Clinton camp turns the records table on Obama

Its About time someone hit Obama for lying!

When are Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson going to publically open all of the records of their lobbying firms?

The difference is that Hillary admits to having the records but refuses to have them released. Obama hasn't made that aadmission, but he must have some records and also must release them. If either of them continues to stoneblock the media and public efforts to research their files, then it will be an admission that they have much to hide and are not deserving of being on the ballot.

There is a huge difference between being a State Senator and a President (or first lady.)

As a state senator I doubt Obama had to keep files, not so in Hillary's case. Presidential communications must be kept as a matter of law.

The issue here is Clinton saying, "Vote for me, I'm so experienced." What experience does she have? She won't say. The records that would show her experience must remain hidden.

How many people keep records from their old jobs? I don't, why should I, I don't work there anymore. As a matter of fact it would be unethical (and possibly illegal) for me to keep files related to work I did at my prior jobs.

Clinton is really stretching here, trying to hit back hard, but ending up flailing like a twelve year old whose parents won't buy them a new video game. Sad really.

Hillary.. trying to dodge an issue.. Yes, we can ask Obama but you have more to hide.. Bring out the papers too and WE THE PEOPLE WILL COMPARE.. I trust Obama far more than HRC forgery and lying machinery.

If the media think they're getting stonewalled by Clinton now, wait until she goes back to the White House (if she does). Read the current article in the New Republic about her plans for stifling the media and the past and current examples of how her staff bullies reporters by going above their heads to editors. Just one telling example: During Bill's terms, Hillary and Susan Thomason tried to banish the White House press room to the Executive Office Building next door. If she gets elected, don't be surprised if she moves the press to Maryland.

Obama is just rehtoric, no substance! Edwards is just attack, attack, no substance of his own!

I challenge anyone here or in the Clinton camp for that matter to show how Obama is hiding his state senate records.

Clearly the Clinton campaign is playing politics here given their own lying and lack of transparency with the American public.

This is a stupid accusation and smear story that the Chicago newspapers keep recycling. It simply has no substance to it.

Obama couldn't have been any more clear with his answers. Any pertinent records were passed on to his successor. Matters such as itineraries, memos etc are simply non-existent. State senators don't have archivists. They mainly handle all of their own paperwork and appointments. What does the Chicago Sun-Times expect? For Senator Obama to hand over the post-it notes he would use to write down notes?

Obama is not running on his experience as a state senator. Clinton is running on a supposed osmosis which she does not wish to substantiate. I do not doubt she was involved in decisions, but I bet it is the things she said that makes her afraid to release it--like "lets poll that one first" or "you get the intern, and I'll get the mailman. Meet you back at 10:30.

The problem is not with Senator Obama but the lazy, yellow journalists that are chasing shadows instead of substance. Senator Obama has stated that he did not have a scheduler and all his dealings with the state are archived in the state of Illinois repository. It is the duty of the investigative journalists to verify Senator Obama’s assertions for authenticity. Senator Obama claims to be his own scheduler and had only one staff assigned to him during his state senate years. If Senator Obama was using his personal diaries to record his schedules, it stands to reason that he has nothing to disclose to the public as he cannot share his personal diary with the public.

Senator Obama’s case shares nothing in common with Senator Hilary Clinton’s. Nobody is asking Hilary Clinton to disclose her records as the first lady of Arkansas because such records may not be available in any organized, logical manner. But as First Lady in the White House, Hilary Clinton is mandated by law to keep her records and the fed provided her with paid staff and resources for that end.

In other words Hillary/Bill say "ain't no body gonna see these papers. They're too hot!"

"Obama is not running on his experience as a state senator."

Then what is he running on as far as experience goes?

I wish you people would read the facts about the releasing of the documents - printed everywhere in news articles now. It is the lack of staff at the archives is what the problem is.

It's fun to watch the Hillary Lefties and the Obama Lefties duke it out!

I thought Obama's answer to that on Meet the DePressed was a little lame. But at the same time, I doubt state senators and state reps keep a lot of records. Perhaps a LIBune reporter should do some looking into what state senators and state reps do keep in the form of records??

State senators don't have archivists. They mainly handle all of their own paperwork and appointments. What does the Chicago Sun-Times expect? For Senator Obama to hand over the post-it notes he would use to write down notes?"

If that's all he has, yes.
How can a man run on his record, demand the release of someone else's appointments and claim that he doesn't have an APPOINTMENT BOOK for the years he served in the state senate?
I still have day-runners and old appointment books from 20 years ago. You MUST keep your tax records for SEVEN. If he's telling the truth about not keeping a schedule when he was a state senator, how IMPORTANT a position could it possibly be? If he's not telling the truth (and I suspect he is not.) he was an idiot to open the door to the topic, and probably hiding something. He turned a non-issue into a gun he shot himself in the foot with.

Obama is not running on his experience as a state senator.

Posted by: Josh | November 12, 2007 4:01 PM

What IS he running ON then? His GPA? His wedding photos?
Being inspirational?

That may be the dumbest rationalization we are going to hear on this topic.
Thank you for the chuckle...

Pfft! That's the best they can do? He didn't keep his schedule as a state senator? The fact that every vote he took and all the papers regarding constiuent services was passed on to his succesor don't matter.

We don't know who the state senator met with who I doubt was planning to be President at the time.

Meanwhile: Hillary Clinton launched her bid for the senate while First Lady, she was fully planning to run for president.Her husband made sure access to the Clinton scandals was minimized.

It's far from the same thing and it is a disservice to your readers to not fully point out these differences and discrepencies in the Clinton machines logic.

Rhoda asks: Pfft! That's the best they can do?

Nope, they are throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. This is exactly the kind of thing Rove used to do for Bush.

I wonder if Rove is advising Hillary's campaign?

Obama has NO EXPERIENCE so what records can he show??? LOL!!!

The problem is Why Bill Clinton himself wrote a letter insisting that his wife's records not be released until 2012. Even though the National Archives were ready today they couldn't release anything because of BILL CLINTON will to HIDE.

Obama wasn't planning on opening a Barack Obama Senate Library. On the other had, Hillary was a First Lady and she refuses to release her papers, which is mandated by LAW, before the election. It's been almost 8 years, and still no release. She is running on her experience as First Lady. We as voters should be able to look at her records and make that judgement.

You cannot possibly compare the two. And he didn't keep a scheduler. A scheduler. Do you know what that means? A scheduler. However, everything that did exist is open to the public.

Hillary is slipping. She'll spin and try to do whatever she can to get the upper hand. Not anymore, Hillary. You cannot fool us anymore.

OBAMA '08

Oh for heaven's sake! They're pulling a Karl Rove again. Is everyone brain dead? They do it every time someone calls them out on something. They turn the attention to their opponent to take the focus off their own record.

Obama was a state senator. He didn't have a scheduler or a library. His records were handed over to his successor and are public record.

Hillary is saying she has 'experience' and then is refusing to allow her potential employer to see her supposed resume. Obama is running on his PUBLIC record, in plain view for anyone to see.

They have real nerve trying to call him out on transparency. He's disclosed his earmarks, his tax records, his bundlers. She discloses nothing. Obama has passed legislation to open up transparency in government. She doesn't even want people to know what she thinks!

Go on, let Mark Penn manipulate you and you'll end up with the same kind of presidency Karl Rove helped build.

This is what actually happened. Obama answered very honestly. Unlike Hillary, it is clear he has nothing to hide:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, let’s be clear. In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues. So...

MR. RUSSERT: But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?

SEN. OBAMA: I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now. And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.

MR. RUSSERT: Is your schedule available anywhere? Are—the records exist?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, I kept my own schedule. I didn’t have a scheduler.

Senator Clinton is a female Senator. She's not required to give records as a first lady. Senator Obama should have kept all his post its. They are records. It doesn't matter if head had a record keeper. His records at the state office are not enough. I've got post its that I wrote 15 yers ago. We want the darn post its.

Carol, you are absolutely ridiculous. How you can say he has no experience is completely beyond me. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you make a fool out of yourself on the forums.

The state senators do not have schedulers and Obama's schedule is in the public records of Illinois. It's absolutely outrageous that Sen. Clinton is complaining about Sen. Obama's records.

When will she release her earmarks??? CNN had requested them months ago, Sen. Obama complied, yet Sen. Clinton has not submitted hers. She's running on her WH experience, yet the records of her activities are not available and the Clintons could have released them. She had been given a pass by CNN on her earmarks, NY1, Time Warner, NBC, and CBS have given her millions of dollars of free and unwarranted coverage. And she's whining. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be hilarious.

Hilary show us the earmarks.

Jill Zuckman....
Your kidding right?
First of all, how dare you sit there and call a memo from Howard Wolfson "news". Quit being a fax machine for The Clinton Campaign and do some actual reporting. This is spin and nothing more, completely dishonest. I would like you to please print an example of Barack Obama "spreading lies" about Hillary Clinton as her campaign is accusing Obama of doing. Go ahead, show me.
Number two. The Clinton Campaign, through their surrogate, Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Tribune is trying to make a story where none exists and cover for the Clinton's by using their tried and true method of attacking the attacker instead of answering the central question...Why did Bill Clinton insist that all communications between HRC and himself concerning MATTERS OF POLICY in the 1993 Healtcare negotiations be sealed until 2012? Sorry, but that is very pertinant to her claiming "experiance" in "fighting for Universal Healthcare".
ALL of Senator Obama's records and papers that are of concern to the people HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED.
This is merely the Clinton Campaign trying to instil doubt in Obama's honesty. That's fine, go ahead and try. My problem is with the press selling their integrity out to fear of the Clinton Machine by acting as mouthpieces instead of reporters. Why don't YOU do some digging, and see what you can find that is substantial on Obama? Their is no need for you to reproduce your Orders from the Clinton Campaign for all of us to read. We are smarter than that, we can see right through it. The only ones doing any "smearing" are you, Lynn Sweet, and the Clintons. That's fine though, Obama rose out of Chicago outside of the Chicago Machine, without you, and he will rise to the Presidency without you as well.
You make a good secretary for the Clintons, as a reporter though, not so much.

An apples to oranges comparison is being made here. Obama was a legislator in the government of Illinois and what he did is public record. Hillary's "official" capacity during the White House years was First Lady, which position offers no resume for experience as a policy maker. So if she wants to claim that she has experience in governing beyond her years as a senator, she needs to provide some proof of that.

Good grief, people. There are plenty of ways to keep tabs on what a state senator was up to. His voting record, bills sponsored, speeches made on the floor of the legislature. The fact that he was ELECTED and was accountable to the people. Contrast that to the former First Lady's tenure. She is counting that time as part of her experience, so what is the problem with asking for some evidence of whatever leadership role(s) she may have played? If the wife of Alex Rodriguez tried to claim that she is a great baseball player, would you just take her word for it? Or would you like to see some highlights demonstrating the ability?

Once again, instead of being held accountable for answering the question, the Clintonistas prefer to deflect attention onto someone else.

"Obama has NO EXPERIENCE so what records can he show??? LOL!!!"

Obama has more experience than Hillary, Carol. He was in public office longer than Hillary.

"Actually, I think my experience is my greatest strength. I don't have some of the traditional experience of folks in Washington, although I would put my record here in Washington next to my competitors'. But I think my work as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as somebody who taught constitutional law for 10 years, and as a state legislator provides me with insights into solving problems at the federal level and at the local level and at the neighborhood level that I think is what's needed right now." -- Obama

Plus, I think your laugh is obnoxious, Carol.

I trust Obama more than anyone else in this Presidential race. Keep on trying to besmirch his name, if you wish. You cannot deny that there is no sun outside even if you made it dark for yourselves by simply closing your eyes.

It`s Hillary that has played the experience card but on the other hand doesn`t want to disclose her documents:

"The Hillary Paper Case: 3,022,030 Documents To Go"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67939

YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS HILLARY!!!!

The question is, do all other State Senators have these records available after they've left office or not?

If ALL STATE SENATORS EXCEPT Obama have these records organized then Obama should be criticized. If Obama does what everyone else has done, there is no story or criticism to be leveled!!

Obama has his own issues of candor to worry about. I watched him on Meet The Press and he could never answer a yes or no question. He spoke in double-talk and when confronted with his own words from previous interviews he tried to "bob & weave" . I initialy was intrigued with his campaign, but lately I see a guy who is no better than the Clinton he criticizes. He lacks substance and fails to talk about what HE will do as President. To disagree with your opponent is expected, but to say they are dishonest because you don't agree with their position is stupid. I don't want another STUPID person as President, we have suffered long enough with a stupid "shrub " in the White House. When the candidates discuss policy differences that keeps me engaged. When they start with personal attacks such as Obama and Edwards have resorted to, then I think that they are not yet ready for Prime Time.

The idea that Clinton has any substance is stupid. How do you describe substance in any argument? Common sense which you common folks consider wisdom ain't pure wisdom. This is what distinguishes Obama from any leader. The man is too serious to utter rhetoric, he talks real staff, he's real. He deeply feels the staff. He ain't running out of legacy, he's running because America needs saving. Judge right America lest you be deceived by words only. Substance dwells together with conviction, not pride, or self-righteousness, or the basis of one's high regard in public. This is typical of Clinton, she thinks that she will win because she is known by way of her name, so she gives no substance at all.

Thank God Hilary is falling in her own trap she set for all of us.

She was trying to fool america by planting questions.

Does anyone need any more proof of this manipulative daughter of Machiavel?

I don't know, Whitewater still hasn't be fully explained..I think Hillary is dirty. I like Obama, but he's still too green, though I could see him in the V.P chair. From the reading I've done, based on history, voting records and vision..there is nobody even close to Ron Paul. Don't take me word for it...look him up, vote your conscience.

Obama saw a chance to be president and grabbed the chance. All presidential aspirants are ambitious there is nothing wrong with Obama's presidential bid. However, he does not yet have the experience needed to lead the country. He should have deferred to Hillary who has Bill to guide her. Remember him ?
Obama should have helped democrats win. And Edwards? --forget about it!

Obama's statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse — he left in 2004 — stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.

"Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They've all got egos," said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded."

Then

"The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where's this or where's that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don't want to mislead people. I don't know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator."

Now
"I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."

Which is it? Does he have or does he not have records?

Obama's track record: Consistent advocate for open government reforms at state and federal levels.

Clinton's track record: secret health task force formed the model and precedent for Cheney's secret energy task force.

If you're an advocate of more open, democratic government there's one candidate that stands out in this race. Hillary's attempt to deflect attention from her poor track record on openness by demanding records that weren't kept is just a diversion. Instead, she should be talking about the lessons she's learned from the mistakes she made with her health task force, including the secrecy. If she is running on her experience then she should say concretely how she's learned from that experience. She should say how her experience informs her judgment. However, from her support for the Iraq War to the discussion about whether government should be more open Hillary refuses to talk about how her experience has and will inform her judgment.

Hillary is in full control of her records and the National Archives only needs her consent to release them. It's interesting that she constantly references her time as First Lady as good experience for being President but refuses to release them.