Regardless Jeremy, this doesn't sound good at all, especially in light of all the hay he made over clinton II's concealing of docs. I don't like it and I find it troublesome. How can he have no records or there aren't any records? That is very strange.

As the son of a former state legislator, I think that anyone giving Obama a hard time about his State Senate records is blowing a hell of a lot of hot air. Most state legislators probably don't hold onto outdated day planners or archive extensive records of their day-to-day activities. I don't see how this "complicates his criticism of Hillary's alleged secrecy." We know that Hillary's White House records exist, and we know that they're not available to the public. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Obama is hiding anything.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 6:35 PM:
Regardless Jeremy, this doesn't sound good at all, especially in light of all the hay he made over clinton II's concealing of docs. I don't like it and I find it troublesome. How can he have no records or there aren't any records? That is very strange.

*****It's not that he doesn't not have records ,the state is charged with maintaining records concerning Obama lesgislative work.What he doesn't have are personal records i.e:at 6.45 pm on tuesday I met with so & so or at 7.15pm on Monday I had dinner with Jeremy.That's what he doesn't have.As far as I know i don't think state congress people maintain much "personal records" a Govenor yes or Lt Govenor.

I think part of the problem is with the AP report, which is a bit confusing/misleading due to a serious lack of precision as to what exactly they are talking about and asked him.

Maybe you should ask the campaign to clarify.

Keep in mind that a State senator has very limited resources. It's nothing like even First Lady in terms of staffing, etc. Perhaps kind of sad when you think about it.

I think what it means is that an Illinois state Senator position is a half-time job.

pacc,

You put your words in a different order, but I still have no clue what you mean.

We're talking apples and oranges. Hillary is claiming to have unparalleled qualification for the presidency because she was deeply involved in the policy development of her husband's administration. Her First Lady papers (complete with menus and seating charts) and the policy communications she had with president (includng her highly secretive work on health care form) ARE PART OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES and the Clintons are working hard to withhold them from public view at the Clinton Library until AFTER NOVEMBER 2008.

Greg Kleefeld's efforts to distract from this major Hillary issue is shameful. If Obama, or Edwards, et al have records in the NATIONAL ARCHIVES, they should be sure those papers are released too. END OF COMPARISON.

dcshungu said " I know little about this..." That should be his motto.

Hillary can't have it both ways. Either in her years as First Lady she gained unparalleled qualification for president because of her deep, substantive involvement, as evidenced in the Presidential Archive. Or she was just First Lady and her records have no significance for her presidential campaign.

My position, which I believe would be verifed by the records, is that Hillary Clinton's only qualification for president is being Bill's wife. Her campaign is about nepotism and it is dangerous for our democracy for another so horrendously unqualified a person to become president based on family connections. We do not need to depend on the Clintons and the Bushes for "leadership."

dcshungu said " I know little about this..." That should be his motto. Either in her years as First Lady she gained unparalleled qualification for president because of her deep, substantive involvement, as evidenced in the Presidential Archive. Or she was just First Lady and her records have no significance for her presidential campaign.

You, on the other hand, hide behind the ubiquitous Anonymous poster to avoid divulging the poster behind the intellectual dishonesty. If I do not know something I state it rather than pontificate mindlessly. I take the time to educate myself. Do you, Senor(a) Anonymous?

FYI,I have never claimed that HRC's years as First Lady were her sole qualification to be POTUS, but they definitely gave her a closer look at the job that she applying for than any of her opponents. She has a Senate record and a life-long history of championing various causes that have been important to her over the years. It is all out there for you to find (start with her campaign website, making sure to double- and cross-check any facts that you do not trust).

Sometimes you all sound like a group of squabbling siblings arguing over the last cookie.

First, Eric only passed on the AP story. Just because he reported it does not mean he thinks anything about it one way or the other.

Second, yes, I find it a little strange that Sen Obama has no records from his time in the Ill. Statehouse, but then I'm a packrat and could easily produce my daily calender from my 17th year (a long long time ago). And I do find it unusual for a politician to toss any peice of paper. But you are trying to compare unlike objects hat don't really need to be compared in the first place. And it wouldn't have come up except that Sen Obama has made an issue of the National Archives storage of Sen Clinton's papers.

Oh, and, by the way, will Mrs. Obama, Dr. Biden, Mrs. Dodd, Mrs. Kuchinich, Mrs. Richardson, not to mention Pres. Clinton and all the Republican spouses be pressed for their papers too.

Get to a more important topic or at least stop nipping at each other.

Oh, no. Not more missing/absent records. This is all too like the Rose Law Firm.

and here's the link for that as well

Lynn Sweet has covered this in far better detail. Essentially, the correspondence within State Government is available, though not conveniently archived. That's not Obama's fault--it's the State of Illinois'.

I have met Kwame Raoul who took over for Obama and he was pretty clear that Obama handed over open files and helped with the transition and such, but there is no mechanism to store constituent service records.

Making it worse, the computers are reused between office holders so what might have been on a hard drive was probably redone when Kwame took the office over.

All that said, all records Obama had in the State Senate that are archived by the state are available. That's the point. We don't require people to turn over personal records not required by statute. And it's obvious why not, if it needs to be maintained the individual isn't compensated for it. No one is asking for Hillary Clinton to turn over personal e-mails to Bill Clinton. They are asking her to speed up the release of documents between the First Lady's office and the President's office that are required to be kept by law.

Obama isn't being truthful on this one.

Politicians are like serial killers; they always keep trophies.

Yes. Obama has all the earmarks of a person who lacks thw foresight to maintain records . . .

Just as he lacks the ability to generate ideas unless some one else publishes the same idea five to seven days earlier.

Good thing he had a government job cuz they keep records . . .

mkolb,

Eric appears to have actually changed this post (for example, it used to contain an editorial comment about this story "complicating" Obama's criticisms of Clinton citing her White House experience while not releasing her records from that time).

Also, Eric now seems particularly interested in this one line from the AP stoory: "Obama hasn't always claimed there were no papers left from his time in the state Senate." The problem with highlighting that line is that isn't what Obama is claiming now either. He is still acknowledging that some papers exist in various places. And what he is saying in the quote Eric notes is just that he does not have in his possession a complete file of all his papers.

colon, they are not privileged white house records. They are public records. The president and his staff work for the people. We the people are entitled to the records, that's why there is a national archives and that is why congress passed a presidential records act. Withholding these documents until 2012 is a bad idea on the part of clinton II, people will think she is trying to hide something, which it sounds like she is, and people will assume the worst, rightly or wrongly. She should just release the records now and kill the story.

This bs about the clintons having no control over the release is just garbage. They are preventing the release. Everyone, except hillary-lovers know what is going on. The problem is she can't win the nomination or the general based solely on the votes of blind hillary-lovers.

Furthermore, I originally was troubled by this story on the part of obama, but after reading the posts and thinking back to my involvement with state government, there is no way that any state could maintain records of all state government officials. It would cost a fortune, that states don't have. I give him a pass and I don't like the spin put on the issue by TPM. It made it look alot worse than it was. It kind of shows you the power of the media, I bought the spin hook, line and sinker, until I was put straight by some posters.

Can you imagine the howls of indignation and convulsions apoplexy that would emanate from haters on both the left and right wing fringes if Clinton had said what Obama just said? Even if it was true?

Experts on presidential papers, as well as advisers to Mrs. Clinton, say that "withholding" in that context did NOT mean the papers would be kept under wraps indefinitely. Rather, the word is a LEGAL TERM in the Presidential Records Act requesting that the papers be SUBJECTED TO REVIEW.

And what does the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University have to say about all of this?

"Senator Clinton DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER to OVERRIDE FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS; they PROTECT ALL the OTHER PEOPLE who wrote or participated in conversations," said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

[emphasis added]

More National Head-to-Head Polls at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

"Michael":

If you read the article (I gave you the link), you might learn a thing or two.

Or, you could do a Google.

Ok, read it and it doesn't say squat. Some hack that is probably a clinton II supporter at GW says something about federal privacy law having to be protected. Sorry, as far as I know there isn't any such thing except concerning financial records, so I ask again what federal privacy laws?

It is a total bs smoke screen and it will only get worse the longer it drags on. I am not a supporter, but she should release the records for her sake. The more this drags on the worse it looks and the excuse doesn't hold any water. She's the one claiming all this experience as first lady, show us the money or shut up.

"Michael":

Maybe you could get this book out of the library: "Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws"

From Library Journal
We are living in a world of bar codes, computer files, and digital records where our vital statistics are no longer private and everyone knows our name. Fortunately, there are laws protecting citizen privacy and data collection. Where other works on privacy may discuss the public-policy issues of government interference and Big Brother paranoia, this compilation, updated from the 1992 edition and touted as the "nation's only single source of information about confidentiality statutes," digests the relevant privacy laws surrounding bank records, computer crime, library records, employment records, and 18 other areas. The more than 600 laws described and cited are grouped by category, from "Arrest and Conviction Records" to "Testing in Employment." The standard format for each category is a summary of each state's law and citation to the full statute; representative laws are included in full text in an appendix. Although a table of contents lists the categories, the lack of a subject index forces the reader to scan the prefatory material to determine where certain topics have been categorized (breast-feeding in public in New York is listed under "Miscellaneous") and for the grid of states and topics. Background on the history of privacy issues is included, as well as an appropriate caution that regulations and court cases may affect the statute. Canadian laws are included in an appendix. Smith, a lawyer and journalist, is the publisher of Privacy Journal, an independent monthly newsletter published since 1974. Recommended for all public libraries as an index or starting point in research.

http://www.amazon.com/Compilation-State-Federal-Privacy-Laws/dp/0930072111

Michael: Why are you so angry?

Factchecker.org is not a pushover for politicians and essentially they say that Poetry is right: Bill Clinton acted to speed the release of his papers, retained the right to vet family communications and even if Hillary wished to release all papers concerning her she could not do so because the National Archives is required to vet the papers for disclosure of third party information under privacy and other laws and is understaffed to do so. These requirements were stated by the Archive's spokesperson Cooper.

AJM, you are correct as far as you go. The National Archives has completed their review of some documents. From what I understand, Bill's letter then meant that his designated representative completed a review before release. I think Bush also gets to review the documents before release.

This is typical 1990s behavior, frankly. The Clintons somehow manage to massage things so they simply look extremely suspicious. I do wish they would stop this crap. It is also one major reason I oppose Hillary's nomination; we simply do not need the stonewalling and molasses lawyer approach to public documents, speeches or any damned other thing. It's annoying and wastes our collective energy.

Just get the records out, Bill. Put some of your speech money into your lawyer's office so the documents are reviewed faster. Is this too much? Jeesh.

One other point, I want dems to win the white house in 08, even if its a dino clinton. She is better than nothing. However, with all these games and garbage that she has been pulling, including this records thing and the flipping all over the place, she is just turning people off.

Nobody will buy this garbage and the american people want change. Ultimately, if she wins the nomination at this rate she will lose the general and that really is a depressing thought. We could wind up with 4 years of mitt the flip in the white house. At least he is not trying to conceal stuff and triple talk, he just flips and flops and flips all over the place. How depressing.

A few facts:

The relevant date is 2012 because 12 years is the maximum Bill Clinton could have set for restricted access under the Presidential Records Act. If he had wanted to set a shorter withholding period, he could have.

The relevant law is 44 USC 2204(a), which states: "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 ...."

Moreover, Bill Clinton has the power to waive that restricted access at any time. See 44 USC 2204(b)(1): "Any Presidential record or reasonably segregable portion thereof containing information within a category restricted by the President under subsection (a) shall be so designated by the Archivist and access thereto shall be restricted until the earlier of ... the date on which the former President waives the restriction on disclosure of such record, or ... the expiration of the duration specified under subsection (a) for the category of information on the basis of which access to such record has been restricted."

Of course the Archivist is also responsible for enforcing any relevant privacy laws, but notably those would generally not apply to communications involving official duties. Also, privacy protections can be waived by the relevant parties, so if, say, we were talking about communications between the President and First Lady, they could both just waive any relevant protections.

Finally, all this talk about federal privacy laws is a complete red herring, because the 12-year restricted access placed on these records by the President is a completely independent barrier to disclosure. If right now he exercised his power under the law to waive that restricted access, I suspect that would satisfy the critics, even if some documents still got withheld for other reasons.

stlounick: Just get the records out, Bill. Put some of your speech money into your lawyer's office so the documents are reviewed faster. Is this too much? Jeesh.

Review by the President Clinton's designated representative (Bruce Lindsey) is not the bottleneck. Review by the National Arhives is. From the factcheck.org link posted above:

The Archives has six staffers working through the former president’s 76.8 million pages of documents, trying to fulfill nearly 300 pending Freedom of Information Act requests. The documents must be reviewed not just for the exemptions listed in the Presidential Records Act, but others that are laid out in different laws.

Could Hillary Clinton speed the release of records from her White House years by convincing her husband to tell the Archives to open them up? Not very much, according to [Susan] Cooper [spokesperson for the National Archives]. “We’d still have to screen each page for other exemptions, including the privacy of third persons and national security,” she said.

The only thing Bill Clinton has done is to maintain his right to review certain categories of documents before they are released. I don't think that is unreasonable. This whole thing is a flap over nothing at all, kicked off by a grossly misleading question from Tim Russert implying that there is a complete ban on the release of President's papers until 2012, a ban which does not, in fact, exist.

Not that I expect the "anybody but Clinton" faction here to be swayed by the facts.