With all due respect, I don't quite see the news value in reporting that Hillary Clinton was in the White House on "Stained Blue Dress Day."
Granted, it's mildly newsworthy, but its evidentiary value is about zero. The fact that Hillary was on the premises does not mean she had any clue what Bill Clinton was doing in the Oval Office -- that particular day, anyway. I mean, the White House is not exactly a 1000 square-foot bungalow. Whether Hillary was somewhere else in the White House or in Bulgaria while her husband was dishonoring himself, their marriage and the Oval Office this particular day makes no difference whatsoever.
Now if you tell me that Hillary was in the Oval Office holding Bill Clinton's coat on "Stained Blue Dress" day, I'd have to concede the news value and possbily even the relevance. Otherwise, I think that making a news story out of this sort of thing is unfair to Hillary Clinton and over the top.
Now this (from the same story) is potentially important:
In December 2000, when both of Hillary Clinton's brothers were involved in trying to broker pardon arrangements for associates, several days of documents show only a long list of "private meetings" at the White House.
Between Dec. 1 and 22, Clinton had a total of 25 "private meetings" before the day on which a first round of pardons was announced by her husband.
When it came to Bill Clinton's shameful flood of last-minute pardons before leaving office, what did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it?
Update: This probably won't come as a shock to anyone, but the Clinton records released to the public have been thorougly sanitized.
Pointing out Hillary's whereabouts on the White House compound on that day and then pointing and laughing at Hillary about her husband's moral failings really isn't fair at this point. There are a lot of other legitimate criticisms of Hillary Clinton; this isn't one of them.
Posted by: Robbie | March 20, 2008 at 09:38 AM