By Jim Tankersley
From time to time, Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign e-mails instructions to its surrogates -- the political leaders and other supporters who champion Clinton on television and radio -- on how to respond to hot issues of the day. Sometimes, the campaign is nice enough to copy reporters on the messages, as one more way to hammer home its message.
One of those so-called "talking points" e-mails just popped into The Swamp's inbox, an obvious response to several stories (such as this one and this one) this morning on the 11,000 pages of appointment calendars from Clinton's First Lady days, which were released yesterday by the National Archives.
The upshot of the Clinton campaign's, er, take on the documents and ensuing coverage: The release of the documents was out of the candidate's control; the schedules support her claims of an active policy role in the White House; and their lack of detail in no way undercuts her "experience" claims.
As the memo repeats twice: 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."
Here are the complete talking points. Add your own spin in the comments section.
MYTHS AND FACTS: FIRST LADY SCHEDULES
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 as has said so publicly on the record.
By law, before releasing any documents, the Archives must conduct a 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]

Comments
Has Rev. Wright yet commented on the schedules?
Posted by: Spector | March 20, 2008 11:08 AM
All that I was thinking as I read this was "Now just what "IS" the meaning of "IS".
This is just so typical of the Clintons. Just remember folks if you vote for her it will also be a vote for Bill. I just wonder what he can get into in the White House this time that you will be explaining to your young children.
Posted by: Phil Burt | March 20, 2008 11:34 AM
There's a reason the Baltimore sun was portrayed as a dying edifice willing to post anything in a recent critically acclaimed show.
Posted by: Darrone | March 20, 2008 11:56 AM
Of course it would be hard for any member of the general public to comment on the substantive meaning of the papers. But this much I can say: if hillary played such an important role in policy making and administration, then we must've had a dual-presidency between the two clintons. FOr what reason would hillary engage in such pursuits, since, after all, there is a vice-president??? why then argue that Obama lacks experience if he's free to divide up the work between him and someone else who has no security clearance and no prior experience?
Posted by: tony.s | March 20, 2008 12:02 PM
These docs show she had significant role in NAFTA.
Meet me in 'ohio' HA
Posted by: Jokeless | March 20, 2008 12:04 PM
Let's be honest, no one's experienced enough to be president until they're president.
And why wasn't experience the topic of the day when a one (full) term govenor from the state with the weakest governorship in the country decided to run?
Answer: because he was white.
Oh, sure, he got a running mate and later appointed a Secretary of Defense with WH cred, but how much good that do him? We're still battling for control of what was once a third-rate power.
Experience doesn't matter people. You could hire the most EXPERIENCED executive to run your company and still find him landing safely with a mulit-million dollar parachute while your stock plummets.
What matters is JUDGMENT. And until the American voter gets that in his collective head, we'll still keep getting politicians that sleep with hookers and or get hummers from interns because they are so arrogant they think it doesn't matter to the American people.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | March 20, 2008 12:05 PM
Just seems so like that only real thing was a first lady only
I know that I support Obama
and will unless he losses the bid for Democratic Presidential race I will then vote for McCain because Hilary will not get my vote and it won"t be wasted on a person I don not trust as Hilary
Posted by: TWEAVER | March 20, 2008 12:06 PM
That's funny. Clinton's word of the week, "myth"
Posted by: CC | March 20, 2008 12:08 PM
Who was it that once said "You can fool all the people some of the time . . ." At least the Clintons are consistent in their never ending torturing of the facts and truth. Prime Example? Bill CLinton when accused of getting serviced by Monica Lewinsky, standing in front of the cameras and promising that an investigation would be getting to the bottom of the episode as quickly as possible. Just exactly what did HE need to investigate. He WAS there, wasn't he.
Posted by: b chambers | March 20, 2008 12:09 PM
Myth-Hillary Clinton truly cares about the voters in Florida and Michigan
Fact-She made no effort to fight for their right to vote BEFORE the elections occurred in Iowa, New Hamsphire, Nevada and South Carolina
Posted by: Jonathan | March 20, 2008 12:09 PM
Did it occur to anyone else that prior to this personal revelation by Barak Obama regarding his minister and his need to speak to the race issue..40% of Americans felt Barak Obama's religious affiliation was Muslim? Now they know. This appears to me as a perfect orchestration of political prowess by the Obama team. Release the Rezko update, address the screaming 'racist' all on a Friday afternoon. Then, let it fester for the weekend with an announcement of a major speech on 'race' on Tuesday.
This tactic negated the admission by the Obama campaign that once again, a new set of circumstances regarding the Rezko growing donor list and trial.
Interestingly, the speech once again enflamed the racist angle by comparing Mrs Ferraro to Reverend Wright. How can African Americans as a core group not feel like a lost 'race' in the United States when the 'race' is pushed out and roped in at the whim of Barak Obama when he first needs a launching base to make a name for himself..second disavows the 'race' while he says he transcends 'race' and ignores the plight of the Jenna 6. Once again he reaches for the 'race' to propel him forward in a caucus..giving his stump speech in 'black speak' accent on ya'all..throws the 'race' back in the closet as he denies his faith and once again open the wounds by declaring himself the 'uniter'.
Uniter of what? A country that has long lived, since the late 60's in relative comfort with all races and religions. My street is a great mix..we have black, white, christians, jews, homosexuals and a lot of pets. It is my choice as a free citizen to attend any function, church, lecture or movie, I choose. If I ever get the inclination to go to South Central, Los Angeles, I am as uncomfortable in that neighborhood, as someone from South Central,would feel in my neighborhood. The same goes for Koreatown and Chinatown. That is the beauty and the beast we describe as our country.
Our choice-not Obamas business or political ploy used as chicanery to influence an election. The greatest speech ever given on the subject of 'race' began when our forefathers landed on this soil and wrote the rest of the story they called the Constitution. It describes what I believe most thinking Americans long for..a place to call home.
All the while his campaign saying a redo was OK in MI and FL but working to destroy the redo by running the clock.
I have to hand to to BO as this is as low as it gets. To stir the racial pot to subjugate impropriety on the state level and gain enough media attention to disenfranchise millions of 'folks' by not addressing their voting concerns in two populace states.
Unbelievable-and CNN focuses on the dates of liaisons with Monica Lewinsky as the sole information worth garnering from 11,000 pages of documentation of data 'everyone' was salivating over that are obviously very public thanks to the Ken Starr authority.
Is there reality reporting going on?
Posted by: MMiller | March 20, 2008 12:15 PM
Jim,
Thank you for clarifying these documents about Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton is a hard working woman as you have written, the thing that stricks me the most is her involvement with microenterprise, education and health care. For that she gets my vote 100%.
Posted by: alice newton | March 20, 2008 12:16 PM
Sounds like Hillary, by her own admission,has already served two terms as Co-President, so she should be ineligible to run for a third term.Don't you agree?
Also, its not the records in the library that I'm concerned about, it's the records that were hidden or vanished in the White House.
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 12:18 PM
Gee, I guess the Economy was doing so terrible under Clinton.......NOT
And I guess we were in a war costing us billions of dollars a month when Clinton was in office...NOT
I guess the price of gas was way too high when Clinton was in office...NOT
I guess the budget deficit was also going up when Clinton was in office...NOT
So if you want another 4 years of Governor Bush then you will vote for McCain. If you're tired of all the BS republicans and the fear monger that they run their campaigns on then you will vote for a Democrat
Posted by: MK | March 20, 2008 12:21 PM
Al sharpton Jesse Jackson, There are done ,,, they have a double standard,,, when it come to whites and black,, there is racism in the United State, most of it is coming from the Black Americans,,,, How can Al Sharpton say, its ok for black to get imus fired,,, for the comments imus made, but Jeremiah Wright is ok thousands of excuses a double standard,, its time for Jesse and Al to get out of the lime light,,, Had respect for all sharpton,, until I seen him on Oreilly ,, Just like Obama,, I voted for Obama
in California,, but now when it comes time for the presidency He does not have my vote,, On CNN And Msnbc, I seen alot of barack Obama supporter out there saying
I Hilary is given the primary,,, with the super delegates,,, Obama supporter are going to Vote for McCain,,, there for OBama lost my Vote, in fact I will Vote for McCain,,
If OBama wins the primary,,, because
Barack Obama is a liar,,,
To all
Obama speech ,,,, Not sure if you caught Not only did Obama,,, Refuses to denounce him,, but even More,, He say in his own words,,,
Barack Obama was in church when Jeremiah Wright,, was spewing Anti-American, Racist ism ,,,, Those were his own words,,, barack was there
After going on keith Oberman ,Show obama said he would denounce that if he heard that language he would leave and not tolerate it , and denounce it
After he went on MSNBC,, he went on FOX CNN ABC
Posted by: Paul V | March 20, 2008 12:22 PM
Regardless of whether or not they had control of when they were released, you have to admit that the timing was perfect, with the scandal regarding the New York governor resigning and then the release of Reverend's Wright's inflammatory statements taking up all the media attention.
Posted by: Mortalyn Flux | March 20, 2008 12:22 PM
Spin= there's nothing incriminating in these White House records, so quite possibly there's nothing incriminating in Clinton's TAX RETURNS, which she has the authority to release but won't.
Posted by: dizzy | March 20, 2008 12:26 PM
Hillary's record shows excellent, intelligence, multifacteted experience, immense energy to move and bring subjects.
Hillary 08!
Posted by: Meg | March 20, 2008 12:29 PM
MYTH = How methodically the Clinton's have convered up details that it would take years of probing to discover the truth!
Posted by: Sherry Miller | March 20, 2008 12:31 PM
If it isn't evident by now it should be. The Clinton's will spin anything and everything as needed to attain and retain power.
Apparently Hillary was "co-president" with the "Bill" which means, without fear of contradiction" that electing Hillary we will once again have a "co-presidency."
Has this nation not had enough of this Bush/Clinton monarchy? It was my impression that England was the country of Kings and Queens. It has wounded Hillary deeply that when her "self appointed" ascension to the throne of presidency has become derailed she now resorts to the "scorch and burn" politics of all Clinton campaigns. All one must do to verify that is to review the devastation they left in Arkansas.
Please folks, let's give this nation a better alternative than Hillary.
Posted by: dharper | March 20, 2008 12:31 PM
I personally don't care what a president does on their own time. But while they are handling their presidently duties, I want them to have some common sense and also to not tip-toe around direct questions as Mrs. Clinton does .
Posted by: Duffin | March 20, 2008 12:33 PM
Phil Burt wrote, "Just remember folks if you vote for her it will also be a vote for Bill."
Isn't that why she's as popular as she is? Nostalgia for Bill? Bill's third term?
The worst thing about George W. Bush is that me makes me think maybe Clinton wasn't so bad after all...
Posted by: logicprobe | March 20, 2008 12:35 PM
This is another false claim from the CLinton camp that the records are out of their hands. Thanks to Bush, we have Executive Order 13233. This is just on excerpt
"(c) After review of the records in question, or of any other potentially privileged records reviewed by the former President, the former President shall indicate to the Archivist whether the former President requests withholding of or authorizes access to any privileged records."
Posted by: Alex H. | March 20, 2008 12:35 PM
Gergen has been plugging away for Hillary for a couple years. Now it's defense time for her NAFTA support. I like that he says she would rather be working on health care (except for the fact she contributed, big-time, to the GOP takeover of Congress, so health care got shelved for over a decade).
I remember supporters of NAFTA claiming it would reduce illegal immigration by creating jobs in Mexico. There are more illegals than ever and all those jobs for Mexicans are now in China. Bill, Newt, & Hillary sure did a number on the working American.
Posted by: Jim Baumgartner | March 20, 2008 12:35 PM
This is the most pathetic excuse for journalism that I've seen in quite a while. I almost believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote this report.
Posted by: Joshua Daniel | March 20, 2008 12:36 PM
Although I admire Senator Obama I feel strongly that Senator Clinton is the best candidate at this point for the country. All of us Democrats are in trouble though---Many of us would rather vote Republican in November if our favored Democrat doesnt get the nomination.
This is scary. Read this week's New Yorker article on McCain and think twice before you cast a protest vote.
Robin in Virginia
Robin in Virginia
Posted by: RobinR r | March 20, 2008 12:36 PM
Although I admire Senator Obama I feel strongly that Senator Clinton is the best candidate at this point for the country. All of us Democrats are in trouble though---Many of us would rather vote Republican in November if our favored Democrat doesnt get the nomination.
This is scary. Read this week's New Yorker article on McCain and think twice before you cast a protest vote.
Robin in Virginia
Robin in Virginia
Posted by: RobinR r | March 20, 2008 12:36 PM
Although I admire Senator Obama I feel strongly that Senator Clinton is the best candidate at this point for the country. All of us Democrats are in trouble though---Many of us would rather vote Republican in November if our favored Democrat doesnt get the nomination.
This is scary. Read this week's New Yorker article on McCain and think twice before you cast a protest vote.
Robin in Virginia
Robin in Virginia
Posted by: RobinR r | March 20, 2008 12:37 PM
To Jokeless:
NAFTA was not good for EVERYONE. If you have a plan for America, make sure it benefits the entire country.
My vote is definitely for Obama, if Hillary wins, then I am voting for Nader or Mccain.
Obama/Edward '08
Posted by: White conservative | March 20, 2008 12:38 PM
Judgement I hear the Obama supporters try.
One word for you... 'Wright'
As for Clinton's records... You now have a lot of proof about everything she has said and done... Yet it's still not enough. In fact, some of you are so blinded by Obama that you are willing to go with McCain in November? I find this repulsive. TWEAVER. I am ashamed that you even exist. Do you realise what McCain would do to the country if he gained power? If you don't want to vote Clinton then you'd better not vote at all, or else you'll have a nasty shock coming
Posted by: nic | March 20, 2008 12:39 PM
So it comes down to choosing between two folks who only real accomplishment is managing to get elected to the US Senate and to have accomplished little since then. Oh fun.
Posted by: Rufus | March 20, 2008 12:40 PM
No sense trying to talk to the Hillary supporters! They are mezmorized with Hillary! For what job? doesn't matter, they just love her! Too bad, they get Bill as well. Then 4 years later they will NEVER admit they voted for these losers Billary. "They are blinded by the lies" Look at her blank records that prove her experience. I have lost faith in the female voter and the public at large as they are not looking at the quality, they are looking at "she is a witch"......oops, I mean woman. Yuk!
Go Obama
Posted by: Frank | March 20, 2008 12:45 PM
All these guys are CFR members. That's council on foriegn relations for those of you who do not know this. Google council on foreign relations and then when you get to the main page look for their mission statement and guiding principles. For those of you who won't take the time to look this up it plainly says that the stated goal of the council on foreign relations is to remove the sovreignty of the United States of America, merge it with the coming North American Union that will include Canada, Mexico and USA and institute a new governemnt that will be exactly like the European Union model where those who hold power are NOT elected or accountable to the people. In addition to this a new constitution will be drawn up that gives rights to you that are NOT inalienable but are GRANTED to you by these unelected powers and can be taken away for ANY reason. So as you banter about who will do or won't do what with, to or for whom try to remember that no president EVER has EVER done what he or now possibly she has said they would do while on the "campaign trail" which is just a myriad of shifting lies to placate the voters who are becoming less and less important every year as the new voting machines rig your elections. Folks it's already too late. You lost your country. Just watch. Whoever gets elected is just going to continue down the path of dismantling this country and selling it for pennies on the dollar and then once the dollar has been destroyed (on purpose) the Amero will emerge and you will kiss this country goodbye along with your rights and your freedom. That will be the last resistance to the New World Order and One World Government. Tyranny will be irresistable because there will be no resistance. Power will be absolute and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What is most shocking is that The American has fallen so far while drunken on materialism. Sleeping giant is now completely tied to the ground by the Lilliputians and now cannot get up or defend himself against this. Like termites eating from a house until it finally collapses. We vote for THEIR choices. Who is THEY? THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL and the INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS that they feed money to. NOT YOU. Welcome to the New World Order. You slept it into power. Shame on every American who allowed this to happen in the bliss of materialism which will now summarily end in the NEW SLAVERY and the MARK.
Posted by: Jack in the box | March 20, 2008 12:45 PM
You Hillary haters do realize this article wasn't written by the Clintons, right?
Posted by: kate | March 20, 2008 12:47 PM
Hillary is a fine example of a supportive political spouse, who, no one can deny, has lived a very political life. She is now poised to lead the country on her own merits-- a smart and shrewd women who knows how to make things happen in Washington.
Posted by: kate | March 20, 2008 12:47 PM
I hope this is a reminder to people on the fence that Hillary has been there before and knows what she's doing.
Of course experience matters!
We just haven't had the chance to see a person with this kind of first hand experience have a bet for the white house.
The Clinton administration did amazing things for our economy and foreign relations. I can not understand why anyone would not trust Hillary Clinton back in the white house. I am not completely anti-Obama because I, too, have now and then felt compelled by his speeches.... but in the end "hope" or whatever really doesn't matter. We have the chance to seriously patch things up, with an administration whom we've seen do it before. What is stopping us?
Posted by: ES | March 20, 2008 12:49 PM
And Ireland? And China? And Kosovo?
Was it "negotiations" or was it simply making an appearance and meeting other first ladies?
Experience?
Talk about padding your resume!
Posted by: Emlyn | March 20, 2008 12:50 PM
He was voted in because he was white? That doesn't make any sense at all. Bush was white and so was Dole in Clinton's second term! I am amazed at how someone can make a race issue out of this.
It seems too convenient that these papers come out right now when Obama is telling her to be transparent. You just can't trust the Clinton's when it comes to scandals.
Posted by: matt | March 20, 2008 12:50 PM
I must disagree with "Phil Burt". When the people voted for BILL, they had actually voted for HILLARY. Should the people vote for HILLARY today....they will infact still be voting for HILLARY!
Posted by: Renee | March 20, 2008 12:54 PM
PhilBurt and Bud: You guys ever going to get over that Monica? I'm guessing you're republicans who will always be bitter because ol' Bill slipped through your noose. Just think its hillarious how much more some people care about a president lying about sex than one lying about an issue of national security.
Jokeless: You ever had a discussion or participated in a meeting on something you were opposed to? Yes, clearly if she was at a meeting then she supported it. Wow.
TWEVER: Your mastery of the English language astounds me. Man I wish people like you could not vote. Thats like saying, well I wanted French Vanilla Ice Cream, but since all they have is Vanilla Bean, I'm going to have Chocolate.
Posted by: jon | March 20, 2008 12:55 PM
So. Hillary Clinton, in her role as First Lady, was personally responsible for peace in the Middle East, in Northern Ireland, increased jobs and increased wealth as well as eliminating the national debt but under NO circumstances was she responsible for NAFTA?
How stupid do you have to be to buy this bullcorn?
Posted by: About Time | March 20, 2008 12:59 PM
Obama supporters are going to say anything at this point to draw attention away from his affiliation with a racist pastor. I, personally, want a president that will watch out for ALL Americans, not just the black ones, so my vote goes with Hillary.
Posted by: Dauthix | March 20, 2008 1:00 PM
The Archives can release her documents only after a 30-day notice. However, Bill Clinton has the power to release them immediately and he chose to wait until after the primaries in the big states. Thus it is no myth that the Clintons delayed the release of the records.
Posted by: John Delgado | March 20, 2008 1:04 PM
We were stating between 92 and 2000 that Hillary Clinton ran the white house jokingly. The truth of the matter the average American Citizen has no idea what is going on in the White House unless it is leaked by the press. However, the schedules could be nothing more then a smoke screen if we really get down to it.
Posted by: m b | March 20, 2008 1:07 PM
These papers should not be used in anyones decision to vote for Hillary Clinton. For real sustance on the type of people the Clinton's ( I include both because you get both) check out this link.
http://prorev.com/wwstats.htm
Look at the real stats.
Posted by: Paul A. Echols | March 20, 2008 1:10 PM
What matters is JUDGMENT. And until the American voter gets that in his collective head, we'll still keep getting politicians that sleep with hookers and or get hummers from interns because they are so arrogant they think it doesn't matter to the American people.
Judgement? I thought I was an Obama supporter until I heard the racist nutjob "minister" he supported for twenty years.
Posted by: M Rigsby | March 20, 2008 1:11 PM
Myths, fairy tales, what next, Legends and plain old stretchers? Seems like the Clinton camp have a varied vocabulary for all the various departures from the faction they disemimnate.
If Hillary co-president Clinton wants to take credit for so many things that were decided in the White House, I assume she also would like to go before a court for the illegal bombing of Pristina, Belgrade and other parts of the world we usually give Bill credit for. What about the chinese embassy another of those late night discussions? In fact let's take the Hillary Clinton as a two term president argument to its logical (if absurd) conclusion. She has already been president of the U.S. twice and thus is debarred from a third term.
As Red Skeleton in the closet used to say, "Good night and may god bless".
Chris Brown in Hamburg
Posted by: Chris Brown | March 20, 2008 1:12 PM
Have people totally forgotten about schip and the Safe Families act??? What other first lady has had such a hand in legislation? (remember, you hated her for it while it was going on)... legislation that actually became law. There are senators that haven't gotten as much accomplished.
Posted by: SoniaB | March 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Just remember folks, voting for Hillary is like voting for Bill Clinton, a rhodes scholar in economics, a guy who kept the US safe, out of war, without any major terrorist attacks (which he wasn't on vacation for), who lead the US through outstanding foreign relations and tremendous economic growth. As opposed to some twit who is attempting to drive the US bankrupt, had Cs and other crappy grades, had cocaine and alcohol abuse problems and skipped out of his military duties.
So yes, voting for Hillary is a vote for Bill, who just happened to be one of the most productive US presidents in the last 40 years.
I'll be glad to tell my kids that. Heck, I wouldn't NOT tell my kids that. It sure as heck beats trying to explain how a man who skipped out of his National Guard duty is sending other peoples children off to War and simultaneously driving the country bankrupt with excessive large gov't spending.
Posted by: Larry Dwyer | March 20, 2008 1:25 PM
Oh, this must be the clinton news publication. Sorry, I'll get back to real, unbiased news by leaving the site.
Whatever happened to reporting the news and not reporting your spin on news. Thanks, but no thanks for your opinions.
Posted by: Kirk | March 20, 2008 1:33 PM
So the talking points must be valid. Otherwise, the Swamp would not have hesitated to tear them apart, as opposed to mocking them as it typically does on matters Clinton when no other ammunition exists.
Posted by: Biggdawg | March 20, 2008 1:41 PM
We get presumptous after:
The records just appeared.
She invested it all on her own.
How do you define Is?
I didn't inhale.
and I could go on.
Posted by: Russ | March 20, 2008 1:43 PM
Where are Obama's schedules so we know which of Reverend Wright's Hate Sermons inspired the Senator into donating thousands of dollars to help Wright's Racist crusade?
Obama donated money to a anti-American racist. His cheap excuse that he could no more disown Reverend Wright than he could the Black race is laughable.
That would be like Hillary saying she could no more disown the KKK than she could the white race. Pure garbage for stupid people.
If Wright represents the past, you don't help it into the future Obama.
Posted by: InkSlayer | March 20, 2008 1:44 PM
On NAFTA:
"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"
That doesn't look like opposition to NAFTA to me, it looks like opposition to spending time on NAFTA instead of health care.
On Involvement:
"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."
but...
"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."
How much detail? Not much.
"The schedules undercut Hillary’s claims to involvement in the policy efforts of the Clinton Administration, or to have gained valuable experience from it." - They don't support it either.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html
One Point of View:
David Trimble (First Minister of Northern Ireland - i.e. Prime Minister - during the Good Friday Agreement etc):
"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around... I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7297242.stm
Posted by: Chris Sharples | March 20, 2008 2:11 PM
I have NO ill will for either. It seems to me that Obama may make a great president, but not this election. We need experience and backbone. Actions speak louder than words. Mr Obama spent 20 years going to a church who's minister spouted hate filled, misguided rhetoric. (we deserved 911 for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?? That brought about a swift end to WWII, in effect saving millions of lives. read a history book!) A man that is about bringing change and unity to America would surly have engaged a trusted advisor in debate about these issues. Yet I do not believe we are getting the truth, about this or the financial contributions of Rezco. Let's face it any politician that campaigns on reform and change, but is still entrenched in the status quo is only giving speeches (no action). I am not saying Hil is more or less honest but I do feel she is ready and will accomplish more of the work that needs to be done while in office. (PS all of you complaining about Bill should remember how well off we all were, as individuals and as a country. I wish politicians would start telling reporters that their personal lives are just that!brought about a swift end to WWII, in effect saving millions of lives. read a history book!) A man that is about bringing change and unity to America would surly have engaged a trusted advisor in debate about these issues. Yet I do not believe we are getting the truth, about this or the financial contributions of Rezco. Let's face it any politician that campiagns on reform and change, but is still entrenched in the status quo is only giving speachs (no action). I am not saying Hil is more or less honest but I do feel she is ready and will accomplish more of the work that needs to be done while in office. (PS all of you complaining about Bill should remember how well off we all were, as individuals and as a country. I wish politicians would start telling reporters that their personal lives are just that!
Posted by: Gary | March 20, 2008 2:24 PM
I cant believe the Hillary supporters on here are saying this is an "article" and wasnt written by the Clintons. It clearly states that it is a talking points memo set out by her campaign.
Posted by: Alex in Denver | March 20, 2008 2:48 PM
I am amazed at how people will twist and turn things according to what they choose to believe!!! Hillary's records are out and still you hear the WHINNING going on and on... Records from the first lady and president are not going to be released at a drop of a dime, YOU IDIOTS!
Posted by: Muniz4Hillary | March 20, 2008 3:03 PM
I am amazed at how people will twist and turn things according to what they choose to believe!!! Hillary's records are out and still you hear the WHINNING going on and on... Records from the first lady and president are not going to be released at a drop of a dime, YOU IDIOTS!
Posted by: Muniz4Hillary | March 20, 2008 3:39 PM
Fact:
BOZObama would not be where he is if the news media was not shoving him down the throats of the american people AS WELL AS GIVING HIM A FREE RIDE when it comes to airing obama's dirty; meanwhile the news media does anything and everything to make Hillary look like this racist monster!!!
As well, he would not be where he is if most of the blacks weren't being RACIST and only voting for him because he is black!!! you can say the Clintons played the RACE card but it is the news media who twisted and turned it to make it come out that way... as well, I believe that BOZObama's camp put out the photo of him dressed in the kenyan garb to try and cast Hillary as a racist fear monger!!!
jesse jackson and al sharpton are the biggest RACISTs in the country... well, I take that back; REV. WRIGHT is the biggest racist... but as BOZObama does, he smoothed it over for the SIMPLETONS following him with his ability to use his slick silver tongue!!! he slithers very well when it comes to trouble, just like a snake!!!
I am sorry but the FACT that he did not DENOUNCE and REJECT this rev. wright buffoon tells a story and those that follow him are blinded by his beautiful oratory but those who see him clearly see it for what it is... BOZObama is running to bring people together but still yet he has attended a church, and not only this, he has taken his daughters to this church, so that they can be filled with this anti-american rhetoric... you can see it in Michelle, talking about for the first time in her adult life she is proud of AMERICA... not only this, BOZObama talks about how people are being bamboozled, okie-dokie'd, and hoodwinked
Posted by: Muniz4Hillary | March 20, 2008 3:41 PM
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]
*PLEASE STOP THIS YELLOW JOURNALISM & CORRECT YOUR POSTING*
Posted by: ztormtra | March 20, 2008 4:06 PM
Myth: Hillary Clinton always tells the truth about her positions on a given issue.
Posted by: Robert Dobry | March 20, 2008 4:11 PM
if obama's camp had any sense, they would call the clinton's out on a co-presidency and have her expeditiously removed from the race b/c 3 terms in the white house is a no no. you cannot pick and choose which of bill's successes and failures you want to align yourself with. you are claiming his years in office as your personal experience, then take the good along with the bad. i have no doubt that hrc is a smart lady, but my rising contempt for her stems from her total disregard for honesty. her disingenuity scares me to the core. when she needs it, she claws with all her might to reach out for it. if she has no use for you or it, she disregards you like nothing. look at how she dumped ferraro and other members of her staff on their bums. look at how vigorously she is going after fl and mi after dismissing them as unimportant when she thought she was invinceable.
all of these people have faults and we expect them to fall short, but in my estimation, she is not half the man obama is, and i am using the word man collectively-no gender umbrage intended. when faced with adversity, obama shines. when faced with adversity, hrc shrilly claws everyone's eyes out, destroying everything in her path and then turn on her female wiles to earn sympathy.
she could have gone toe to toe with obama on her senate experience alone. i know her to be tenacious and i am sure she was telling bill what to do, but the point is, bill was the prez, not hrc. her greed and narciscm has no boundaries. so now, we should be giving credit to the wife, not the elected prez. bill is going to love this one.
what i learned from this? nada. a whole bunch of fluff and more spin. if they do not reveal much about what it is she really did, then do not present it as proof of her involvement. smiling and bobbing your head up and down and drinking tea with other first ladies is not the akin to being prez! you are getting your chance as we speak and you are getting all the breaks. for every fumble, the american people allow you to redefine the rules and raise the bar. time and time again, your opponent has outsmart you and we continue to let you get away with one more chance. i wonder how much longer b/f your chances run out. or perhaps you will best obama after all. indeed he became too conventional, forgetting for only a moment that he would have an equal chance at this.
i am truly disenchanted by everything that has transpired thus far. i would have loved to close my eyes and cast that vote for any dem, but the truth of the matter is--I CANNOT! Short of being ungrateful, i would like to thank you and the repub machine for vetting him months before the general election. for that i humbly thank you. on the other hand, your tactics and your insinuations about his character-that you know to be false-clearly depicted the real hillary. i thank you for that too b/c at one time i respected the clintons irrespective of your character flaws. No MORE!
Posted by: Cher | March 20, 2008 4:12 PM
to all you hillary haters,go ahead and keep supporting mr.good jugdment obama, you know what they say about the company you keep, it reflects on you, tony rezko ,close friend, bill ayers, close friend, pastor wright, close friend, dont worry, those of us that back hillary will never vote for mr. good jugdment, obama
Posted by: phil | March 20, 2008 5:20 PM
You have people, respected people, who worked in the White House at the time of Nafta and they say Hillary didn't want it...and she was very, very vocal about her opinion of it. So all you people who say this isn't so were there also and you are witness to Hillary being for it?
Of course Hillary wanted to move onto Health Care...someone who manages their time efficiently and is a producer would have done the same thing. These are the traits of a highly productive individual... A REALIST. Most of the people who have actually worked with Hillary claim she is just that...a highly productive realist. She knew Bill was going with NAFTA and she knew why, but that doesn't mean she was going stop everything she was working on and focus on something she could never change...she knows a brick wall when she sees it and knows what happens when you pound your head into it. A realist is what we need now and what we must have in the White House in November...not a dreamer who promises Change (Still don't know the specifics of what that means...candidate hasn't said what it is yet so I assume everything from changing the White House wallpaper to whatever he envisions, but hasn't articulated is up for grabs).
Posted by: vicki | March 20, 2008 5:25 PM
Re: NAFTA comments from David Gergens, CNN Sr. Political Analyst. I believe Gergens on his account that Hillary was opposed to NAFTA. If you only watch him on CNN, he's clearly leaning towards OBAMA. He tries to be unbiased on his comments but his admiration for OBAMA is very clear. Therefore, Hillary is truthful when she said she's opposed to NAFTA.
Posted by: ferragamo | March 20, 2008 6:10 PM
This is a waste of time.
What political candidate don't have talking memo points.
Posted by: cs | March 20, 2008 6:11 PM
Thank you so much Jim for posting this clarification. Hillary is a great person and will be a good President of America. She is the uniter and Barack is the divisive one.
Posted by: Aie | March 20, 2008 6:16 PM
I would disagree that we now know Barack is a Christian. I have never seen any Christian pastor I know make gross gestures, make crazy statements about aids and rant endlessly about hating other races. How is that any form of religion? So it isn't that we now know he isn't Muslim, which should not be construed as bad, but we are confused what religion he actually does practice. I don't recognize the religion in that church.
Posted by: Verycold | March 20, 2008 7:42 PM
Canada's Government, and CTV reporter, Globe & Mail paper unambiguously say that the Nafta Doublespeak originated from the Clinton camp. Clarify re Softwood Lumber from Canada, re oil from Canada, water from Canada. Isn't Hillary being hypocritic saying shame on you Obama, when it's her own conduct for which she castigates Obama?
Mike from Canada
Posted by: Mike in Calgary | March 20, 2008 8:19 PM
Myth: NAFTA has cost the US hundred of thousands of Jobs
Fact: NAFTA has had no effect on the number of jobs in the United States
Fact: NAFTA however, has produced only a small gain in overall U.S. real income
Fact: NAFTA has also lead to a slight fall in the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers
Fact: NAFTA is essentially a foreign-policy rather than an economic issue
Don't be lied to, NAFTA has had virtually no effect on the US economy. I have a MS degree in economics and 100 out of 100 economists will tell you that NAFTA is virtually irrellevant to the overall economy.
Posted by: torris187 | March 21, 2008 1:26 PM