We already covered Hillary Clinton's first gaffe where she flipped then flopped then the next day did an incredible back flip on the issue of Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens... now we see, via The Corner, that the second gaffe may be more important than the first.
The problem with trying to dig yourself out of a hole is sometimes the dirt comes falling down around you again... this is one of those times.
From the Transcript of the Democratic debate: (Pages 8-9)
Russert: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?
Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.
Clinton: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.
Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances and processes demand.
Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
Clinton: Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.
Russert: Senator Obama, your hand is up?
Obama: Well, look, I'm glad that Hillary took the phrase "turn the page." It's a good one, but this is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.
And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.
The hole was dug, then enter Bill Clinton in a statement reported by AP:
Wash. - Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was quizzed during this week's Democratic presidential debate as to why correspondence between her and her husband from their White House years remained bottled up at the National Archives. Barack Obama said that was a problem for her as a candidate after "we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history."
One issue is whether Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the Archives asking that the communications not be released until 2012, and whether Hillary Clinton would lift any ban, a question raised by debate moderator Tim Russert.
"She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down," the former president told reporters Friday. "And she didn't even, didn't know what he was talking about. And now that I've described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn't know what he was talking about."
Russert's question "was breathtakingly misleading," Bill Clinton said.
The dirt falls back onto the Clinton's here, as they try to dig themselves out, because although Bill Clinton is technically correct, his letter was to speed up the release of certain papers, there was a caveat, expressly exempting certain papers from speedy release, in that letter: (Letter found here)
With respect to easing section2204 (a) (5), informations should generally be considered for withholding only if it contains:
(Page 2 Item #7)--- communications directly between the President and the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature...
Back to Russert's original question which Bill Clinton called "misleading":
Russert: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?
Great catch by The Corner there.
Russert's question was about those exact communications that Clinton's letter holds exempt from the papers to be released.
Because Russert put the spotlight on those communications, we see now that there are reports that those papers will be released in January of 2008, before the elections.
Then again we shall see exactly how many of those papers will make it to the public eye:
Lawyers for the National Archives said they could not predict exactly when the documents would be made public because both President Clinton and President Bush have the right to review them before they are released.
They laid out the position in an October 2 filing with a federal court in Washington, which is posted to Judicial Watch's website with other documents from the case.
"On average, presidential representatives have required 237 days to complete their review of Clinton presidential records," the filing said.
Bruce Lindsey, the CEO of the William J. Clinton Foundation, is personally reviewing every page the National Archives has readied for release and currently has 26,000 pages on his desk, a Clinton aide said.
The Big Blog brings you the video of Bill Clinton's false accusations in his attempt to publicly defend his wife, which in and of itself brings up another question.
Hillary and her supporters claim she is a strong women, yet when legitimate questions are asked, she and her supporters claim the bad men are ganging up ot in her campaign's words "piling on", the poor woman, hiding behind her skirts, so to speak, and her husband feels the need to rush to her defense.
They cannot have it both ways...when you enter politics, you have to be prepared for people to bring up legitimate issues about your strength, your life, your credibility and by playing the "woman" card, you are negating every past attempt to claim any type of strength based on merit by pretending to be a victim.
I have no problem with a woman in politics and hope to see a woman as President in my lifetime, but not one that panders to anybody by switching positions according to her audience.
Not one that plays "victim" if her credibility is rightly questioned.
Definitely not one that is entwined with campaign finance legalities and corruption as Hillary Clinton already is.
What we need are consistent politicians that are honest and Hillary Clinton is not only inconsistent but she wouldn't know honesty if it was a snake and came and bit her in the ass.
.
