AP falsely suggested Obama said his state Senate records do not "exist at all"
SUMMARY: The Associated Press reported
that Sen. Barack Obama "says he can't step up and produce his own records
from his days in the Illinois
state Senate. He says he hasn't got any." But Obama did not claim that
the documents do not exist. In fact, the article quoted Obama saying: "I
don't have -- I don't maintain -- a file of eight years of work in the state
Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of
records."
A November 14 Associated Press article quoted Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) saying of his Illinois state Senate records: "I don't have -- I don't maintain -- a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records." But the article, by Mike Baker and Christopher Wills, went on to report: "While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian," and then quoted historian Tyler Pensoneau saying, "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded." But as the very quote by Obama included in the article makes clear, Obama did not say that "no papers exist at all," nor did he say that "it's all discarded"; he said he did not have the resources to maintain the records for eight years of work. Some records from Obama's state Senate career, as the AP later acknowledged, are available via public records requests from various state agencies.
Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet quoted Obama making a similar statement about his records in a November 10 column. According to Sweet, Obama said, "I had one staff person, that was what was allocated. I don't have archivists in the state Senate. I don't have the Barack Obama state Senate library available to me, so we had a bunch of file cabinets. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years." The AP did note that "Illinois agencies have copies of his requests for information or help, but accessing those records would involve contacting the agencies and asking them to comb though eight years of records to find correspondence from Obama."
According to a statement by the Obama campaign:
The reporter failed to contact State Senator Kwame Raoul to confirm that Senator Obama provided him with records tracking constituent requests and casework.
The reporter failed to contact other State Senators who served at the time and would confirm that they, like Obama, did not keep records beyond those that the state archived even though contact information was provided.
And it takes a months-old conversation about whether or not Obama had ever intervened in any capacity in a domestic or international criminal trial in his career in public office out of context and implies the inquiry related to Senate records.
In a November 15
post
on his Illinois-based Capitol Fax blog, Rich Miller included statements
by several current Illinois state legislators on their record-keeping
practices,
writing that the subject "looks
to me like ... just another national non-issue."
The November 14 AP article also reported that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "papers from her time as first lady, including her work leading a controversial health care task force in her husband's first term, are held at the National Archives and Records Administration." The AP added: "Every president can, and usually does, exercise a right to withhold some documents for up to 12 years after leaving office. Bill Clinton wrote in a 2002 letter that he did not want the agency to release communications between the first lady and him for that period." As Media Matters for America has noted, however, President Clinton's 2002 letter stated that those documents should be "be "considered for withholding" -- not that he "did not want the agency to release" them. In a November 2 statement, William J. Clinton Records representative Bruce Lindsey said that rather than prohibiting the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release."
From the November 14 AP article:
Barack Obama, who's been scolding Hillary Rodham Clinton for not hastening the release of records from her time as first lady, says he can't step up and produce his own records from his days in the Illinois state Senate. He says he hasn't got any.
"I don't have -- I don't maintain -- a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."
Obama's statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse -- he left in 2004 -- stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.
"Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They've all got egos," said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded."
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday that "Obama has a track record of leading the way on reform and disclosure," adding that "correspondence with state agencies and records of requests Obama made to them on behalf of his constituents are available to the public and have been accessed by our opponents and members of the news media."
Pressed for details, LaBolt said Obama did not keep any correspondence with the general public. Ditto for letters to or from state associations and lobbyists, memos on legislation and correspondence with Illinois state agencies. The campaign said Illinois agencies have copies of his requests for information or help, but accessing those records would involve contacting the agencies and asking them to comb though eight years of records to find correspondence from Obama.
[...]
Clinton's papers from her time as first lady, including her work leading a controversial health care task force in her husband's first term, are held at the National Archives and Records Administration. The Clinton campaign has said that neither she nor husband Bill Clinton can do anything to speed the process of review at the National Archives that must precede the papers' becoming public.
Every president can, and usually does, exercise a right to withhold some documents for up to 12 years after leaving office. Bill Clinton wrote in a 2002 letter that he did not want the agency to release communications between the first lady and him for that period.
From Sweet's November 10 Chicago Sun-Times column:
At a news conference, I asked Obama, "Do your state Senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?
"Nobody has requested specific documents," Obama said.
'I don't have archivists'
However, the Chicago Tribune reported it has asked for documents from Obama's Springfield years and never received a response.
The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama's papers. Records from Obama's office -- if he kept them -- would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc., items the state would not have.
Obama has no legal obligation to archive his state papers.
"I was in the state Senate for eight years," Obama said. "I had one staff person, that was what was allocated. I don't have archivists in the state Senate. I don't have the Barack Obama state Senate library available to me, so we had a bunch of file cabinets. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years. Now, if there are particular documents that you are interested in, then you should let us know."















When did AP start using World Nut Daily as a resource????
In fact, the article quoted Obama saying: "I don't have -- I don't maintain -- a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records."
This is just plain bad reporting and the Ap is wrong will they apologize?
No.
(did I get that one right?)
Tricky one, I'll have to lie down and pause to reflect on it...
Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn-not-so-Sweet has zero credibility when reporting on Democrats. From what I have seen of her writing, she engages in what can only be deliberate distortions and lies. Well, I suppose there is the possibility that she does not know when she is misrepresenting reality, but one would have to be seriously disturbed to be that out of touch.
...but one would have to be seriously disturbed to be that out of touch.
Or one would have to be Ann Coulter or Melanie Moran.
:-)
Obama - "I don't have - I don't maintain - a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa."
OK. Obama says he doesn't have records from that time period.
He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."
He says the records could possibly be thrown out.
A historian says that guys like Obama have egos and generally keep "this stuff".
I think again MMFA is trying to make a case where there is none. The AP is not suggesting that Obama said "no records exist at all". One can see they are quoting a historian who says generally some records do exist somewhere.
MMFA writes: But as the very quote by Obama included in the article makes clear, Obama did not say that "no papers exist at all,"The quote by the historian is not refuting any Obama quote.
Nice try but imho, no misinformation - no story.
oh great another one of those "why is this here" guys.
I got a question for ya...why are you here? Do you like to read and then discuss articles you think shouldn't exist?
It is a distortion. That's why it's here. Now go away and read something you enjoy.
What he enjoys reading are posts from frustrated people who have read his posts. It's a regular occupation around here.
Nice...ignore the extremely logical analysis of quotes that AA laid out, and just rip on him.
The fact is that he simply pointed out that the opinions and quotations MMFA pulled up from this so-called historian don't actually refute the fact that comprehensive records do not exist.
Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff.
If it's only the favourable stuff kept, why would newspapers want it? We all know they're trying to dig up some dirt...
Not like this website at all...
If you told a newspaper that you couldn't find your elementary school report cards, and they were so old that the school didn't archive them, do you think it would be unfair for the journalist to say that you claim you didn't get grades in elementary school?
so if the quote from the historian is not meant to refute obama, then why is it there?
Is Hillary behind the latest smears on Obama? And what exactly is Obama trying to hide - which might be in the records?
We are starting to learn a lot more about this campaign:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama accuses Clinton campaign of mud-slinging with Novak columnCarla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Democratic presidential race burst into its angriest brawl yet Saturday when Barack Obama charged Hillary Rodham Clinton with mud-slinging "swift boat" politics and intimidation - an accusation the New York senator sharply denied and said dramatized Obama's unreadiness for the nation's top office.
The set-to kicked off after syndicated newspaper columnist Robert Novak, in an item to appear today, wrote that "agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it."
Hahaha, you asking that question seriously when it's Robert Novak making the suggestion? Are you thick?