• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should Hillary's White House papers be released for public review?

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Let's see just how this turns out before we accuse anyone here of partisan extremism and hypocracy.

I believe this topic is a very important one, as it concerns a person who may very well be our next President.

Please post here to support your vote... Tell us WHY you voted the way you did.

I voted YES because I believe that anything that is UNCLASSIFED is public record - and that goes for the current administration as well.

/discuss
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,803
4,703
126
Only if the other candidates release their papers from their previous positions.
Seems to me like GOP is a party of no ideas interested only in fishing expeditions on the Clintons.
You guys had your chance to lead this country, you botched it so bad, only a fool would vote Republican.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
I'd be interested in seeing how close she got to nationalized health care and to see who shot her down. The HMO and PPOs are massively powerful, I'd love to know which ones were trying to save their own skin.

If Hillary's are released, then Cheney's should be released also. I'd love to see which oil companies he took a knee for.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
I voted yes because it is a poorly posted poll. (Say that five times fast)

This is not a simple yes/no situation no matter how much the GOP would make it seem. Also, fair is fair as SenseAmp pointed out....ALL candidates that have held public office (read: everyone) should have their records released whether Senator, Congressperson, Governor or Mayor (R or D) according to your poll.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I voted yes because it is a poorly posted poll. (Say that five times fast)

This is not a simple yes/no situation no matter how much the GOP would make it seem. Also, fair is fair as SenseAmp pointed out....ALL candidates that have held public office (read: everyone) should have their records released whether Senator, Congressperson, Governor or Mayor (R or D) according to your poll.
I agree with you. But how should the poll be written? If we can agree that every document, concerning the work history of every candidate, should be released, then what's wrong with the poll?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
Only if the other candidates release their papers from their previous positions.
I agree that this should apply to every candidate, regardless of party.

Seems to me like GOP is a party of no ideas interested only in fishing expeditions on the Clintons. You guys had your chance to lead this country, you botched it so bad, only a fool would vote Republican.
Isn't one of the primary aspects of any campaign to establish the history and intentions of the opposing candidates?

I would consider any campaign to serve two functions:

1) Tell voters who you are, what you've done in the past that may be applicable, and what you plan to do for the country.
2) Tell voters what makes you better than your oppenents - which would require knowing what your opponents have done in the past that may be applicable.

Now, given ALL of that information, the voters can make an informed decision. The problem occurs when there are gaps in the information, which should inspire the following:

1) Identify gaps
2) mitigate gaps
3) revise analysis
4) make a better informed decision

:)
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
we should have the exact same access to her records as we do to President Bush.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: OrByte
we should have the exact same access to her records as we do to President Bush.
I agree... but that wasn't REALLY the question. Which answer did you select in the poll?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
I didnt vote...but if I did I would vote to release the documentation to the public.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I'd be interested in seeing how close she got to nationalized health care and to see who shot her down.
From what I read it never came to a vote by the Dem controlled Congress. Apparently it never got out of committee. Who shoot it down? Apparently a majority of the Dems since it could'nt even get a vote with Bill pushing it.

Fern
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,736
669
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I voted YES because I believe that anything that is UNCLASSIFED is public record - and that goes for the current administration as well.
I voted yes.

"Unclassified" isn't strong enough though, this administration has gone overboard in classifying documents to hide their activities whether they affect national security or not.

We need some panel with security clearance, who won't leak items for cheap partisan shots, to go through and declassify the documents that were classified just to hide things like lobbyist access and partisan hiring and firing decisions.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
HRC is claiming 35 yrs of experience. Claiming that she is the MOST qualified candidate. All this is based primarily on her experience as First Lady. Unlike the the others running, such as Govenors, Senators etc - for whom we have records such as their stance on issues, how they voted etc - we have nothing on HRC.

The only thing we know is that her national health care plan attempt failed badly (and it wasn't for partisan reasons, Congress was controlled by the Dems at that time). I have heard she was in charge of the botched attempt to choose an Attorney General, Zoey Baird (failed due to nanny-gate scandal), Kimba Wood (same as Baird), finally giving us Janet Reno and Waco & Elian Fonzales debacles.

So, since she wants to run on her superior experience as First Lady (we don't need any of her Senate stuff, we've got that like with the other candidates) IMO it seems fair to ask her to support her claims with published records. Ultimately I suppose this will be decided by the voters as I don't expect her to release her WH records. I don't see why she doesn't cherry pick some, is there nothing any good?

Originally posted by: senseamp
Only if the other candidates release their papers from their previous positions.
Seems to me like GOP is a party of no ideas interested only in fishing expeditions on the Clintons.
You guys had your chance to lead this country, you botched it so bad, only a fool would vote Republican.
The other candidates have plenty of records, that's why & how we see the flip flops etc. Moreover, nobody AFAIK is asking anything more about her Senate experience. She is unique in claiming superior experience due to being First Lady, which requires no voting records etc.


Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I voted yes because it is a poorly posted poll. (Say that five times fast)

This is not a simple yes/no situation no matter how much the GOP would make it seem. Also, fair is fair as SenseAmp pointed out....ALL candidates that have held public office (read: everyone) should have their records released whether Senator, Congressperson, Governor or Mayor (R or D) according to your poll.
Everybody else has plenty of records available, whether Senator, Congressman, or Mayor. Again, HRC is unique in that her claims are backed up by exactly zip in public records (other than perhapes some for the health care plan).

Originally posted by: OrByte
we should have the exact same access to her records as we do to President Bush.
You're mixing apples & oranges. Nobody is trying to investigate HRC. The procedure & purpose for records in an investigation are different than a campaign. It's a whole other situation.

She could just cherry pick if she chooses. Can't legitimately do that in an investigation.

Fern
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
What exactly qualifies Hillary Clinton for any position?

She cant remember what she did at the Rose Law Firm. That seems awful convenient. It is time we started asking Hillary some real questions. She has been involved in too many scandals to make a good president.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
Originally posted by: Fern


Originally posted by: OrByte
we should have the exact same access to her records as we do to President Bush.
You're mixing apples & oranges. Nobody is trying to investigate HRC. The procedure & purpose for records in an investigation are different than a campaign. It's a whole other situation.

She could just cherry pick if she chooses. Can't legitimately do that in an investigation.

Fern
My point was that there is too much 'smoke and mirrors' and that all public servants need to be held accountable to the same standards of disclosure.

if there are documents that CAN be released then they should be.


 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Yes, provided they do not reveal any necessary classified info, or any docs appropriately designated as privileged/confidential regarding litigation she was involved in.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Fern


Originally posted by: OrByte
we should have the exact same access to her records as we do to President Bush.
You're mixing apples & oranges. Nobody is trying to investigate HRC. The procedure & purpose for records in an investigation are different than a campaign. It's a whole other situation.

She could just cherry pick if she chooses. Can't legitimately do that in an investigation.

Fern
My point was that there is too much 'smoke and mirrors' and that all public servants need to be held accountable to the same standards of disclosure.

if there are documents that CAN be released then they should be.
I don't disagree with your position, except to the extent we're confusing such disclosure with her campaign claims.

She wasn't a "public servant" either. First Lady is not elected, and has no Constitutional duties unlike Pres, Senators, Congresspersons etc.

As such, the only "accountability" is supporting her claims of experience. There is no accountablity for the duties of First Lady.

In this case, it's ultimately up to the voting public, no more no less (unlike the accountability of public servants/elected polititions). I'd hope if she can't back up her claims with proof/records, the voters reject her claims of experience.

I voted "yes" because I think it's a very common sense response to someone who claims to have the proven experience to be ready to be President - well prove it if you wanna be taken seriously. I didn't vote "yes" because she has a legal obligations (as other polititions) or to have her investigated for any supposed wrong doing etc.

Fern
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
Yes and every other adminstration's papers too. Too bad 43 classified them all, right? Executive priviledge.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
I voted "yes" because I want to know what she is hiding from us that could make her a less desirable candidate. As other have said, she clams to have the "experience" to lead - prove it.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: Fern
HRC is claiming 35 yrs of experience. Claiming that she is the MOST qualified candidate. All this is based primarily on her experience as First Lady. Unlike the the others running, such as Govenors, Senators etc - for whom we have records such as their stance on issues, how they voted etc - we have nothing on HRC.
Hillary is not Laura. With regard to her years in the WH, I think most people don't doubt that she was very active in an unofficial capacity as an advisor to Bill. She had the brains and interest in all the issues Bill had to deal with, as she was probably contemplating a future presidential run and wanted to use her time in the WH to bulk up the resume. I don't think her 8 years there should be so quickly written off simply because she wasn't the one elected. At the end of the day, she probably had Bill's ear more than anyone else. That can go both ways depending on your view of the Clinton years, but while it is fair to claim that just being a first lady is not presidential experience (see Laura), I do not see how anyone can claim that Hillary's time in the WH wasn't spent learning the ropes or that it didn't provide her with superior experience. Most VPs get elected after their boss gets tossed after his 2nd term and they usually run on "experience in the office." Outside of Cheney, most veeps probably did less than Hillary did in her husband's presidency.

This only addresses my opinion on her experience, not necessarily that experience itself is the most important factor in anyone's voting priorities.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
I'm all for transparency across the line.

Sure let Hillary disclose her record, but let the Bush administration lead the way showing all their records inlcuding everything they have on torture (in particular cases directly approved by Bush), everything they planned before, during and after the invasion of Iraq etc, all the secret deals by Cheney etc. etc. etc.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
I'm all for transparency across the line.

Sure let Hillary disclose her record, but let the Bush administration lead the way showing all their records inlcuding everything they have on torture (in particular cases directly approved by Bush), everything they planned before, during and after the invasion of Iraq etc, all the secret deals by Cheney etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, aint that the truth. It's been almost 8 years fo the most secret administration ever but all of a sudden all the BushBots are for releasing records..... Of course they don't start a thread asking Bush or Cheney to do so, just the ones they want to bash. Can they get any more transparent?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
I'm all for transparency across the line.

Sure let Hillary disclose her record, but let the Bush administration lead the way showing all their records inlcuding everything they have on torture (in particular cases directly approved by Bush), everything they planned before, during and after the invasion of Iraq etc, all the secret deals by Cheney etc. etc. etc.
AFAIK, "Billary" jokes aside, Hillary was not the President during her time in the WH, so any "executive privileges" Bush has put into place would not necessarily apply to a First Lady.

That said, as long as it's not classified, I agree that the Presidency should be transparent as well! But again, it really is apples and oranges...
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, aint that the truth. It's been almost 8 years fo the most secret administration ever but all of a sudden all the BushBots are for releasing records..... Of course they don't start a thread asking Bush or Cheney to do so, just the ones they want to bash. Can they get any more transparent?
Ah, the timeless "BUT BUSH!" arguments. :roll:

Perhaps you missed the topic of this thread?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY