Inside The Clinton Years

I must confess I haven't read all 11,000 pages of Hillary Clinton's public schedule released today. Give me a few minutes. But the New York Times has, or at least pretends to. The verdict: a mixed bag for Clinton, shedding light on some of her work as First Lady, contradicting other parts of her campaign narrative and leaving a lot out.

In some ways, they provide support for Mrs. Clinton's assertion that she played a central public and private role in the policies of the Clinton Administration.

But some of the documents also serve to conceal much more than they reveal. There are redactions -- blacked-out sections -- on more than 4,400 pages, and on many days there is an entry for a 'private meeting' that gives no clue as to whom she met or what the meeting was about.

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.

The documents offer no insight into her role in appointments to key administration posts or in courting donors for her or her husband's political campaigns.

The documents are hardly titillating reading. The Starr Report this is not. "The dry records carry all the emotional punch of a factory worker's time card, showing where she was for much of her eight years in the White House but telling nothing about what she was saying, thinking or doing," the Times writes.

The press has already begun to pick up on a few key moments, like a meeting in 1993 where Clinton, in contrast to what she now says on the campaign trail, helped win Congressional support for NAFTA.

Her years as First Lady are central to the claim of experience that underpins Clinton's candidacy. Despite her talk about being vetted, the new documents prove that there's a lot about the Clinton years we likely still don't know.

Comments (38)

1. HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON WILL BE THE DEMONCRAT FACE.......

   Should be a good year for Republicans.

   GOD BLESS AMERICA

   Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 5:15pm

2. I wonder how super-delegate former Senator George Mitchell is going to vote...

   given he's now been relegated to a 'secondary' role in negotiating the Norther Ireland accords????

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 5:16pm

3. "Despite her talk about being vetted, the new documents prove that there's a lot about the Clinton years we likely still don't know."

   And never will know, particularly about the deals for pardons. Love that footnote to history ... Marc Rich's attorney, he who argued for Rich's pardon for a solid year full time, was none other than Scooter Libby in private practice. Very private indeed.

   Won't find anything in the records either about the Catskills orthodox community that voted 100% for HRC in NYS senate election 2000 ... and a few months later had 2 of its members released from prison, pardoned, for swindling tens of millions out of the federal government in loan scams. No reason given for pardon.

   Posted by sloper at 03/19/2008 @ 5:30pm

4. I've been trying to figure out how/why those records would contain "social security numbers" that needed to be "blacked out" prior to distribution. CNN has repeated that claim several times in the last 24 hours.

   Posted by nicR at 03/19/2008 @ 6:00pm

5. None of this will tap into the same paranoid fury.

   Sorry but it's just not the Wright stuff.

   Until Obamas been burred and the haters can re-focus... Ken Starr 2

   Posted by winyahn at 03/19/2008 @ 8:03pm

6. But some of the documents also serve to conceal much more than they reveal. There are redactions -- blacked-out sections -- on more than 4,400 pages, and on many days there is an entry for a 'private meeting' that gives no clue as to whom she met or what the meeting was about.

   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.

   Hillary Clinton is a LIAR!!!

   She claims she opposed NAFTA during the Clinton years, but the record shows she supported NAFTA. She claims she played a role in bringing peace to Ireland, but the record shows she could not have played a significant role. She claims she was responsible for passing the Family Leave Act, but the record shows she played no role at all.

   And WHO did she meet in those 4,000 redactions from the record? What is she trying to hide?

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/19/2008 @ 8:10pm

7. METT, maybe Hillary was internally against NAFTA? Maybe she spoke to the peacemakers in Ireland telling them it was a great idea to have peace (after it was already done). Maybe she carried the FLA act paperwork from Dodd's hands to Bill's desk?

   See, she helped!

   Heheheheh

   Posted by FritztheCat at 03/19/2008 @ 8:14pm

8. THROW GRANDMA UNDER THE BUS March 19, 2008

   Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems.

   By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.

   But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?

   As an authentic post-racial American, I will not patronize blacks by pretending Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is anything other than a raving racist loon. If a white pastor had said what Rev. Wright said -- not about black people, but literally, the exact same things -- I think we'd notice that he's crazier than Ward Churchill and David Duke's love child. (Indeed, both Churchill and the Rev. Wright referred to the attacks of 9/11 as the chickens coming "home to roost.")

   Imagine a white pastor saying: "Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God."

   Imagine a white pastor calling Condoleezza Rice, "Condoskeezza Rice."

   Imagine a white pastor saying: "No, no, no, God damn America -- that's in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!"

   We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

   Obama tried to justify Wright's deranged rants by explaining that "legalized discrimination" is the "reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He said that a "lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families."

   That may accurately describe the libretto of "Porgy and Bess," but it has no connection to reality. By Rev. Wright's own account, he was 12 years old and was attending an integrated school in Philadelphia when Brown v. Board of Education was announced, ending "separate but equal" schooling.

   Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court's decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 -- and obviously long before that, or there wouldn't have been a case or controversy for the court to consider -- it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.

   Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.

   So for half of Rev. Wright's 66 years, discrimination against blacks was legal -- though he never experienced it personally because it existed in a part of the country where he did not live. For the second half of Wright's life, discrimination against whites was legal throughout the land.

   Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.

   First of all, Wright is not Obama's uncle. The only reason we indulge crazy uncles is that everyone understands that people don't choose their relatives the way they choose, for example, their pastors and mentors. No one quarrels with the idea that you can't be expected to publicly denounce your blood relatives.

   But Wright is not a relative of Obama's at all. Yet Obama cravenly compared Wright's racist invective to his actual grandmother, who "once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

   Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama's grandmother -- who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school -- has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.

   Unlike his "old uncle" -- who is not his uncle -- Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama's grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn't get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she's white. Denounce the racist!

   Fine. Can we move on now?

   No, of course, not. It never ends. To be fair, Obama hinted that we might have one way out: If we elect him president, then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about race.

   COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER

   Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 8:44pm

9. How I wish these excellent points had 1/10th the power of Wrightgate. .. Wrightwater?

   Posted by winyahn at 03/19/2008 @ 9:24pm

10. How can she be CIC, can't even police Whitehouse: Hillary WAS IN the White House on at least seven days when her husband had sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky

    FLASH FORWARD to year 2010, "Hillary was CIC when her Osama f@346d up America again".

    Posted by winyahn at 03/19/2008 @ 9:32pm

11. Cut And Paste = Lazy Dickhead.

    That also applies to the lesser sex among us.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 03/19/2008 @ 10:13pm

12. And the Ron Brown story is scarey, too, in terms of realpolitickal ruthlessness by both collaborating Clintons.

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/19/2008 @ 10:15pm

13. Re: Inside ...

    Well, attacking the Clintons has been a growing and profitable cottage industry in America. So does the left as well as the right news outlets. Now those ungrateful black Americans swear them, liberal extremists like Ted Kennedy swear everything on them. And in the meantime ObaMacaca gets away with all those terrible things like his pastor, his secret dealings with Muslims, ... Fair enough?

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/19/2008 @ 10:31pm

14. helendao=racist swine. make that ignored racist swine.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2008 @ 11:07pm

15. And in the meantime ObaMacaca gets away with all those terrible things like his pastor, his secret dealings with Muslims, ... Fair enough?

    Posted by HELENDAO 03/19/2008 @ 10:31pm

    Prove it.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/19/2008 @ 11:11pm

16. HELENDAO Give us some background. Were you for the Clinton impeachment? Relative to Iraq, were you opposed to the UN/ Blix / France / Germany / for Bush? Did you vote for Bush 2x? Who you for in 2008?

    Posted by winyahn at 03/19/2008 @ 11:43pm

17. Posted by YUTSANO 03/19/2008 @ 11:11pm

    Why ddin't your ObaMacaca just come forward and admit being Muslim, like Paterson of New York of being adultrous. No integrity wihtout courage.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/20/2008 @ 02:23am

18. Why ddin't your ObaMacaca just come forward and admit being Muslim, like Paterson of New York of being adultrous. No integrity wihtout courage.

    Posted by HELENDAO 03/20/2008 @ 02:23am

    Oh I dunno, cause he ISN'T???

    Posted by yutsano at 03/20/2008 @ 03:15am

19. Posted by HELENDAO 03/20/2008 @ 02:23am

    Prove he was Muslim. Cite a source that is not hear say.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/20/2008 @ 03:26am

20. Well, there's Bill Clinton out on the stump again, endorsing McCain today.

    The real notion of "change" is to end the Bush-Clinton dynasty. No one questions the desperate need for change from Bush, but the Clintons also need to be sent packing. Their domination of the Democratic party as their own personal vehicle to power has held it hostage for far too long. It has rendered the Democrats incompetent for dealing with present realities. The Clinton brand on the Democrats is a stain and they are burdened with baggage and an unsavory past. The Clintons are desperate to salvage their legacy even if it comes at the expense of the party--which is why the Right sees the Clintons as their best shot for unifying a demoralized Republican base and the triangulating ego-driven, unethical Clintons are more than willing to comply. People wonder why the Democratic party lacks leadership...Is it any wonder why the Clintons hate Howard Dean? He is the one player they can't keep on a lead. In order for the Democrats to be strong and relevant again, the Clintons need to go.

    Posted by Lil at 03/20/2008 @ 07:27am

21. Zero writes:

    "According to multiple sources, including both the NYT *and* a close colleague of Hillary herself, she never even held a security clearance beyond what is necessary minimally to be around the President on a live-in basis. She was never given intelligence briefings, did not sit in on national security meetings, did not have a national security staff, and in general could not and did not negotiate peace settlements in war-torn areas nor participate in any sort of military or intelligence planning or policy."

    Yes, but she speaks in a stern, strident tone and looks serious and mean-- to put her toughness on display (at least until those mean boys pick on her and then it is boo-hoohoo, this is so hard).

    Posted by Lil at 03/20/2008 @ 07:35am

22. This is exactly what I've been saying ZERO. Hillary is pro-NAFTA, pro-right-wing agenda. pro-corporate sell-out, pro-Bush. It seems to me her supporters have to have right-wing leanings as well or are incredibly naive. I know the Clintons are all about the Cult of Personality crap, - but c'mon wake up and smell the coffee. If you're a true progressive, the Clintons will let you down you once again.

    Posted by jimijazz at 03/20/2008 @ 12:11pm

23. Posted by ARI BERMAN at 03/19/2008 @ 5:13pm

    "Despite her talk about being vetted, the new documents prove that there's a lot about the Clinton years we likely still don't know. "

    Does anyone think that the Clintons are going to voluntarily release any documents that would allow us to see behind their façade of competence and compassion? I don't know what is worse, them concealing who they are or us not being willing to challenge their myth.

    Someone once said that a con man's job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

    Posted by Next Door at 03/20/2008 @ 12:18pm

24. You said it, NEXT DOOR. Couldn't have said it any better.

    Posted by jimijazz at 03/20/2008 @ 12:43pm

25. Here's the best part: she's more or less taking credit for something she really had no control over. The archives release the records as they're categorized and catalogued, though she might have put some pressure to release at least SOMETHING to counter Obama's charges of her lack of transparency. I say it's nowhere near enough, and all it's done is generated the tabloid fodder and reminded folks what was really wrong with the Clinton White House.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/20/2008 @ 1:56pm

26. Why have we not seen more on Clinton's problems with Peter Paul and the video about their business relationship? I would like to see the media bring that video up to equalize the playing field since they have beat the subject of the controversial pastor to death at this point.

    Posted by inanna1960 at 03/20/2008 @ 2:29pm

27. I frankly believe Hillary would a make a great VP. I'd love to see her sitting where the war profiteer Cheney has been ensconced the past eight years, as presiding officer of the Senate.

    White males would be less likely to flee to McCain because, for one thing not to be gainsaid, they'd be comforted by the idea of a strong woman being subordinated to a male, of whatever race, methinks.

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/20/2008 @ 5:06pm

28. Posted by LEWWELGE 03/20/2008 @ 5:06pm

    White males would be less likely to flee to McCain...

    If white males (I think this segment is just one of many segments with the same view) don't want Hillary as President, why would they want her a heartbeat away?

    Posted by Next Door at 03/20/2008 @ 5:18pm

29. SHAME ON YOU BARACK HUSSEIN OSAMA:

    He says today "Typical WHITE Reaction" to be scared of Black people walking by......

    WHAT A FUCKING RACIST ASSHOLE

    Posted by libzsuk at 03/20/2008 @ 6:07pm

30. LIBZSUK "He says today "Typical WHITE Reaction" to be scared of Black people walking by......"

    If you're going to quote someone be sure to quote them correctly. He did not say "Typical White Reaction" he said his grandmother was a "Typical white person" who has had the fear of a black person on the street bred into them. This is a fact, it is not a racial attack. Most white people have had that fear bred into them. I am white and live in a predominately white small town, it is true here and I am sure it is true in most of America. Let's all grow up and be honest about this. How long must we all make believe that these issues don't exist? We don't know enough about the real meat of each other's race and cultural differences to even begin to heal the divide because we are all so busy sweeping it under the carpet. Thank you Barack Obama for being honest and adult about the issue.

    Posted by inanna1960 at 03/20/2008 @ 6:18pm

31. a difference without a distinction

    SHAME ON YOU BARACK RACIST OSAMA

    Posted by libzsuk at 03/20/2008 @ 6:40pm

32. THEY JUST PLAYED THAT RACIST CLIP ON MSLSD AGAIN....IT SOUNDS WORSE EVERYTIME I HEAR IT

    YOU BELIEVE EVERTHING THAT RACIST MARXIST REV WRIGHT SPEWED BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA

    SHAME ON YOU

    Posted by libzsuk at 03/20/2008 @ 6:43pm

33. Who the hell is "BARRACK HUSSEIN OSAMA". He sounds like he unhinges some people. Good thing he's not running for president.

    Posted by Malcontent at 03/20/2008 @ 7:20pm

34. Still no response... Attention any "conservative": What is the inference you draw from Wright to an Obama administration? (Granted you say you believe he now has no chance, but still for some reason go on criticizing him. This is a separate matter.) I am asking for someone to spell out the ultimate implications of the Wright controversy in terms of a possible Obama presidency. For ex., do you believe by 2010 he'll try and institute laws limiting white's rights? Give some specifics. Based on Wright, what do you think he'd do or not do as president.

    Posted by winyahn at 03/20/2008 @ 8:53pm

35. Posted by JIMIJAZZ

    Did you catch the article (here in The Nation) "Hillary's Nasty Pastorate". Really quite surprising, and supports your point regarding HRC selling out - Falwell style.

    Posted by winyahn at 03/20/2008 @ 9:19pm

36. Attention any so-called "conservative": What is the inference you draw from Wright to an Obama administration?

    (Granted you may now believe he now has no chance, but still for some reason go on criticizing him. This is a separate matter.)

    I am asking for someone to spell out the ultimate implications of the Wright controversy in terms of a possible Obama presidency. For ex., do you believe by 2010 he'll try and institute laws limiting white's rights? Give some specifics. Based on Wright, what do you think he'd do or not do as president.

    So the Wright thing suggests to you he would likely do or not do what? What policies or crimes or activities or interventions? Any specifics - even if hunches or concerns?

    Posted by winyahn at 03/20/2008 @ 9:27pm

37. Billary are toast.

    Richardson backs Obama.

    The beginning of the end for the Billary Penn dirt machine.

    Good riddance.

    Posted by sloper at 03/21/2008 @ 07:20am

38. WINYAHN, good point. In addition, there have been a rash of articles - but only on progressive or leftwing sites and magazines (note that The Nation has at least one of these on the web) - concerning rightwing anti-American ugliness from the likes of Ann Coulter and Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the religious right movement. In both his speeches and in his books, he compared America to Nazi Germany and the Communist USSR. His consequences? He was courted by Jack Kemp and several Republican presidents. Huckabee sited Schaeffer's book as the one he'd choose, along with the Bible, to take to a desert island.

    The corporate media has chosen to ignore the brazen nastiness of members of the right and to focus on the left's "over the top" rhetoric. Apparently, it's OK to hate the American government, to call for the assassination of members of the supreme court, to condemn the morals and behavior of America, and to call our culture into question as long as the person doing this is a rightwing nutjob. But for a respected, progressive black minister to do it creates an out-of-proportion uproar.

    I think they call this a "double standard."

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 03/21/2008 @ 12:00pm