Quoted from Newsweek article below...
"The lack of access is emerging as an issue in Hillary's presidential campaign: she cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her prime qualifications to be president."

It makes me a lot more curious about them, I mean what is she trying to hide?

Hillary's Secret White House Papers | Newsweek National News | Newsweek.com

I just think the Clinton's are hiding alot. From one scandal to another . I would love to read those records.

__________________
"Madison AnnMarie " 6/13/2008

http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/g...t=8652d1ea.pbr

http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/g...t=adbcb309.pbr

MOST, if not all politicians, hide a lot of things. I believe that some of GWB's and/or Cheney's records have been sealed and not released to the public.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I think it's President Clinton's call as much as Mrs. Clinton's. Moreoever, IIRC, those records are actually scheduled to be released quicker than those of any recent Republican administrationr.

Like the article states "Like other Democratic candidates, she has decried the "stunning record of secrecy" of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a "return to transparency" to government." This is just another lie fed to us by Mrs. Clinton, if she truly meant what she said she would release the records. Mrs. Clinton likes to try and have it both ways just like her recent waffling on the illegal immigration licence issue here in NY.

Agree 100%, there is alot they have hid and got away with in my opinionSherri

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

Looking on the bright side at least we know the records are still available somewhere. I just heard on the news that the White House has "lost" l0 million emails for the period of time of early 2003 through 2005. I think unless what happens in the official areas of the White House deals with national security in the very strictest sense, the records should be public.

It's up to Bill Clinton when the records will be released, Here's an article on the records which I hope will make you a little less concerned: Hillary Clinton White House records still locked up - Los Angeles Times

All of the Clinton's records, including emails, have been preserved.

On the other hand, the Bush White House admits to 88 staffers using RNC email accounts exclusively in direct violation of the Presidential Records Act. Some of the above mentioned missing emails were subpoened months ago and have yet to be produced. They have supposedly been backed up. There has been no explanation of the delay.

It's a shame that there are so many who instead of answering a question they revert to attacking President Bush or his Administration. May I remind everyone that he is not running for President in 2008 but Mrs. Clinton is, which opens her up to scrutiny.

You know, you're exactly right, I hereby take a pledge to treat the name of the current President as the 4
letter word it is and will do my best to not bring it up in polite discourse.

That's a good point. However, if the issue is "why isn't she," it's relevant to point out that this is not unusual behavior and that, in fact, she and her husband are actually far more open than some, including the current occupant of the WH.

As for ana21's comment -- ROTFLMAO!

My question of "why isn't she," is because she has decried the "stunning record of secrecy" of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a "return to transparency" to government. The trouble with that is her action are just the opposite, once again trying to have it both ways. I want a President who says what he means and means what he says. I don't want someone to always tell me what I what to hear, who sticks their finger in the air to see where the political winds are blowing. Sometimes a President has to do the unpopular thing for the good of the country.

It is Mrs. Clinton who cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her PRIME qualifications to be president. If she so proud of what she has done and the "experience" she has gained from being first lady, why is she hiding the documents to back it up? It doesn't make sense, they have those documents locked up like Fort Knox. You can bet your bottom dollar there is incriminating documents in there that would not be very helpful for Mrs. Clinton in her run for the Presidency.

IMO the Clinton's have far far more to hide than the Bush's could ever dream of. I mean they even had Sandy Burglar (woops I meant Burger) stealing documents from the National Archives having to do with classified terror documents from the Clinton Administration. There had to be some interesting things in those documents for them to go to that extreme to get rid of them.

Thank heaven for small favors.

Yes the Burger stuff is much more dastardly than these items that I previously posted in another thread. And I thought of these just off the top of my head. A little research would probably bring to light several that I have forgotten.

The use of "secret" prisons, the use of torture, the shipping to other countries of people to be tortured. The holding of people without access to lawyers or any legal recourse. The destruction fo habeas corpus, one of the cornerstones of our liberties.

Lying about the need to go into Iraq, not to mention the actual start of a war against a nation that we had no reason to attack.

The outing of one of our covert agents, Valerie Plame.

Possible election tampering in Ohio.

Electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without legal warrants.

The use of the Florida felons list, which was never sufficiently investegated.

Oh pish tish, it's so much more fun to beat the deadhorse named Sandy Burglar (sic).

Don't you miss the days when we wondered whether she really did kill Vince Foster in their lovenest in Georgetown as Mr. Limbaugh said.

Don't you miss the Congressman shooting at watermelons in an attempt to prove that Vince Foster couldn't have committed suicide,

Don't you wonder about those mysterious deaths in Arkansas when she was first lady -- time to review the dvd you bought from Rev. Falwell.

Don't you really wanna know how she gets along with President Clinton's mixed race love child from a liaison with a prostitute.

And I know you realllllllllly wanna know if the Senator is or isn't a lesbian.

We don't have time to think about no stinkin election fraud or outing of a covert agent (unless, of course) outing the person in question as a homosexual. Now if the current occupant of the White House were to have an affair we might have an investigation but then again, probably not --

Looks like I hit a nerve? Sorry about that.

No, you didn't hit a nerve, I'm just pining for the good old days when all the corruption in the White House pretty much revolved around sex and the occasional rumor of murder(s). So much easier to cope with then the lists Wildwood posted. Ah well, carry on ... .

Were you out of the country during the Clinton administration or something so that you don't know what happened? How did you miss all that?

BTW, I'm not supporting Sen. Clinton for president at all . . . so I have no dog in this fight. But I think the notion that she's been secretive is just silly.

I did not have sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and I do not ever not recall ever having been alone with her.

__________________
"Madison AnnMarie " 6/13/2008

http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/g...t=8652d1ea.pbr

http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/g...t=adbcb309.pbr

Good to know.

There's something completely ridiculous about claiming the Clinton's have more to hide then this administration. This administration outed a covert agent(lied about being involved in it) and then had their lackey stonewall the investigation(to the point that Mr Fitzgerald has said the reason he could not pursue charges higher up because of Libby's obstruction). This administration has stonewalled to the point that Karl Rove and Harriet Meirs are potentially facing inherent contempt charges because this administration would have everyone believe there is no checks and balances and Congress has no right to find out how far up the chain the politicization of the justice department goes. This administration has cited "executive privledge" for just about everything from their illegal warrantless wiretapping program to access to information concerning the country's energy policy. It's laughable that according to the government they have the right to read a law abiding citizens emails, listen to his/her phone calls or search their house(as long as they give them a warrant 30 days after the fact) but that same law abiding citizen has no right to know who was involved in creating public policy or to ensure that the people involved in our government process are acting in their best interest as the framers intended our government to function.


I am not overly happy that Clinton hasn't released some of the documents dealing with health policy from back during the original Clinton adminstration(although to be fair to her we are talking millions of documents attempting to be declassified at once that need to be reviewed by archives before release). In particular I have heard members from both parties that corresponded with Clinton that would like their memos made public. That said, it is completely intellectually dishonest to say that Clinton is hiding more than than this administration. It isn't even close.

Mr. Bush may not be running for president in 2008, but, last time I looked, he was president. He's a president who considers himself above the law as Sheldon Whitehouse recently learned. Whitehouse uncovered three very disturbing rulings coming out of this administration:
1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Think about it, the president is now free to do as he pleases, without constraint, without oversight. Heor she, not congress, makes the laws, and he or she, interprets them.

Here's a link to Whitehouse's speech: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Rhode Island

Huckabee is refusing to release the transcripts of his sermons.

I'm more curious about Huckabee. He was a preacher. He was supposedly affirmatively reaching out to people with these sermons.

But now that he is running for president, he declares them off limits.

To quote you, "what is [he] trying to hide?"

HUckabee is hiding his sermons? I had not heard that.

That's really strange.