Hillary's archive debate question - interesting backstory - she was ambushed.

[Skip Intro]

After spending time on the phone today with a source very familiar with archive procedures, the truth of the matter is quite different. The letter Russert held up was from 1994. It's also standard operating procedures for all presidents. Once documents start being produced by a president, something has to be decided about what to do with them in case something happens to the president. I was told it was standard for presidents to choose the 12 year maximum to hold the documents, which are put in categories like national security, senior administration, secret, etc. The highest level documents often stay secret, and with regards to Bill Clinton specifically, are then run by Bruce Lindsay to decide whether to make them public. What Russert didn't bother to add at the time of his document waving drama, was that right after Bill Clinton left the presidency he asked that his documents be released immediately. But after George W. Bush came into office, he decided that presidential papers would be kept secret indefinitely, something Bill Clinton openly fought against, including opposing Bush on the 12 year secrecy procedure, but especially on the new indefinite stand. So back and forth the conversation went, with Bush pushing back on Bill Clinton.

Russert played a card that was not only disingenuous and meant to bring in Bill Clinton into a debate where Hillary Clinton is running for president, but did so using innuendos and outright falsehoods, according to any objective player. Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune pointed out on MSNBC today (video up soon) that there was nothing whatsoever unusual about the Clinton archives issue. Warren then went on to say that when you speak of Rudy Giuliani, the same cannot be said. Warren's paper will have a big piece on the issue this Sunday. Wonder if Russert will be interested? Doubtful. By holding the 1994 document up, Russert acted like this was really a new event. It was a charade of monumental proportions.

Huffington Post - Taylor Marsh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/russert-leads-boys-in-hil_b_70644.html


on edit: this is from a post by Jim4Wes, from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3675998&mesg_id=3675998

[ShortnFiery]

1. We wouldn't have this problem of "journalistic ambush by spouse" if we didn't have a tendency to

allow our politicians to promote nepotism at seemingly every given opportunity and in all spheres of political power grabbing.

IMO, more than anything we must stop the incestuous encouragement Political Royalty within our Governmental Elected Offices. I don't know exactly how to accomplish the foregoing, but this whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Insanity must STOP :eyes: ... and IMO, the people must stop this parasitic cycle and elect new blood into The Executive Branch.

I regret that because I distinctly loathe the concept of political royalty, I have no empathy for HRC's position. :shrug:

[aquart]

5. The meme again! Still as tired and untruthful.

Isn't it odd how only ONE person can be affected by it. Funny how this one person is the only viable woman candidate for president we've ever had. Look how nimbly it skirts the glass ceiling issue.

Because what it's REALLY saying is that NO WIFE better ever dare to be the equal of her husband. NO WIFE should ever run for the same office her MAN had.

The meme is a lie attempting to link the Clinton and Bush families. Since the Clintons have one daughter who has shown no particular interest in politics except to support and applaud her parents, the dynasty charge is a flat lie.

Go crawl back under your rock and ask your master for a new meme.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Thanks for the predictable response. The above concerns are viable points.

No matter how hard and fast you choose to "attack the messenger" you can't negate the fact that the concept of "political royal families" was part of the reason for our original BREAK with England. ;)

It's time to come back home to the fact that INDIVIDUALS, not FAMILIES are elected to high office.

Oh, I respect you too. :hi:

[William769]

21. For someone who is supposedly as educated as you, you have no idea what a royal family is.

I hope you didn't pay to much for that stellar education.

[saracat]

23. Another insulting comment denigrating a posters education? Personal attacks aren't pretty.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. "Personal attacks aren't pretty." Tell that to Johnny Edwards.

Take the personal attacks out of his campaign, and there's be little left.

[saracat]

27. This isn't about Edwards it is about fellow DUers. Some candidates supporters regular refer to

anyone who does not support their candidate as "stupid" or "deranged" that is not acceptable.

[MethuenProgressive]

28. Johnny Edwards gets a pass with your situational ethics?

You hold Internet posters to a higher standard than your candidate??

[saracat]

29. John Edwards as is Hillary Clinton are public figures and able to be discussed on DU. Duers are not

allowed to call one another out or insult one another per DU rules.

[William769]

38. She puts her education up for debate constantly.

So how is it a personal attack. Unless you also don't know the term of what a royal family is.

[sufrommich]

24. Since when is royalty elected? I don't recall any of

the British kings or queens running for the position.

[themaguffin]

25. Oh that meme again defending royalty.

[ddeclue]

35. It's enough already. BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON-

and suppose Hillary doesn't win re-election or suppose she does... there's still plenty of Bushes around...

after Hillary it won't necessarily be Chelsea but it could very well be "Jeb" John Ellis Bush, former Governor of Florida...

There are 300 million people in this country, certainly there has to be another qualified WOMAN for the job.

if Hillary wanted the job so bad then she should have run BEFORE Bill then and then BILL shouldn't have been able to run after his WIFE.

It's not a WOMAN thing it's a nepotism thing..

This is turning into the War of the Roses.

Doug D.

[BootinUp]

37. Is this how you justify your ridiculous attacks?

I guess if its that big a deal for you, instead of like what she will accomplish in office, then it makes sense. NOT.

[JDPriestly]

9. I'm with you on that one. Who is next? Chelsea? Or Babs?

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. It is downright lazy of the American people to allow this to happen.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Thanks

But please be sure to NOW don your flame retardant suit. :blush: :hi:

[Skip Intro]

13. Seems a trivial reason not to vote for someone

because his/her family had already produced a president -


doesn't seem a relevant point on which to base decisions, as opposed to the candidate's views and policy goals.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. How did the Founding Fathers try to prevent this?

Do you include John Adams and John Quincy Adams in that group, too?

[NMDemDist2]

18. thank you! n/t

[JDPriestly]

32. Read the Federalist Papers.

Madison in particular was determined to prevent our nation from being ruled by a king. That is why they established a four-year term for the president. There is constant mention that the presidency is not hereditary. John Quincy Adams got into office through a rather peculiar means.

Within the one and only party--the Republican--sectionalism and factionalism were developing, and each section put up its own candidate for the Presidency. Adams, the candidate of the North, fell behind Gen. Andrew Jackson in both popular and electoral votes, but received more than William H. Crawford and Henry Clay. Since no candidate had a majority of electoral votes, the election was decided among the top three by the House of Representatives. Clay, who favored a program similar to that of Adams, threw his crucial support in the House to the New Englander.

Upon becoming President, Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State. Jackson and his angry followers charged that a "corrupt bargain" had taken place and immediately began their campaign to wrest the Presidency from Adams in 1828.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ja6.html

And once he got in office, he had good ideas but couldn't get much support for them:

During his term, he worked on developing the American System, consisting of a high tariff to support internal improvements such as road-building, and a national bank to encourage productive enterprise and form a national currency. In his first annual message to Congress, Adams presented an ambitious program for modernization that included roads, canals, a national university, an astronomical observatory, and other initiatives. The support for his proposals was limited, even from his own supporters. His critics accused him of unseemly arrogance because of his narrow victory. Most of his initiatives were opposed in Congress by Jackson's supporters, who remained outraged over the 1824 election.
. . . . .
One of the issues which divided the administration was protective tariffs. Henry Clay was a supporter, but Adams's Vice President John C. Calhoun was an opponent. The position of Adams was unknown, because his constituency was divided. After Adams lost the control of Congress in 1827, the situation became more complicated. He also signed into law the highly unpopular Tariff of 1828 (also known as the Tariff of Abominations), thereby compromising his chances of getting anything else done during his presidency.

He and Clay set up a new party, the National Republican Party, but it never took root in the states. In the elections of 1827 Adams and his supporters lost the control of Congress. New York Senator Martin Van Buren, a future president and follower of Jackson, became one of the leaders of the senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams

So, John Quincy Adams was a good man but not a successful president. I guess he never measured up to his dad in the people's esteem. Sound familiar? We don't need to suffer through a similar regime with Hillary.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. The Federalist Papers

are not the law of the land, nor are relatives winning the presidency a "monarchy".

The founding fathers could've easily prevented family members from running for the Presidency - they did not do so.

To say they tried to prevent this situation is just wrong.

[JDPriestly]

39. They did not try to prevent relatives from running altogether.

They tried to prevent a monarchy. When two families serve as presidents for 24 consecutive years, it just is too much like a monarchy for me.

Bush I 1988-1992 4
Clinton 1993-2000 8
Bush II 2001-2008 8
Clinton II? 2009- 4?
24

We need a change. This is too much like a monarchy -- even if two different families are involved. I do not like this at all. We are a big country with many talented people. Let's dare to get some variety. Let's try something new. I don't want another Bush. I don't want another Clinton.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. Monarchies

are not split between two families.

The Clintons aren't the Bushes.

If Hillary Clinton wins a fair election, democracy isn't hurt. Frankly, your argument is just a petulant tantrum because you don't like Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

41. We are ready for a War of the Roses, aren't we?

[saracat]

2. Taylor Marsh?Seriously. She is nothing but a HRC Campaign shill.

There is nothing objective about this. Not even worth reading. Just go to a Hillary website.

[aquart]

7. When truth becomes your enemy, you do your candidate no service.

Seriously, dial it WAY back. People might begin to associate Edwards with your hysteria.

[saracat]

11. Just saying, that is Taylor Marsh's rep.

[Cameron27]

15. I believe she gets that 'rep'

because she's consistently tried to correct misleading reports about Clinton. She's said that she's not supporting anyone yet, and I believe her. She's done the same for the other candidates when it was necessary.

[babylonsister]

22. I beg to differ; go look at her website. nt

[The Magistrate]

3. Mr. Marsh Makes Some Excellent Points, Sir

Mr. Warren of the Tribune is an excellent reporter, and very well versed in Archive procedures.

[Bongo Prophet]

19. Taylor Marsh = femme

I responded to you on this, sir, so that you would know that Ms. Marsh is a Ms.
For your edification nd education, sir!

Hey, wot fun to talk like dat!
Warms me cockles, it does.

Which makes me a sir, I think. :hi:


......anywaysssss... to the general discussion....

She is right about Russert, and right about Bush secrecy EOs.
She defended Kerry rather well last round, and is a consistent soldier on Dems side.
Makes her a winner in my book, whether I agree with everything she says is irrelevant.
We need defenders across the spectrum.
http://taylormarsh.com

[emilyg]

4. Thanks.

[JDPriestly]

6. I remembered reading this about the archives before.

But, unfortunately for her, Hillary did not respond to the question very well.

[Cameron27]

14. Well she probably was trying to figure out

what the hell Russert was waving in front of her face. Did anyone quess it was a 1994 document?

[Mojorabbit]

10. She can handle herself well most of the time

and though she is last on my list she did not deserve that question just as Dennis did not deserve his about the UFO.

[JDPriestly]

30. I agree that the question was extremely unfair.

And, in saying the following, I am not just criticizing Hillary, I am criticizing most of the people in Congress. They are like lambs being led to the slaughter. They just don't understand that the extent of the secrecy and cover-up and sneakiness and usurpation of the Constitution is almost to the tipping point, to the point of no return. That the release of the Clinton documents is going slowly is simply a part of the refusal of the Bush administration to permit open government. They are protecting their view of the presidency. They see the presidency as a government unto itself. They do not want to obey the laws of Congress. Bush thinks he is entitled to pass his own laws with regard to the handling of the documents of his and past administrations. He is an outlaw president and proud of it. Hillary was unfairly accused of hiding information. But she needs to take a good, hard look at raising the issue of open government in her campaign. This is an issue that can win votes for Democrats. Every American worth his or her salt as an individual wants open government.

[alittlelark]

17. Whatever....

3-4 other primary contenders could be complaining as well......

But they aren't.

[DeepModem Mom]

20. More from this piece, regarding "red-faced" Russert and the "hack pack" press --

"There were 52 questions asked (Tuesday) night; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile. Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally....

In contrast, Barack Obama got asked what he would do about air travel; whether there was life beyond earth; and the question on which all Americans' safety depends, What are you going to dress as on Halloween?...

Russert didn't moderate the debate. He became part of the proceedings, coloring the questioning and supporting the attack dog theme, the brawl theme that the hack pack press wanted. Because if Clinton's Democratic opponents weren't prepared to go at Clinton, it is clear that Tim Russert had deemed himself the man for the job. He'd give his buddies in the media the headlines they wanted today. It was a disgraceful performance of outright grandstanding in order to fit the debate to the storyline put forth in the press all day yesterday."

[JDPriestly]

31. And this is nothing compared to what they will do to Hillary

if she is nominated. That is why I do not want her to run. She is a good senator. She should stay in the Senate. We need her as a Democrat there. We do not need her to serve as a lightening rod and distraction from the issues in the 2008 campaign.

[ddeclue]

33. OH POOR POOR HILLARY....YES OR NO QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED THAT WAY.

If it was an "ambush" question..why didn't she say so?

She should have just answered YES or NO.

Russert was not ambushing her...She just can't answer a question straight and has to try to take both sides of every issue.

The fault is HERS.

Doug D.

[BootinUp]

34. How long have you been defending Russert? nt

[Skip Intro]

42. is it a bad thing to kick your own thread?

I'm unclear, and this seems important, so kick.