Last night's debate lit off several bombs with slow burning fuses.

I'm referring to statements or issues that were raised briefly last night but will get people thinking as we all digest the entire debate. Here's some I saw:

The question about the Clinton's papers in the National Archives. Actually, that question lit the fuse on three bombs, one big and two small:

The big one: what is Bill worried about? Why has he sealed his papers?

A little one: why was Hillary hiding behind Bill saying it was his decision to seal the papers? Is it that she can't or that she won't get him to open them up to the public? Who will really be running things in another Clinton White House?

Another little one: Hillary attempted to shift the blame to the people at the Archives, saying we'd all have to wait for them to process the papers. Since they've had the papers for 6 1/2 years now, it was a bit of a slam at federal employees. "We'd love to release the papers, but you know how slow those lazy government workers are...." That's not exactly what she said, but that is a possible interpretation.


What time bombs did you spot?

The people that work with the archives are slow but they eventually get released. CSPAN had a segment on that not too long ago. They release papers all the time, they're just slow.

Bill did write a letter asking they not be released till 2012. I demand a full congressional investigation of "archivegate".

It's not as if the Archives were going to speed up if he didn't write the letter

It was a favorite repuke talking point until Bush/Cheney made executive secrecy patriotic.

the bush first stolen term, when he locked away all those presidential papers - sealing reagan's back up (when they were becoming eligible for release) AND his dad's (hmmm... what's that smell?), he also had Clinton's papers sealed. I think george did it. Not absolutely certain about that but I think that's what I recall.

That is to say, I don't think there was any kind of deal involved to include Bill Clinton's papers, just a desire to impose as much secrecy as humanly possible on Repub presidential papers, and the Democratic presidency was just sort of in the way.

It's a non-issue for Hillary until she's in office herself, and even then there's the issue of how she would override that decree.

You have to admit that in terms of setting precedent, this Bush presidency has handed a gift for the ages to any subsequent president trying to get things done his/her way. The precedents have trampled the Constitution, but the Congress and the Court have let them stand, so they remain a solid message that the president might as well crown himself king.

Hekate

and made her look bad, IMO. Just added to the impresson she is less than direct as a candidate.

I saw mostly the obvious bombs that went off in her face right there.

Will have to think about your question some more...

issue. There are two legitimate sides to it, and while she touched on both, her answer was fuzzy. Obama and Dowd were quite clear. It's an issue that will not go away. Might as well take a positioned stand and stick to it.