Lies, Damned Lies, And Why Hillary Voted Against The Levin Amendment

First Read - msnbc.com:

"From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** Did Iraq tip the debate to Obama?

We thought last week’s contentious and (at times) mean-spirited debate nearly resembled that rumble-in-the-rain scene in “The Outsiders.” Yet last night’s Clinton vs. Obama event was quite different. Given their polite exchanges, the cordial tone, and the Hollywood setting, we’d have to say that the debate seemed -- at least to Democrats tuning in -- like one of those feel-good movies in which the protagonists, against all odds, come together and win the day: “Remember the Titans,” “Stand and Deliver,” “Shawshank Redepmtion.”

Cue the slow clap. As far as evaluating the debate, it was tough to pick a winner in the first hour. Both made very professional and nice impressions in what had to be one of the largest debate audiences to date.

Then came Iraq -- an issue that had virtually disappeared from the campaign trail and past debates -- and Clinton once again showed why the issue has been such an Achilles heel for her.

Obama just has an easier time talking about his position, while Clinton has to re-explain why she was for it and why she's not for it now. If the debate were being scored like a boxing match, the first 60 minutes would have been judged as a draw, but the last 30 minutes would have been given to Obama on points, thanks to the Iraq issue."

*** Levin Amendment returns:

Speaking of Iraq, Clinton was asked a question she doesn’t always get: Why she voted against the 2002 Levin amendment, which would have required more diplomacy before the US went to war against Iraq.

At the debate, Clinton answered as she normally does, “The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.”

But as Al Hunt recently wrote, “It did no such thing, Levin said at the time and a spokesman reiterates now. The proposal's language explicitly required that Congress ‘not adjourn’ before it ‘promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution.’ Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who, like Senator Clinton opposed the Levin amendment, said at the time the UN charge was ‘specious’ and that this was a vote about supporting an invasion.”

Rezko became a household name after last week’s debate. Will the same be true of the Levin amendment after last night?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx?p=2

3,022,030 Health Care Documents Still Held Hostage

The Billary Road to Republican Victory - New York Times:

If her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

"Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners."