What are they hiding?

OPINION:

In a key press conference held the day after Super Tuesday, Barack Obama predicted the Republican Party will reveal much compromising information on Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee in the fall: Her opponents will unload, in Mr. Obama’s words, “a whole dump truck” full of damaging revelations.

Mr. Obama has often referred to Mrs. Clinton as “polarizing” and “divisive.” He has stated she “will do anything to win.” He is trying to say that Mrs. Clinton is scandal-ridden. The Illinois senator treads carefully in his choice of words, but the message is clear: If Mrs. Clinton is nominated, we will be mired in an ugly parade of Clinton scandals and shady transactions.

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s coy statements that she has been “tested” and “vetted” by the press, she has in fact thus far managed to avoid a careful scrutiny of her role as first lady. There are 2 million documents in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library pertaining to her White House years that have not been released. Editorials in The Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal have put pressure on the Clintons and the federal government to reveal these documents immediately.

The Clintons insist that they are urging the documents be made available, but are at the mercy of the process established by the National Archives. The Clintons appear to stalling. For example, one segment of health care papers was released in early February but given for review to a longtime adviser of Mr. Clinton, Bruce Lindsey. Mr. Clinton will then be given an opportunity to further review the documents. This means more time will elapse before they are made available to the public. Yet voters cannot accept that we do not have access to such a vital part of the record of a presidential contender — especially since Mrs. Clinton is campaigning on her “experience” and has often stated that she “welcomes” a debate on the 1990s. We welcome it, too: Release the documents.

The Clintons miscalculated in their campaign strategy: They hoped they could delay a detailed examination of the former first lady’s correspondence until after Mrs. Clinton won the nomination, which they initially assumed would occur on Super Tuesday. They could then reveal the documents from a position of strength; they believed they could then rely on the full support of the Democratic Party and all their surrogates to rally to her defense.

The Clintons will indeed need much assistance from their supporters to stave off the avalanche of criticism that will descend on them once their actions in the 1990s are in the spotlight again. Mrs. Clinton is not the innocent victim of Mr. Clinton’s excesses that she pretends to be. As former Clinton insiders such as Dick Morris have revealed, the documents will likely demonstrate that Mrs. Clinton is and always has been Mr. Clinton’s willing accomplice in his scandals.

The Clintons now greatly fear that releasing the documents will only continue to fuel Mr. Obama’s candidacy and give greater impetus to the nation’s clamor for change. At the very least, the Clintons do not want all those horrid details and familiar names to be placed before the public again: Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the pardons and Monica Lewinsky. They do not want to remind the public that the former president was impeached by Congress and disbarred. Nor do they wish for us to recall that many of the former president’s closest associates were imprisoned.

Mrs. Clinton has insisted she should be elected because she survived the Republican “attack machine.” Will the documents prove she was actually concealing her own wrongdoing and complicity? Will the documents reveal she was calculating and manipulative? Even as a New York senator, her record is tainted. A recent report, published Feb. 5 by Insight magazine, “Clinton exposed as top earmarker; funds exchanged for campaign donations,” reveals Mrs. Clinton as the leading sponsor of earmarks in the Senate among the presidential contenders. The report cites Citizens Against Government Waste and the Heritage Foundation as having confirmed Mrs. Clinton’s exorbitant use of earmarks.

There is evidence to suggest a quid pro quo between millions of dollars of earmarks in exchange for campaign support or contributions. For example, New School for Research, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and Phoenix House were the beneficiaries of earmarks shortly after they made donations to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

The New York Times also ran an explosive story Jan. 31: “After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton.” The article chronicles how Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra scored a lucrative deal during his 2005 visit to Kazakhstan while he traveled with Mr. Clinton; Mr. Giustra subsequently gave $31.3 million to the William Clinton J. Foundation.

Mr. Obama is also calling into question Mrs. Clinton’s transparency by demanding that she release her tax returns in order to answer questions about the sources of her money— including $5 million she recently contributed to her campaign.

Mr. Obama is trying to whisper the truth to his party. We hear you, sir, and will continue to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable.

Grace Vuoto is executive director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal. The opinions in this article are her own.