So there are over 2 million papers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as first lady that apparently will not be made public until some time AFTER the 2008 election. Some details here. I've read a number of bloggers and others who have of course suggested that this is an outrage, what's Hillary trying to hide, etc etc. On the other hand, Bill Crawford at All Things Conservative makes a good argument too--that there's just not likely to be much there, that if conservatives and Republicans are going to beat Hillary, we have to do so by highlighting and defeating her ideas and pointing out why ours are superior. It's a legitimate point.
I guess I come down somewhere in the middle. I don't think the Right should ignore Hillary's papers. That they won't be made public until after the election, given the Clintons' history, has to make you wonder if they're hiding something. And, remember this---the Clinton campaign is emphasizing her yearss as first lady as a reason to vote for her. They cite her travel to over 80 countries, her work with health care in 1993, as part of her supposedly valuable experience. Well, fine--but if she's going to cite her years as first lady, we need to know exactly what went on in the Clinton White House with regard to her duties as first lady. That means we need to see her papers. We probably won't get to see them. So there's nothing wrong with reminding the electorate that we won't, and why. It shouldn't be a centerpiece of an anti-Hillary campaign. But it shouldn't be forgotten, either.
