John Dickerson had this to say:"Clinton was asked about whether she'd expedite the release her records from her husband's term, and she gave an unsatisfying and frustrating answer about the slow archival process." She said the right thing about the records of her communications with Bill. They are called "Presidential records" for a reason. They are WJC's records,not hers. Hillary said last night that it's WJC's decision. She was/is right. What to do with them is his decision and he is the one that requested that they not be released until 2012. The moderators last night gave the impression that it was her decision to make, They were wrong.

Spacing was screwed up.

John Dickerson had this to say:"Clinton was asked about whether she'd expedite the release her records from her husband's term, and she gave an unsatisfying and frustrating answer about the slow archival process."

She said the right thing about the records of her communications with Bill. They are called "Presidential records" for a reason. They are WJC's records,not hers. Hillary said last night that it's WJC's decision. She was/is right. What to do with them is his decision and he is the one that requested that they not be released until 2012. The moderators last night gave the impression that it was her decision to make, They were wrong.

I think that technically, legally, rules-wise, etc you are right. But I don't think anyone doubts that the reason Bill Clinton is asking for the records to be kept under lock and key until 2012 is because of Hillary's presidential bid. Although, I wonder what will happen if she wins and is up for reelection in 2012, will the records be available then? I somehow think that it will stalled for some reason.

If they are considered to be Bill's documents then the question should be asked of him, not her. In any case, I wonder how long it will be before the correspondence of this administration see the light of day? My guess is it will be substantially longer than Clinton's----maybe after Jeb or Jenna's presidency?

Yeah, but she does have all that influence, right, or at least she did? Isn't that the basis of her claims of experience; the fact that she was involved in decision making as first lady; that she actually had influence? Why then and not now?