Letters to the Editor
-
Well, anyone who wants the skinny on the healthcare brouhaha from the Clinton years...
can ask any number of the 500+ people who worked with Hillary on issue.
It always makes me laugh when the anti-types accuse Hillary of undue secrecy when she worked on revamping healthcare. Working with over 500 people and it's SECRET?!
Oy.
-
Tim Russert is often wrong...
...but never in doubt.
-
Tim Russert passing on GOP talking points?
Say it ain't so little Russ...
-
Hillary is not wrong--she's winning
And that's why they are going after her with such trivialities. So far the only things the media have been able to dig up on Senator Clinton have been of the absurdly petty kind and downright lies, old and new. Kind of makes me think the Hillary haters, conservative and liberal, don't have a shred of rational thought behind their mouth foaming. Wake me up when Senator Clinton actually does something wrong.
-
Here we go again
I don't mind the fact checking on Hillary as the presumed Democratic front runner. I welcome it. What bothers me is the lack of fact checking on the presumed Republican front runner Rudy. Why do I have the feeling that we're about to see a reprise of 2000 and 2004 with the Democratic nominee under a microscope and the Republican nominee given a free pass? By the press. Again.
-
Isn't "candid advice" to the executive privileged?
The level of hypocrisy never fails to astound me. What happened to the concept of privileged communications with the executive? (Never mind husband/wife communications!) I trust that every right wing blowhard with their panties in a bunch about Clinton releasing internal White House papers will insist that the Bush/Cheney administration do the same. Shall we start with the energy task force?
-
Slicing and dicing hairs...
Is there really such a big difference between asking the National Archives to withhold documents and asking them to consider each document for withholding in the presence of a Clinton representative? Does anyone doubt that the documents could be released much more quickly if Hillary wanted it to be so? Regardless of the minutiae, her answer was misleading. Perhaps more broadly and importantly, her instincts are to stringently control the flow of information. If this is the candidate one wants, why bristle? Embracing Hillary Clinton will mean, in the long run, embracing relatively high degrees of secrecy, scripting, and equivocation.
-
Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama
All skipped the Mukasey vote. None showed up to make a speech on the floor of the Senate. None, god-forbid, attempted a filibuster. In other words, all four had the perfect opportunity to stand up and show some leadership. None did.
Of course everyone is obssessed with more The World Against the Clintons psychodrama and Giuliani getting an endorsement from a senile old lunatic.
We do get the leaders we deserve.
-
No Credibility
Russert went off the deep end a while ago, probably about the time he started thinking about himself as relevant. This example shows this as well as the loaded question he asked recently (paraphrased) "Isn't Hillary responsible for all people who do not have health care today since she failed at healthcare reform when she was first lady?" Can a question be anymore vapid, stupid, and partisan?
Journalist my ass.
-
"Wake me up when Senator Clinton actually does something wrong."
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Y
12/07/2001 International Courts Amendment (Hague Invasion Act) Y
01/06/2005 Objection to Presidential Electoral Vote Certificate N
04/21/2005 John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence Y
06/22/2006 Troop Redeployment Amendment N
09/06/2006 Cluster Munitions Amendment N
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Kyl-Lieberman) Y
09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq* Y
*-Expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should officially designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as a foreign terrorist organization and assign it to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
Theses don't even touch on the Defense Appropriations bills that she is a loyal "yes" vote on. While Hillary isn't Satan, she ain't Mother Teresa, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Lincoln rolled into one that her sycophants would like.
-
SHCHartley
"Does anyone doubt that the documents could be released much more quickly if Hillary wanted it to be so?"
From the body of the post: "But a spokeswoman for the National Archives tells FactCheck that there's not a whole lot either Clinton or her husband can do to get the documents out any faster."
Sad, sad, sad.
-
@SHCHartley
Embracing Hillary Clinton will mean, in the long run, embracing relatively high degrees of secrecy, scripting, and equivocation.
-- SHCHartley
Relative to whom? The Bush/Cheney administration, perhaps? If that's what you mean, it's a thoroughly ridiculous assumption. If you mean relative to another Democrat, you are probably correct. But given how the Clinton's were treated by the Republicans in the 90s, I have a hard time blaming her for her desire to control the outflow of sensitive information as much as possible.
-
Question Answer
Is there really such a big difference between asking the National Archives to withhold documents and asking them to consider each document for withholding in the presence of a Clinton representative?
The question is not quite right. Here's the question.
Is there really such a big difference between asking the National Archives to withhold documents until 2012 and asking them to consider each document for withholding in the presence of a Clinton representative?
Yes.
Does anyone doubt that the documents could be released much more quickly if Hillary wanted it to be so?
Goofily worded question. Here it's clearer.
Could the documents be released much more quickly if Hillary wanted it to be so?
No.
Embracing Hillary Clinton will mean, in the long run, embracing relatively high degrees of secrecy, scripting, and equivocation.
Secrecy relative to what? Relative to the Cheney/Bush administration Hillary is running thru the streets naked.
-
ha ha
This is funny, really...Now we are falling all over ourselves in a huff and puff because that hack Russert asked the "wrong" non fact supported question to Hillary. Its funny because we establishment Dems enabled Tim all along to get away with this kind of hackery. We put him on a pedestal even while we knew all along that he wasnt asking any hard questions about the Iraq war and now Iran. Instead we glorified him for writing a book about how much he loves his daddy
Chickens are coming back home to roost..dont underestimate the wonder that is Mr. Russert