Hillary Pollster Mark Penn Spins Hillary's Driver's License Answer
Here's Hillary pollster Mark Penn in the debate spin room last night, attempting to explain Hillary's now-notorious answer to a question about whether she supports New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:
Convinced?
Comments (55)
Hatch wrote on October 31, 2007 11:57 AM:Is that supposed to be clarification?
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 11:57 AM:This didn't help one iota. I think she should ask Penn for a partial refund.
Outside the beltway wrote on October 31, 2007 11:59 AM:only Hillary could call that clarification.
Penn needs to give back part of his salary.
"Senator DoubleTalk" is what I learned.
she takes more positions than John Kerry
Outside the beltway wrote on October 31, 2007 11:59 AM:@ Greg Sargent -
not to be a horse's ass but do you really need a question mark at the end of your question?
slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 12:04 PM:If possible, I think Penn equivocated more than HRC.
Coonsey wrote on October 31, 2007 12:05 PM:The problem with this FLIP/FLOP - it happened during a conversation that Democrats tend to support (helping illegal aliens) - so I doubt it will hurt her much.
I happen to think her comments about it releasing documents that record conversations between her and Bill Clinton during his time in office (she USES this experience as a plus reason to vote for her - she needs to be forced to release them). She said, "That's not my decision to make." Bullwicky! She could go to Bill and demand he release them. She's Hiding something and like Obama pointed out, transparency is one big problem we currently have with the current administration.
Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Penn should stick to defending Blackwater and busting unions.
john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 12:09 PM:The rare world class triple triangulation. Degree of difficulty off scale. Nothing but net!
Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 12:15 PM:If Penn is HRCs' rove, she's doomed.
Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 12:16 PM:Good point Coonsey. The contrast between Obama and Clinton on secrecy are very, very stark. Obama has been a career advocate of open government reforms and is a constitutional law scholar. Who do you trust to roll back the unilateral presidency?
slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 12:18 PM:Coonsey wrote on October 31, 2007 12:05 PM: The problem with this FLIP/FLOP - it happened during a conversation that Democrats tend to support (helping illegal aliens) - so I doubt it will hurt her much.I happen to think her comments about it releasing documents that record conversations between her and Bill Clinton during his time in office (she USES this experience as a plus reason to vote for her - she needs to be forced to release them). She said, "That's not my decision to make." Bullwicky! She could go to Bill and demand he release them. She's Hiding something and like Obama pointed out, transparency is one big problem we currently have with the current administration.
Word. It's a pity that exchange hasn't even been mentioned outside of the comment section here.
anns wrote on October 31, 2007 12:19 PM:Drivers License and the debate. It was a diasaster for a number of reasons.
1. The DL issue is of intense interest here in NY State. I was stunned she wasn't prepared. People might have gone to bed but it is on tape and in every Republican's opposition data bank.
2. She kept getting caught on camera looking grim. She actually reminded of my mom when i was bad when iu was a teenager. Unfair but these pictures also are on tape.
anns wrote on October 31, 2007 12:19 PM:Drivers License and the debate. It was a diasaster for a number of reasons.
1. The DL issue is of intense interest here in NY State. I was stunned she wasn't prepared. People might have gone to bed but it is on tape and in every Republican's opposition data bank.
2. She kept getting caught on camera looking grim. She actually reminded of my mom when i was bad when iu was a teenager. Unfair but these pictures also are on tape.
Daniel wrote on October 31, 2007 12:21 PM:I am more sympathetic to Clinton on this one: No one else on stage defended Spitzer's plan, and Clinton took a huge political risk by saying good things about it. And though she strangely did not endorse it, I am at least glad she recognized that it is a good plan. For Edwards and Obama did not go there...
Read Campaign Diaries's debate roundup and analysis.
No one else defended Spitzer's plan?!?!?! Obama said he supports it!
Th wrote on October 31, 2007 12:24 PM:This is the classic gotcha predicament; because other people have totally screwed up and left you with no good options, which of these terrible ideas are you in favor of? Remember that only one candidate said he was against giving licenses to undocumenteds. Were they asked post-debate if that was their true position? Give Hillary a break, it was a no-win situation. Dodd looked bad and the rest looked scared to death they would be called on to answer definitively.
Radio Head wrote on October 31, 2007 12:27 PM:We'll know Hillary's "position" on this issue soon. There's another Penn tracking poll due to be completed in five, four, three....
demwinger wrote on October 31, 2007 12:28 PM:Dodd was the only one to say no to DL's so I dunno what the big deal is.
Hillary has done a great job of looking moderate compared to the rest of the field and that will appeal to indies and moderate republicans.
Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 12:28 PM:Th. The next president will follow on one that has screwed up and left few good options. Voters would like that president to be up front and honest about the kinds of judgments they will make. It's not a "gotcha" question. Hillary needs to realize that voters deserve straight answers to tough questions. She can't keep refusing to do that.
Mike M. wrote on October 31, 2007 12:29 PM:Wish Hillary would have just said "spitzer's right" and left it at that. Seriously, are there Democrats who really have a problem with this? Since when do you have to be a citizen to drive here?
AnnS wrote on October 31, 2007 12:33 PM:I guess I was not being clear. I live in Upstate NY. The DL issue is huge. It has been covered in every paper, local radio station, and every water cooler conversation. Spitzer is a mensch for taking this on because getting hit by an unlicensed (uninsured driver) is a disaster but the illegal alien thing pushes peoples' buttons. This is an issue in the state that Senator Clinton represents. She should have known enough not to look like a fool on this one. It is not a cricisim because I am in love with some other candidate and want her to look bad. Quite the opposite. She just handed the Republicans a huge gift. Tht's what irks me.
hadenough wrote on October 31, 2007 12:34 PM:"slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 12:18 PM:
Coonsey wrote on October 31, 2007 12:05 PM: The problem with this FLIP/FLOP - it happened during a conversation that Democrats tend to support (helping illegal aliens) - so I doubt it will hurt her much.
I happen to think her comments about it releasing documents that record conversations between her and Bill Clinton during his time in office (she USES this experience as a plus reason to vote for her - she needs to be forced to release them). She said, "That's not my decision to make." Bullwicky! She could go to Bill and demand he release them. She's Hiding something and like Obama pointed out, transparency is one big problem we currently have with the current administration.
Word. It's a pity that exchange hasn't even been mentioned outside of the comment section here."
You need to be forced to get a clue.
Assuming russert had a clue what he was talking about he lied. The national archives have to review the documents. By law archivists have to check the docs before they are released. Once the national archives releases the docs the Clinton archive has 90 days to release or claim executive privilege. After that the bush admin gets the docs. Then they have unlimited amount of time to review the docs before they are released or they claim executive privilege. By law. Hillary cannot force the documents to be released.
Archived Clinton Records May Go Public Soon
An estimated 10,000 pages of daily schedules from Senator Clinton's tenure as first lady could be made public as soon as December, though Presidents Clinton and Bush could postpone the records' release, a National Archives official said yesterday.
"Our hope is to get it done by the end of the year," the acting director of the Clinton Presidential Library, Emily Robison, told The New York Sun. She stressed that she was only referring to the review and redaction of the records by archivists. Under the Presidential Records Act and an executive order issued by Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton's representatives then have 90 days to review the records for materials that could be covered by executive privilege. After that review is complete, Mr. Bush has an unlimited amount of time to make his own privilege assertions.
http://www.nysun.com/article/62549
So the Clintons can not release records until the national archives looks them over. Then the clintons can hold for 90 days only unless they claim privledge. So far docs cleared by the national archives have been released.
W Action wrote on October 31, 2007 12:37 PM:If I read "Give Hillary a break" one more time, I may break my keyboard. Sen. Clinton can lose every primary but, due to proportional representation, still have well over 50% of the delegates. She has maybe 30% of delegates in her pocket before the process begins: McGovern reforms that opened the party to democracy were largely rolled back by Clintonistas. Numerous party functionaries are now automatic delegates before any votes are counted. Bill's beneficiaries control the convention apparatus and hundreds of delegate votes already. "Give Hillary a break?"
keith wrote on October 31, 2007 12:38 PM:Hadenough:
I assume all of what you say about the archives is true. If that's the case, why did Bill Clinton feel the need to send a letter to the archives asking them not to release correspondence between him and Hillary until after 2012? Why short circuit the process?
slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 12:41 PM:keith wrote on October 31, 2007 12:38 PM: Hadenough:I assume all of what you say about the archives is true. If that's the case, why did Bill Clinton feel the need to send a letter to the archives asking them not to release correspondence between him and Hillary until after 2012? Why short circuit the process?
Indeed? And isn't that a peachy date to keep them hidden until?
Kevin Egan wrote on October 31, 2007 12:43 PM:I heard her answer on the radio this morning (which can have a different effect--remember Nixon beat Kennedy on radio!) and it struck me as a remarkably honest answer to a tough question where there are no good answers and every position makes some group crazy. And she supported Gov. Spitzer, who is a good guy who could use some support these days, so that's being a team player.
When the guys jumped on that as equivocation, it struck me so strongly that this was typical male thinking style (adverserial and aggressive) missing the point of typical female thinking style (retaining awareness of other views, responding to implications as much as to denotation). I may be wrong, but I wonder if the ultimate fallout here may not resemble the reaction to Lazio's crossing the stage so aggressively: that was the moment that clinched the senate seat for Hillary. I kind of prefer Obama for various reasons, but I also find Hillary pretty damn impressive: she's smart, she's tough, she learns, she cares. We could do a lot worse--in fact, we usually do!
Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 12:43 PM:Newsweek also wrote that it had obtained documents showing that while the former president publicly claims a willingness to release documents, he has given the National Archives private instructions to maintain tight control over certain documents, including everything relating to investigations by Congress, Justice Department officials and independent counsels, and "communications directly between the president and first lady, and their families."john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 12:58 PM:
Bad Hair Night
When she's bad, she's horrid - Obama, Edwards Attack, Clinton Bombs - The Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6634.htmlhadenough wrote on October 31, 2007 1:12 PM:
"Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 12:43 PM:
Newsweek also wrote that it had obtained documents showing that while the former president publicly claims a willingness to release documents, he has given the National Archives private instructions to maintain tight control over certain documents"
The records are owned by the federal governemnt. Clinton can not decide to release the records or not until the federal archivists say he can. So far every record the archivists have given Clinton access to, Clinton has released. Shockingly, maybe to some anyway, newsweek lies.
nice try john mccutchen
H. Rep. 95-1487, at 2-3 (95th Cong., 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1978).
The PRA mandates that the Presidential records of an Administration be transferred to the legal and physical custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) immediately upon the end of the President's last term of office. The Archivist of the United States is given the "responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of th[e former] President." 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1). The PRA also requires the Archivist to appoint a Library Director in "consultation with the former President." Id. § 2203(f)(2). The Library Director balances archival and public access considerations with national security, confidentiality, and privacy concerns.
Since its enactment, NARA has taken legal custody of the Presidential records of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William J. Clinton. The Reagan and Bush records are housed in Presidential Libraries in Simi Valley, California and College Station, Texas, respectively. The Clinton records are stored in a records storage facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, until they can be transferred to a Presidential Library that is being constructed by former President Clinton.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/110601_carlin.html
Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election. ...
[E]ven in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign. ...
Asked how long it might be before Hillary Clinton's records are released, the library's chief archivist said it could take years. ...
http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=152540
That's not the Clintons. That is a federal archivist saying it could take years. The Clinton archives staff are federal archivists.
"[E]ven in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act."
Fereral archivists redact documents. Not the Clintons.
"§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
How Current is This? The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_22.html
"keith wrote on October 31, 2007 12:38 PM:
Hadenough:
I assume all of what you say about the archives is true. If that's the case, why did Bill Clinton feel the need to send a letter to the archives asking them not to release correspondence between him and Hillary until after 2012? Why short circuit the process?"
There has to be a copy of that letter on-line? Right? Somebody must have something somewhere? Right? So I'll thank you in advance for providing the link to the letter.
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 1:22 PM:Anon:
According to Tim Russert, there is in fact a letter and if I didn't know any better, he was holding it when he asked her the question. If it wasn't true, why didn't HRC just say, Tim that's an unconscionable lie and mischaracterization of what Bill asked the archives, and then flow into her answer about the arcive process? To me that would have ended the issue, and most importantly for HRC, would not have given Obama the opening she did.
If you want to hinge your defense on "there's no copy of the letter", that's your perogative. I don't think it's convincing, but again, that's your perogative.
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 1:28 PM:Here's a quote from the NY Times (hardly an anti-HRC paper) agreeing essentially that Russert was in fact holding the letter in question:
In an exchange with Mr. Russert, arguably her third toughest opponent on the stage, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly declined to say whether she would push the National Archives to release correspondence from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Clinton in the White House when he was president. Mr. Russert held up a copy of a letter from Mr. Clinton asking the Archives not to release any of those documents until 2012. (emphasis added)
Keith,
It seems to me that 'hadenough' has provided ample info regarding this whole archives bit. Yet you still are going on with, "Well what about this? and What about that?"
Not sounding terribly reasonable there.
Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 1:40 PM:This might be the letter in question.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/62133
Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 1:41 PM:loki, hadenough posted lots of stuff, none of which addresses the specific issue of the request made by Clinton not to release specific documents until 2012. Speaking of not addressing the specific issue, Hillary seems to be rubbing off on her supporters.
Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 1:42 PM:The commentary at the time of Clinton's letter:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 1:45 PM:Loki:
Hadenough has produced a tremendous amount of information on the archiving process, etc., which I appreciate. What I'm curious about is, giving all of these "hurdles" to the release of the information, why did Bill Clinton feel the need to ask the National Archives not to release correspondence between the two until 2012? I don't think that's an unreasonable question, especially in light of the information hadenough has posted.
My concern is that, as hadenough posted above, HRC/Bill's concern isn't about protecting federal secrets, but not giving her rivals ammunition.
Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign. ...
If you are going to run on your experience, then you shouldn't be actively trying to prevent the release of the information in the ordinary course. It sounds like that's what they are trying to do (avoid its release in the ordinary course). If that's not the case, she should clear it up in a hurry.
Loki, hadenough:
Anonymous' link does take you to the letter from Clinton ordering that the documents (among a number of other categories) not be released until 2012. Yes, there are lots of documents in the archive, and few archivists, so it's possible that the process described by hadenough might mean they wouldn't be released by 2012 anyway, but it is unquestionable that Clinton DID write an additional letter requesting the closure.
loki wrote on October 31, 2007 2:07 PM:wes2,
Yes, and I'm sure all kinds of horrible, nefarious and fascist-like inner workings will be exposed when they are released.
Or maybe we'll just discover that Hillary is not the educated, wordly, experienced woman we all have seen the last twenty years in public life. No she's probably going to be revealed as a knuckle dragging slag. You know, the kind who might try to suggest the Archivists take some time to get their work done. (like she did last night!)
Or maybe...well this could go on forever. You have fun! ;^}
Actually, what Clinton is doing in his letter to the archives is that he is waving the federal 10 year restriction on releasing many of his Presidential papers. He's asking the archivists to speed up the approval for release by waiving restrictions.
What he is not waiving is the federally mandated 10 year waiting period on certain communications with personal, private, or political discussions.
Don't overlook the big picture. Should Obama release all of his communications with David Axelrod dating back to his Senate campaigns? I don't believe so.
By piling on Clinton, the Dems are doing the Republicans bidding. You know any political documents would go straight to the Swiftboat operation.
If anyone is interested in the Clinton White House and Hillary's role, there are dozens and dozens of books available at your local library, including books by Bob Woodward and many Clinton insiders like Stephanopolis and others, just as there are for every administration.
hadenough wrote on October 31, 2007 2:26 PM:"Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 1:40 PM:
This might be the letter in question.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/62133"
That's the link.
Regarding Hillary the letter says "communications directly between the President and the First Lady and their families"
And that would be after the national archives has processed the communications. I could see a panty sniffer getting upset about that but nobody else.
Is there a transcript of the debate up yet? I can't find one. What exactly was the question russert asked?
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 2:34 PM:§ 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
(a) Prior to the conclusion of his term of office or last consecutive term of office, as the case may be, the President shall specify durations, not to exceed 12 years, for which access shall be restricted with respect to information, in a Presidential record, within one or more of the following categories:
Just a correction, Bill Clinton has the discretion to set this term, it's not set by federal regulation. And I think there's nothing wrong with what he's done; he's exercised his perogative to prevent the release of this information. The American people should exercise their discretion to disregard HRC's claims of experience to the extent we can't verify those claims--as is the case (apparently) with respect to her role in policy decisions during President Clinton's two terms in office. She can't have it both ways.
"Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 2:34 PM:
§ 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
Just a correction, Bill Clinton has the discretion to set this term, it's not set by federal regulation. "
Keith what is your problem? You post a 'federal regulation' and then type in it is not a 'federal regulation'. What is the problem? Read the letter. Clinton eases rescrictions on everything except personal communications. Why do you think you need to read letters between a husband and wife? Or maybe you just don't understand. Healthcare records? No problem the letter says get'em out there. Anything else, other than sniffing Hillary's panties, get it out there. And again, nothing gets released or gets restricted until federal archivists have processed it. Does that help you?
russert question:
MR. 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?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26485
If we can drool and rub our thighs while we read personal communications between spouses that might allow us to "make a judgment about your[Hillary's] experience." We might better spend our time reading Hillary's healthcare docs which as soon as the federal archivists have processed them will be released.
keith wrote on October 31, 2007 3:20 PM:Hadenough:
No problem. HWC posted the following:
What he is not waiving is the federally mandated 10 year waiting period on certain communications with personal, private, or political discussions.
I just pointed out the federal regulation gives the President the discretion to set when the documents would be released (not to exceed 12 years), it does not mandate a 10 year waiting period. I think that's a relevant distinction, don't you?
loki wrote on October 31, 2007 4:43 PM:Keith,
All snarkiness (on my part) aside...
What do you think the punch line is here? What do you think Clinton (either one) has done wrong here? What has he/she done that is illegal? Improper? Unprecedented? Now that all this helpful info from 'hadenough' and others has been put out there...what now is your real beef here?
Curious.
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 4:56 PM:Loki:
Here's what I wrote above:
And I think there's nothing wrong with what he's done; he's exercised his perogative to prevent the release of this information. The American people should exercise their discretion to disregard HRC's claims of experience to the extent we can't verify those claims--as is the case (apparently) with respect to her role in policy decisions during President Clinton's two terms in office. She can't have it both ways.
You are not answering my questions.
I'm asking about you. Not what you think "The American people" should do or think. You.
Thanks,
loki
Why in the world would HRC (or any Dem that hopes to regain the White House and Congress) want her and Bill's private writings made available for all the nut jobs out there to comb over and find "something" before the 2008 election?! Mein Got! Are you all crazy? It's not about HRC or Obama or Edwards (the sap)... it's about removing the Thugs from power.
It feels like 2000 all over again, Naderites trying to force their idealism down the throats of pragmatic voters. We need to get elected first.
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 5:28 PM:Loki:
I'm included in the American People; unless you know something about my citizenship that I don't.
Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 5:36 PM:MonaL:
Please stop being a Machivellian--winning by any means necessary isn't the answer. Speaking for myself, I just wanted clarification on the facts underlying the archive question. I got them. I understand WHY they aren't releasing them, but apparently you don't understand that their decision has an upside (avoid being attacked by their opponents, whether Democrat or Republican) and a serious downside.
She's running, in part, on her active role in policy making in the Clinton White House. To the extent she won't release those records, for whatever reason, I'm not going to consider her unverifiable participation in policy making in the Clinton White House. Others may feel differently. I don't.
Keith wrote:
"Please stop being a Machivellian-- winning by any means necessary isn't the answer."
It is for the Republicans, and look at where we are now. Although I hardly think voting for HRC is "Machiavellian."
She is the strongest candidate of the lot. She's hardly the right-wing conservative some on the farther left try to make her out to be.
We tried Gore and Kerry, neither had the wherewithal to take them on.
The repugs are more disorganized than they were in the last 2 pres. cycles, and now we've got a liberal/moderate candidate who can potentially get the vote of the independent voter who remembers what it was like with Bill in office.
Merle Haggard is a good example of that independent voter:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670184,00.html
We need a candidate that represents "most" Americans, which means that most of us will have to compromise on what we want in a candidate because we don't all agree on everything.
And perhaps we should set our sights on the real opposition and not turn on our own.
keith wrote on October 31, 2007 6:42 PM:It is for the Republicans, and look at where we are now. Although I hardly think voting for HRC is "Machiavellian."
That wasn't what I was suggesting. My point is that the notion of pointing out criticism about a candidate is somehow detrimental to that candidate's chance of victory IS Machivellian.
We need a candidate that represents "most" Americans, which means that most of us will have to compromise on what we want in a candidate because we don't all agree on everything.
And we should determine this HOW? By name recognition? Who looks nicest in a suit? I'd rather our candidate be put through the fire, as it were, to make damn sure that "most" Americans understand just exactly what they are getting, rather than what they "think" they are getting.
I'm actually getting pretty tired of this undemocratic meme by HRC supporters.
Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 6:55 PM:Just to bring this post to a close:
HRC is now supporting Spitzer's plan:
I'm sure Obama/Edwards are going to have a freaking field day with this one. This truly is the gift that keeps on giving....
anns wrote on October 31, 2007 8:17 PM:Penn ran an overnight poll. She was finally able to tell us what she thinks. Whatever.....
slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 8:36 PM:loki, the reason it's a big deal is that she's running on her experience, and touts her White House experience specifically as a reason she won't need on the job training. Yet her husband has locked up the best evidence on what her White House experience indicates she'll do, and she won't ask for a waiver of it.
That's a problem. It's a problem because it's not transparent. It is the exact same logic the Bush Administration used with WMD in Iraq, and Obama was drawing a contrast with his record of openness and her record of secrecy.
