Putting aside the bold hypocrisy this involves, this stance puts her in a bind. She is running on her experience in the White House to differentiate her from fellow Senators Obama and Edwards. She has castigated Bush for his secrecy and called for transparency in government. The last thing she wants is a scandal about hidden records and a reminder of the ugliness of her husband’s administration.
Some might want to dismiss this as another attempt by her enemies to smear her character, but the issue is not so easily dismissed. Hillary's unprecedented campaign for president requires that voters have access to the information they need to make an educated decision. If she is running for president based in large part on her experience in the White House then the record of her actions there are critically relevant.
So the question is: what is in those records that she doesn’t want released? Does anyone really believe that staffing levels or a high number of record requests is preventing these documents from being released? The Nichols article even quotes an archival expert noting that the staffing level excuse doesn’t stand up.
Hillary could solve this potential problem, and give her campaign a boost, simply by agreeing that transparency is important to her and therefore she is going to do what it takes to get the records released before the election.
This issue ironically presents a perfect test case for Senator Clinton. She is running as the competent, friendly, candidate who will do what is right. She claims to be for transparency and offers a fresh start from the secrecy and deception of the Bush administration.
If this is true, and not simply a calculated political pose, the answer is simple: she should release the documents.
Call me cynical, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.