Hidden in the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark. are boxes of documents that would shed some light on Hillary Clinton and her role in the two Clinton terms. From health care to impeachment, these are important documents as they'll show the decisions she made, the advice she gave and her thoughts about the daily events that shape a presidency. Hillary is making sure they don't see the light of day until after the 2008 election:

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.

"Those files -- that's the mother lode of opposition research," said Ray McNally, a Republican political consultant in Sacramento. "Opposition researchers would be very hungry to see what's there." Robert Shrum, senior political strategist in Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, said: "In 2 million pieces of paper, would opposition researchers hope to find one where she wrote a memo saying, 'I wish I'd never gotten involved in healthcare?' Sure. That's what they'd love to find."

Among other things not involving health care, I would like to know her response (if any) to the attacks on the African embassies, the USS Cole and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. We know that Bill Clinton's response was tepid at best and led Osama bin Laden to believe that we didn't have the will to strike back. What was Hillary's advice in those situations?

Do President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney deserve impeachment? Is their direction of the Iraq war mere bungling, or something more sinister, and does it warrant action by Congress? Susannah and Bob discuss in the latest episode of "Running Gags"!

OK I tried, I really tried to get through this article at the Washington Post. My goal was to get up to speed about the whole Gonzales/NSA/perjury story. After reading through the end of the article I think I have a vague idea about what's going on, but I can't be sure because I fell asleep halfway through.

• The NSA is doing a lot of secret stuff nobody can talk about.
• McConnell, the White House and the AG are all trying to get their stories straight.
• Some Democrats are talking perjury.

If I, as a politics junkie, think this whole story is a big snoozer, what about the rest of the non-freak population? Trust me, they aren't paying attention at all. Alberto Gonzales who? I won't deny that the outrage on the left is real, or even that there might be good reasons for it.

I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that he perjured himself. Now what? Impeach him? Leaving aside the question as to whether that's even possible, is that the sort of thing the Democrats want to spend their energy on? They have a bunch of budget bills, the rest of their agenda and Iraq. Do the Democrats really want to come to the end of 2007 saying to their supporters, "well we didn't get anything good done, but we did get Bush to replace his AG?"

There's an issue that, if Congress would do their assigned job, will dominate the election cycle. It's impeachment.

I've been undecided on the subject for some time but I'm now convinced. Some people may read no further than the title but most Americans (and most in Congress) know this president and administration have not upheld the Constitution, and have lied repeatedly and with impunity. Truly, George W. Bush is a "unitary executive," one who governs without accepting or following oversight. Under the constitution, Congress is supposed to exercise oversight. Bush, with his 1,000-plus signing statements has directly said that he is above the law of the land. I do not want any president to have the power this one has usurped.

The Constitution's framers were brilliant and prescient. They thought things through. They gave senators six years instead of two so they could take more political risks. They gave the power to declare war to the Congress not the president. The president proposes and Congress disposes. The checks and balances in the Constitution are strong but our system is no longer in balance.

President Bush has claimed more and more power, and the former compliant Republican Congress gave it to him. He acts more like a king than a president.

There's been a trend of late for cities and municipalities to pass resolutions supporting the impeachment of President Bush. These, of course, mean absolutely nothing and carry zero weight. I guess they are taking their cues from from the Nancy Pelosi-led U.S. Congress that has passed numerous resolutions that mean nothing as well.

Just in the last month we've seen West Hollywood, Takoma Park, MD and Telluride, CO pass these inane resolutions that serve no other purpose than to take up the tax payers time.

It now seems that the resolution passed in Telluride, Colo. is going to have an effect -- not exactly the type they welcome or counted on:

TELLURIDE - A backlash quickly emerged after the Telluride Town Council adopted a resolution last week calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"It's huge, unbelievable," said Telluride Mayor John Pryor. "Ski groups are canceling for the winter. Hundreds of people are bailing. The (town) Web site is flooded with people saying they're canceling their vacations here."

Unintended consequences, you've got to love them. The council, by all accounts, didn't even debate the issue and passed it without a second thought. I guess they figured that everybody in the country feels as they do and they can do what they want without fear of backlash. I call that the NY Times Living in a Bubble Syndrome.

Cindy Sheehan is bitter. It's been a classic example of what the media will do with people who they need for a purpose and then kick to the curb when they're finished. They anointed her the leader of the "peace movement" and followed her every move. From Crawford, Texas to Washington D.C., Sheehan was exulted and enabled. She actually seemed to believe the press about herself. The ultimate hard-left blog Daily Kos allowed her to post her thoughts at will.

But then a funny thing happened. They tired of her antics and you started seeing less flattering stories printed. The public as well grew weary of her and wished she would just go away and grieve. We felt for her, but she took it to an extreme. Kissing Hugo Chavez was the last straw for a great many people.

Eventually, she "retired" from the movement for a short time and did what we had hoped. But instead of getting her life together, it seems that she seethed and turned on the Democrats who once lauded her when she was "Mother Sheehan" dogging the president.

Last Friday the American Research Group, located in Manchester, New Hampshire, released new poll numbers showing that 46% of registered voters now think that impeachment proceedings should be started against President Bush. As with all polls, I went to look at the numbers and methodology used. What I found was interesting.

First, although many people (including CNN) quote ARG, there isn't much info out there that describes who they are and what they do. No list of principals, clients, professional affiliations, political affiliations, etc. Second, the methodology is mentioned but unclear. 38% of the poll respondents were Democrats, 29% were Republicans, and 33% were Independents. I don't know if those number referred to the registered voter respondents or general respondents. And third, according to ARG, they conducted a similar poll on 3/15/06. The result of that poll was that 42% of respondents (not clear if the were registered voters or not) were in favor of impeachment proceedings against President Bush at that time. And so, with everything that has happened in the last year and a half, there was only an increase of either 3% or 4% favoring impeachment, which is basically within ARG's own reported margin of error (3%).

My conclusion is that this was released in order to give Democrats ammo and cover for hearings that they have scheduled starting this week. It certainly doesn't represent, even to ARG, a huge new groundswell of people in favor of impeachment. But that doesn't matter to Dems -- John Conyers mentioned the results of the ARG poll yesterday on ABC's This Week as part of the Democrats' rational for the huge number of hearings and investigations that they have decided to hold in lieu of actually governing.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a KIA soldier, is threatening the House speaker with a primary opponent unless Nancy Pelosi files articles of impeachment.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the congresswoman has said repeatedly that her focus is on ending the war in Iraq.

"She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon," Daly said in an e-mail to the AP. "July will be a month of action in Congress to end the war, including a vote to redeploy our troops by next spring."

I must admit, I am loving this a little too much. Of course Pelosi isn't going to file articles of impeachment. She may be a liberal Democrat, but she isn't stupid enough to go for an overreach of those proportions. But Sheehan apparently is that stupid, or doesn't care about overreach, and probably has more than a dozen supporters cheering her on.

The part I'm liking is that Democrats will either have to take her seriously, or dismiss Sheehan as a publicity-seeking self-interested rabble rouser. Which of course, is exactly what she has been all along. The Democrats liked her when she camped out in Crawford. Not so much, now.

Since the beginning of President Bush's first term, the liberal left has been itching for impeachment. They still are smarting from the Starr investigation that resulted in the impeachment of their hero, Bill Clinton, and were looking for revenge in the most extreme way. Sadly for the libs, they had nothing to charge President Bush with and a GOP Congress would have stopped any attempt before it started.

Seven years later, the Congress and Senate are now in Democratic hands and they still have nothing to charge the president with. The old "lying us into war" canard should be rejected out of hand as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and every other major Democrat used the exact same argument. In fact, Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his Wag the Dog-type action of bombing the Afghan's and Sudanese to get the spotlight off his admitted infidelities with Monica Lewinsky. There are no other charges that would rise to the level of impeachment regardless of how much the left hopes and wishes. The U.S. attorneys' firing issue is one they will push, but the precedent is clear, those attorneys work at the pleasure of the president. He hires and fires at his whim.

Wow. Some new numbers from the American Research Group show just how pissed the country is at this administration. A majority of Americans want the U.S. House to begin proceedings to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. The numbers for President Bush aren't far behind, with the public split 45-46 on the question.

Now -- I just recently joined the group of folks who think it is time for impeachment to be on the table. But by on the table, I don't mean that we should necessarily use it. It's just now become clear that there is enough "smoke" indicating a "fire" of Constitution-violating malfeasance to justify Congressional inquiries that could end with impeachment proceedings.

Brave New Films has launched ImpeachCheney.org, a project in the works well before the polling came out. Meanwhile, MoveOn.org is demanding that Congress get the Veep to respond to subpoenas -- or turn to their Constitutional authority to oust executives who believe they're above the law.

All of this is very bad news for the vice president run amok.

Impeachment.

Despite everything else that John Murtha said on Face the Nation, this part will be what carries the headlines.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

"What I'm saying, there's four ways to influence a president. And one of them's impeachment," Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Incredible. With his years of experience, Murtha should understand that the "impeachment as a weapon" gambit works only when the president has given enough ammunition to his opposition to make it work. Impeachment for the purposes of pressure works only when you can count on half the House and two thirds of the Senate to follow through on it.

Short of this, Bill Clinton showed that impeachment is very survivable, so good luck with that Mr. Murtha. In fact even saying this may signal that the Democrats are bluffing and that President Bush should call them on it. Impeachment? Get real, they don't have the juice.

Beyond the impracticality of the impeachment procedure, the only Democrats talking about it should be the ones who have a squeaky clean past, and Jack Murtha is not one of them. It's looking more and more that the House Democrats saved Nancy Pelosi a lot of trouble when they declined to support her choice of Murtha to lead the Democrats in the house and chose Steny Hoyer instead.

Apologies for the Valley Girl-speak, but the term "Radical" might return to the political landscape if a Democrat gets elected in 2008.

I'm referring to the prospect of a Congress at odds with a president from its own party. This happened after the Civil War, when the struggle between Radical Republicans and Pres. Andrew Johnson led to the latter's impeachment. (The Radicals lost by one vote.)

I'm not saying that a "Radical" Democratic Congress irate over Iraq would impeach a President Obama, President (Hillary) Clinton, or President Edwards for not getting us out of there fast enough. The current Congress, after all, doesn't even seem to want to impeach anyone from the opposing party; look at how little support Dennis Kucinich is getting.

But it does seem like what Pat Buchanan predicted could come true with a Democratic victory in 2008: Iraq will split the party. Once dragged into supporting President Bush on Iraq, Congress is now led in the opposite direction by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and the conscience of the Capitol, Rep. Jack Murtha.

A possibility exists that could guarantee gridlock when a Democrat steps into the Oval Office: an anti-war Congress arguing with a president who either voted for the war as a senator (Clinton, Edwards) or who said in John Kerry style "that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn't have changed his mind" (which the Boston Globe describes Obama as frequently saying).

Should Clinton, Edwards, or Obama win in 2008, they will need all the political talent of an Abraham Lincoln to escape this scenario.

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Mars) is preparing to offer articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. While it remains the responsibilty of Congress to introduce such measures, it seems highly unlikely that Kucinich will get anywhere with this considering his own party is laughing at him:

But Kucinich shouldn't hold his breath on getting anywhere with his impeachment plan. "We'll see a Kucinich Administration before we'll see a Cheney impeachment," quipped one Democratic aide.

Kucininch is just continuing the Democrat plan: introduce a resolution that either has no chance of passing or is non-binding, then go back to the far-left base and tell them you tried. It's win-win and amounts to nothing, just like the first one hundred days of the Democrat-controlled Congress.

You may or may not remember that Kucinich is the same candidate who last election said that he would develop a U.S. Department of Peace in his administration. That agency would oversee a "Peace Academy" built on the same principle as the U.S, Naval Academy or West Point...with different curricula of course.

As an exit question, what degrees could be attained at a college that teaches peace? A bachelor of arts in advanced papier mache puppet construction with a minor in creative Bush/Hitler analogies? Perhaps a BS in uses of pachouli oil for fuel with a minor in Phish Philosophy.

To nobody's surprise, Newt Gingrich acknowledged that he was having an affair while he crucified Bill Clinton for being immoral. He can explain it anyway that he wants, but this it the height of hypocrisy. For a party that has worn religion on its coat-sleeve, it is putting together a list of presidential candidates that is making Bill Clinton look like he was celibate.

It was always my belief that when Bill Clinton was confronted with the fact that he was having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he was sure it would go away. Why? Because he knew that everybody else was doing the same thing. What is didn't count on was the hypocrisy. Think about it, they tell Bill you are in trouble for having oral sex. He says, but Newt is sleeping with his aide. Newt's replacement, Bob Livingston quickly resigned after it was learned that he hung out with prostitutes.

This upcoming presidential election is very important. America needs to select a person who can resolve the difficult problems ahead. We should be looking for an intelligent person who has the confidence to weed through all those providing advice that may be tied to financial gains or irrational motives. Sad to say, we should not be looking for a saint. Therefore, I would ask that this election be based on where the candidates stand on issues. However, I realize that is just a dream.

After years of staying quiet on the subject, Newt Gingrich now admits that he was carrying on with another woman at the same time he was leading impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton -- proceedings based on the president's actions during an investigation born out of his carrying on with another woman.

But Gingrich insists he's no hypocrite. From the AP story:

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

It's not news that Newt's personal life is, well, messy. He's got two divorces under his belt. The first reportedly took place while his then-wife was fighting cancer. And in the second case, Gingrich -- via his lawyers -- acknowledged an extramarital relationship (one with the woman who is his current wife).

The question is, for someone who has long run on "family values," does this admission hurt Newt's potential White House aspirations? Or is it old news at this point? And looking at the bigger picture, is there even room for Gingrich in the 2008 Republican field?

Leave your thoughts in comments below...