Hmm I wonder if the morning of the Waco Branch Davidian Fire will be accounted for? Many people have concluded that Hillary might have been the one to force the confrontation - and Reno took the wrap.

The National Archives announced on Tuesday that 11,046 pages of Senator Hillary Rodham’s White House schedules will be released on Wednesday.

The records were the subject of a legal fight between Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, and the National Archives, which has been slow to comply with a request to release the records, arguing that the vetting process takes time.

Mrs. Clinton’s schedules have attracted close attention throughout the campaign, partly because Mrs. Clinton has frequently held up her eight years as first lady as evidence of her experience.

Judicial Watch announced on March 4 that the National Archives promised to release at least 10,000 pages of the records by March 20.

The Archives said in a statement on Tuesday that the schedules are from the staff files of Patti Solis Doyle, Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign manager who was her chief scheduler in the White House.

“Arranged chronologically, these records document in detail the activities of the First Lady, including meetings, trips, speaking engagements and social activities for the eight years of the Clinton Administration,” the statement said.

Of the more than 11,000 pages to be released, 4,746 pages have redactions, mostly relating to “the privacy interests of third parties,” including Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and home addresses, the Archives said.

Source: Times

Democrats have to be asking themselves how they got to this point. Hopes of a quick and definitive primary have disappeared and they find themselves embroiled in a bitter stalemate punctuated with accusations of racism and sexism while the GOP nominee uses the time to raise money and mend fences.

The irony of course is that Hillary Clinton has gone from being the inevitable and early nominee to waging a desperate battle until the convention; from planning an above the fray campaign with feints to the center to throwing everything she can think of at her opponent no matter the ideological coherence or potential damage to the party.

And with the awkward question of what to do with the delegates from Michigan and Florida still left unresolved, Democrats have to be wondering how far and how ugly this can go.

A few things are clear: Hillary won’t give up as long as there is a slim chance for victory and she will use all available weapons. If there is a remotely plausible scenario where she wins, she will hang on. If a tactic has a chance of giving her an advantage, no matter how temporary, she will use it.

What sometimes gets lost in the mythology and nostalgia surrounding the Clintons, particularly among hardcore Democrats, is that their primary mode of politics is to attack in order to survive.

Read on for more on this pattern and its implications.

The pattern plays itself out with regularity: they overreach politically or refuse to come clean about ethical lapses; their response is to attack the press and their critics; and the goal quickly switches from accomplishment to survival.

The problem is that they have pulled this off so often that they believe they are invincible; that they really are martyrs to a vast conspiracy. Hillary in particular has never been known to reflect on her actions and there inevitable repercussions. Her first response is always: attack!

What did Hillary do when confronted with questions about land deals and investments in Arkansas? She stonewalled, lied, and attacked the press and her critics all the while pretending that she was completely innocent.

Read the rest of this entry �

Not to be outdone by Obama in the “making a fool of myself” arena Hillary comes out with this:

Democrat Hillary Clinton charged on Monday the Iraq war may cost Americans $1 trillion and add strain to the sagging US economy as she made her case for a prompt US troop pullout from a war “we cannot win.”

Jveritas at FR, who translated many of the Saddam Documents, found this nugget in response to her statement that we can’t win:

It did not take long for Ekhlaas, the largest terrorist forum on the internet to rejoice and be all happy with Hillary Clinton defeatist statements today about the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton said that we cannot win this war even if we stay there for a 100 year. The terrorists were very glad to hear this and below are some of their comments which I translated:

“Zamjari”: Allah is Great Brothers, Hillary Clinton: We cannot win the war in Iraq even if we stay for a hundred year

“Moukhles Moutaalek”: You dogs, you sacrifice the future of your country so you can win a presidential election. If America withdraws from Iraq this will give a clear signal that America can be defeated and America will suffer from attacks all over the world. Taste the flavor of treason you Americans, I am mocking you, may allah put the in authority the traitors from their own skin, the slaves of thrones.

“Younis Al Shami”: In America’s fight against the people of Mesopotamia, America will forget the horrors of Vietnam

“Hode”: Allah protect Sheikh Ossama the conqueror of the Americans from the plots of the enemies

Way to go Hillary! Tell the world that we cannot win a war we are winning already.

More from todays speech:

Now, withdrawal is not risk-free, but the risks of staying in Iraq are certain. And a well-planned withdrawal is the one and only path to a political solution. The only way to spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don’t bear that responsibility indefinitely. The only way to spur other countries to do their part to help secure stability in the region. The commitment to staying in Iraq has driven President Bush’s foreign policy. It looks like it would drive Senator McCain’s foreign policy as well, but it will not drive mine. My foreign policy will be driven by what is in America’s national security interests…

The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.

And Allah reminds us about how far she would go to get our troops out of Iraq from a year old interview:

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they’re at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”

“No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if.”

No problem with ethnic cleansing in Iraq to ensure that the war Bush started in Iraq goes down in defeat but she begged her hubby to stop the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda way back when.

Source: Flopping Aces

During Hillary’s Clinton’s New York race for the Senate in 2000, a man in an Uncle Sam suit calling himself ”Tax Man” followed Republican candidate Rick Lazio around, demanding to know why Lazio was so slow in making his income tax returns public.

”The people of New York have a right to know what he’s hiding,” said Howard Wolfson, then a top Clinton aide who often trailed behind ”Tax Man” feeding reporters campaign spin. “Rick Lazio’s 15 minutes are up — he should stop making excuses and come clean with New Yorkers.”

Eight years later, Clinton and her presidential campaign aren’t making her income tax returns public. She’s promised to release her income tax information on or around April 15.

Wolfson, now the Clinton campaign’s communications director, won’t say why Clinton wouldn’t release her tax information earlier. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, released his 2006 tax returns last April.

The junior senator from New York isn’t the only presidential candidate who hasn’t made tax records public. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, hasn’t either. His campaign says that he’ll make his records public in the next month or so.

McCain has never made his tax returns public, but Clinton has. In 1994, under political pressure over the Whitewater land deal controversy, the Clintons made public all their tax returns since 1977. The couple also disclosed their tax returns during Bill Clinton’s eight years in the White House, but not since.

The delays by Clinton and McCain perplex some government watchdog groups, which note that past presidential candidates had no trouble producing their tax returns in a timely fashion. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, released his tax information in December 2003, for example.

”This is a part of the public record that voters have come to expect. Concern grows when anything is withheld,” said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that examines money and politics. “If it means waiting until April 15, we wait until April 15. We just don’t know why.”

Read the rest of this entry �

Is it possible to win the Democratic nomination in such a way as to make winning not worth it?

The Barack Obama campaign thinks so. It thinks Hillary Clinton’s campaign is willing to take any road to the White House, including the low road.

“They would do anything to win, and that means anything,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, told me Monday. “There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can.”

Axelrod went on: “She is the ultimate Washington inside player. She is always asking, ‘How do we wire the vote? How do we wire the system to get the results we want?’”

From his point of view, the Clinton campaign keeps trying to change the rules.

“When they started off, it was all about delegates,” Axelrod said. “Now that we have more delegates, it’s all about the popular vote. And if that does not work out, they will probably challenge us to a game of cribbage to choose the nominee.”

Another Obama senior aide told me he believed Clinton was willing to “destroy the party” just as long as she ends up with the nomination.

I asked Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson for a response.

“I think these apocalyptic quotes are unhelpful,” Wolfson said. “I don’t envision that either side would destroy the party. There is a democratic process here to play out. This process is not over. There are still 10 [contests] left to vote. What is the fear here? Let’s let democracy run its course.”

From the perspective of the Clinton campaign, it has little choice but to go all-out. As a top Clinton aide admitted to me: “Under our projections, if you sat both the Michigan and Florida delegations as they now exist and based on our projections for the remaining contests, Sen. Clinton would still trail narrowly on pledged delegates going into the convention.”

Read the rest of this entry �

Speaking this morning, Hillary hits Obama for not ruling out continuing to use armed private contractors in Iraq. She wants to ban such contractors.

Those contractors are protecting Iraqi government officials. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, as Hillary once called for threatening to take away Iraqi lawmakers’ security if they didn’t reach a deal. And at least one Democrat didn’t find that to be a wise move:

Addressing Mrs. Clinton’s latest proposal to cap American troops and to threaten Iraqi leaders with cuts in funding, Mr. Biden lowered his voice and leaned in close over the table.

“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

The result of Mrs. Clinton’s position on Iraq, Mr. Biden says, would be “nothing but disaster.”

She goes on to talk about how she’ll go after the favorite Democratic bogeyman, the infamous "no-bid" contracts.

"There’s been a lot of talk about earmarks in this town (and she hasn’t released her lists; credit Obama for going that far) but no-bid contracts are ten times more costly than earmarks. When I introduced my legislation, I could not get, as of this moment, Senator McCain’s support for that."

Source: NRO

A majority of Democratic voters say it would be unfair for Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the presidential nomination through the support of "super delegates" if she lags among the convention delegates elected in primaries and caucuses, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

If that happens, one in five say they wouldn’t vote for the New York senator in the general election.

The findings in the survey, taken Friday through Sunday, underscore some of the perils ahead for Democrats as the closely fought nomination battle between Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama continues.

By 55%-37%, Democrats and independents who "lean" Democratic say an outcome in which Clinton lost among pledged delegates but prevailed with the help of super delegates would be "flawed" and unfair" — including 77% of Obama supporters and 28% of Clinton supporters.

Super delegates are party leaders and elected officials who can vote at the national convention and aren’t bound by the results of their state’s primary or caucus.

Most at risk is Democratic support from independents. Nearly two-thirds of those voters call that result unfair, and one-third say they would then vote for the Republican or stay home in November.

"It goes back to this notion: As this race winds down, it’s not how we started the campaign, it’s how we end it," says Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, expressing concern that divisions in the party will present "obstacles" to a Democratic victory in November.

"I feel the emotions on both sides," says Brazile, herself an uncommitted super delegate. "I feel the pain and I feel the bruising."

Read the rest of this entry �

As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Bosnia in March 1996 with her daughter and several celebrities to boost troop morale and thank soldiers stationed there.

Clinton cites the goodwill trip as a part of her foreign policy experience, describing a dangerous landing where she was ordered to the armored front of the plane because of possible ground fire. She also now reports landing under sniper fire and contradicts her previous written account of a shortened welcoming ceremony at the airport.

But according to accounts at the time, she was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it said he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

___

THE SPIN

Clinton described her trip to Bosnia on Monday during a speech about Iraq in Washington. She said: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Questioned about it later at a news conference, Clinton said she was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina. "Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," she said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. … There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

She gave a somewhat different account in her book, "Living History."

In it, she said there were reports of fire but does not mention hearing or seeing it on her way to Tuzla.

"Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," she wrote.

She also described in the book how the plane was kept high, "above the reach of surface-to-air missiles and sniper fire." She wrote, "Above the airstrip, the captain dipped a wing and made a near-perpendicular landing to evade possible ground fire."

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who was also on the trip, said the military needed to take safety precautions with Clinton given that it was a combat zone.

Read the rest of this entry �

Monday’s decision by Florida Democrats to abandon their efforts to hold a new primary, in order to get their delegation seated at the national party’s August convention, is another blow to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to close the small but near-impregnable delegate gap on her rival, Barack Obama. And she’s having little more luck in Michigan.

Clinton won January primaries in both states. But since both were held in violation of national party rules, the state parties were told their delegates would not be seated and the races were not officially contested. (Obama even pulled his name off the Michigan ballot.) Now, however, Clinton sees the two states as key to her flickering hopes of catching Obama. The Illinois senator, unsurprisingly, has opposed any revote or reconsideration of the January results in either state, though his campaign is open to a neutral solution that would give each candidate half of the states’ delegates — a solution that would effectively have no impact on the outcome.

With just a handful of contests left on the nominating calendar, Clinton needs all the opportunities she can get to pick up delegates, and thus she has supported either counting the initial results or, alternatively, holding new votes. She is also hoping that her clean wins in the two important states would buttress her argument that her victories over Obama in most of the nation’s largest states suggests she would be a stronger opponent against the Republicans’ presumed nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain.

Last week, there were signs Florida might provide an opening for Clinton. Florida’s Democratic chairwoman Karen Thurman floated the notion of holding a new election that would meet the national rules by having the re-vote primarily through mail-in ballots. But many key state leaders opposed the method as unfair and impossible to pull off by a June deadline. Thurman herself acknowledged as much when she introduced the plan and on Monday she pulled the plug.

Read the rest of this entry �

The Obama campaign Sunday called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a "veteran of non-disclosure" and, opening a new front, challenged her to release information about her income taxes, Bill Clinton’s foundation and library donors, earmark requests and first lady records. The Clinton team said raising questions about her integrity is a "personal attack."

While Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were cordial when they met on the Senate floor Thursday — Clinton said they talked about keeping their hotly contested primary fight on the issues — the top strategists and spokesmen for their respective campaigns in conference calls Sunday were anxious to deal with more contentious matters of ethics and transparency.

As I wrote in my Sunday column, Obama’s team is finally free to launch an ethics offensive against Clinton because after declining for more than a year, he granted extensive interviews with the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday to discuss his relationship with fund-raiser Tony Rezko, who is on trial in Chicago on federal corruption charges.

The Obama team is trying to dilute Clinton’s claim that because she and former President Bill Clinton have been investigated through the years — from Whitewater to impeachment to campaign finance scandals — she is "fully vetted."

David Axelrod, Obama’s top strategist, said, "Sen. Clinton and her campaign says she is fully vetted, but the truth is that she is a veteran of non-disclosure. In this campaign, we have set a standard. Sen. Obama has released his tax returns, he has released his earmark requests, and he has been forthcoming on these and other issues."

Read the rest of this entry �