Obama said. "She can get them released soon." Carson shot back that Obama "has formally abandoned the politics of hope and is running a negative campaign."
It was Barack, not the RNC - and I'm not debating the Bush Administration, the Reagan Administration, or the Lincoln or Adams's Admninistration (either of them). That article was just about Clinton. Clinton and 3 million sheets of paper.
3 million sheets of paper that she's back peddled about releasing and not releasing. It's just a whiff of the coming 4 to 8 years. More of the same. Not exactly "Change", eh?
If you've been reading my stuff - you'd know that I think that they're all crooks, and liers and theives - and that only the best of the best can obtain the Presidency, and that's because they owe so much to so many - the only way they can begin to pay-off that level of debt is with the power of the Executive Branch. I guess Wal-Mart (from Arkansass, I recon) needs a couple more favors of the Clintons?
I also loudly wonder why anyone thinks she can win. She's a crooked post. So is her husband. She's not for "Change" - can't be! Could be for "good-old-days"... but that just comes off all conservative-like. She's also not a very good politician. Much like the DNC's past two candidates. Why are the Democrats nominating her? Do they forget so quickly what he did to their party?
Perhaps you noticed that I endorsed Al Gore for the DNC nomination a couple weeks back? No one said "boo" about that.
2 comments:
Dear writer,
While I agree with you on the idea of a Clinton II presidency, I think you missed my point. This is a total non issue. It is anon issue that is going to be the first of hundreds of new and retreaded controversies that will be pushed by the likes of GE/NBC news for the duration of the campaign and the second restoration. All of the sudden keeping administration documents from being released is a gigantic issue? Why? Because the person doing isn,t a goddammedrepublican, that's why. That was my point and by pushing that it is an issue in this forum without calling it in context of being total b.s. You are as guilty as the washington post and the NYT. If you want to slam Hillary, bring up the fact that she has continually allowed herself to be fooled by two of the biggest liars in the country, Bill and George. Call her out on her vote for the whole Iraq and Iran votes. Just slam her for real issues, not made up garbage. While I know that Obama brought this up and newsweek is covering it I will bet thatit will be the lead story on MTP on sunday and that the loudest calls for full disclosure will come from the right.
Finally, from I have seen, the polling shows Clinton beating every republican frontrunner in the states where it counts.
Looks like the damn war of the roses again, eh?
All right I thought of a couple of other things between the train and my office.
Firstly, I do read your stuff and I understand what you think of the politcal system in general. The problem is, lumping all of "them" into the bucket of 'crook' 'liar' etc. ends up creating a framework where no one is accountable anymore because your own cynicism ends up acting as a forgiveness action. The powers that be can see that no one gives a damn so they continue to do what they do. Sure once in a while Mr. Smith will go to Washington and do good things. Other times, the crap on the bottom of your shoe will go to Washington and do good things while undermining everything else. Case in point, the EPA, founded by Nixon, clean air act, signed by Bush I.
It is when the crap from your shoe comes in and attempts to destroy what makes the U.S. great as a nation for his and "his people's" benefit he gets away with it because of this type of cynicism.
NOw what you are doing is sitting back and wearing the mantle of the jaded policitcal cynic and slamming one politician for an action that, if put in proper context is hardly comparable to the actions of another. But since they "all crooks anyway" the full blown crimes of one are in effect being forgiven and/or forgfotten because the opposition candidate is doing the same to a lesser degree of damage to the Republic.
Let Obama push this as an issue, it merely confirms for me what I have know is that he is an empty suit and should not be president. It also confirms that Hillary Clinton is not a good politician for not seeing this coming a mile away.
Eight years of Clinton was all about document disclosure and any delay for whatever reason was immediatley pushed as proof that the Clintons were the most absolute evil satanic flesh eating monsters to ever come out of Arkansas. Of course, William Safire would just say "this raises serious questions about what they are hiding".
Post a Comment