The New Hampshire Union-Leader is pretty blunt in an editorial today. They call Hillary Clinton out for trying to claim her vast experience as part of Bill Clinton's "White House Team" while simultaneously hiding the records that would prove or disprove all that experience. For all intents and purposes, they are calling Hillary a dissembler at best, a liar at worst.
"I was a member of the White House team that was involved with trying to make a lot of changes . . . I think that people who are running for President should lay out for Americans their record, their experiences, their qualifications, their vision, their plan, and their understanding of how to make it all happen, and that's what I'm doing," Clinton told Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi during a recent stop in Manchester.
A candidate with White House experience who really believes that would let voters examine the records from the period during which she claims she was such a vital part of "the White House team." But Mrs. Clinton's actions show that she does not believe what she says.
Her husband is keeping secret many of those records — 2,600 pages worth, a National Archives official told The New York Sun. The Clintons have claimed that the National Archives won't release the records, but the Archives official in charge says Bill Clinton has not authorized their release.
This is not a trivial issue. Among those records is Mrs. Clinton's schedule, which would help show just how involved she really was in her husband's administration.
Because she has made her "experience" her primary qualification for the presidency, the people deserve to see exactly what experience she really has. Which policies did she help shape? Which did she oppose? Did she serve as a de facto staff member or did her role primarily consist of whispering suggestions into her husband's ear? That history is blackened out, and she is keeping it that way. Why?
As they point out, if she cannot convince Bill Clinton – her own husband – to release those records, how in the world are we supposed to believe she will be able to influence Congress or foreign leaders? The answer is, of course, that we can't. This is pretty harsh stuff coming from a major news outlet in an influential early primary state.
The Clintons have been used to having it both ways for so long that they fail to see that this kind of thing grates on the public and more and more often these days on the media that used to provide cover for their antics. Some regulars here think Hillary is inevitable regardless, but the fact that the media is actually calling her on things like this make the sledding a bit rougher than it used to be for the Clintons. Is it enough? I have no idea. Ask me again after Iowa and New Hampshire have chosen. Those two states are actually more important this year than ever before.
Like I’ve said before about Hillary – what experience? The only thing we KNOW she had an active hand in was that she led the effort to initiate universal health care – and failed miserably. Thus, her only public record is that she was a complete failure at the only thing in which she was a major player during her hubby’s administration. As a Senator the only thing she has accomplished was to get re-elected. She has sponsored no major legislation during her years in the Senate.
The only thing she, apparently, has experience at is failure. Not the president I want!