Comments

1
In other words, she gave a bunch of anodyne compliments to the people she was paid to make feel like big shots. I bet she even thanked Goldman Sachs for hosting her! Basic politeness! What a scandal!
2
@1: Sure, which is why she refuses to discuss any of it, or even acknowledge the question that was posed about it.

Because none of it is harmful to her campaign or image at all. Makes perfect sense.
3
@2 She made a calculated choice that it was better to deal with this nonsense every few weeks at the debates rather than constantly have meaningless snippets of speeches quoted in attack ads as if they mean something. ("Hillary Clinton said that 'Government and the banks need to work together...' Can she be trusted to do what's right?") That choice might have been tactically smart or stupid, but all of this conspiracy theorizing about the speeches is nonsense. If she had said anything of substance like "if elected I will repeal Dodd-Frank and fight any efforts to increase marginal tax rates on investment bankers", the sources quoted in these articles would have mentioned it.
5
Why won't she release the speeches? Because the content would likely provide more ammunition to those questioning her integrity or lack thereof.
7
Here it is, plain and simple.

If, in those speeches, she mentions that she is going to run for the Presidency, that makes them campaign speeches.

That would mean she was being directly paid 225k for a campaign speech. That would be a violation of current campaign finance law. What would that mean for her campaign though? One more federal investigation. NBD, amirite?

If she didn't mention any higher aspirations, it still stands that a speech sucking up to the people who had just finished giving the economy a once-over in the alley just plain wouldn't look good.
8
Bernie likes to brag that HE has zero speech transcripts to release, as if it's a virtue that no serious or thoughtful person or organization gives a rats ass about what he has to say, let alone be willing to pay to hear the same platitudinous stemwinder he's been giving since his college days; a speech that his followers never seem to get tired of hearing. A mystery that I will probably never understand. At least it's free.
9
That settles it, Clinton is the worst! I'm voting for Cruz!
10
Why Won't She Release Transcripts of Her Wall Street Speeches?

She should have said

"You want to see the transcripts? How 'bout you go fuck yourself instead. And take it from someone who's had the GOP sniffing up her ass for over 20 years, you don't want a president who roles over like a bitch when asked to share documents. Next!"
11
Clinton the dodger has an appalling lack of decision making judgement, and it is emphasized in the linked article.

Reasonable Surmise: Clinton said embarrassing things during those speeches that belie her tough-on-Wall-Street rhetoric and she doesn’t want them to be public.

Not to mention her appallling position on Israels attacks: Reasonable Surmise: Clinton does not think Israel did anything wrong (possibly ever) and/or she is unwilling to say anything remotely critical of Israel, for political reasons. But she doesn’t want to say publicly that Gaza was OK with her because of the extraordinary brutality of the Israeli attack, which has been well-documented.

Or, her wrong position on Carbon Taxes, which happens to align with big energy: Reasonable Surmise: Clinton opposes a carbon tax, although many scientists say that imposing a cost on carbon is the only way to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. A carbon tax is strongly opposed by the fossil-fuel industry.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/15/the-…

12
Being polite and diplomatically crouching your outreach to major constituents doesn't make you somehow a sellout. Clinton has detailed policy statements which are fairly consistent with her history, despite plenty of pragmatic compromise actions and statements. Her actual proposals are generally more detailed and attainable, and at least as aggressive, as sanders' are regarding financial institutions. Her plan for free tuition could actually work without destroying the universities. She's worked her whole life for justice. She has real executive experience. The only objection people are raising is that they don't believe her. It is about as sensible as accusing Obama of being a Muslim, and just as impossible to refute. All sanders has achieved in his nasty turn is to absolutely rule out a vice presidential collaboration. So he can go on feeling righteous and put-upon, and continue to avoid having to reach practical solutions.
13
seandr: I couldn't agree more and I've never understood why some people get all frothy and paranoid about her. But she also knows how pick her battles, and so I think that rather than make a stink out of this particular red herring, she chose instead to focus on the real issues and mop the floor with the paper tiger from Oz in front of her, like she's done with the countless other haters before him, many of whom were much smarter and tougher than the old coot screaming and flailing at her from across the stage. Wouldn't he be a joy to have as president.
14
I am going to second the idea that she is avoiding the inevitable pull quotes that would appear in every attack add from now to the election.

One reason there is such a difference in candidate preference based on age is the long, long history of Clinton scandals that never amount to anything. Nothing she said in a speech could possibly affect her ability to be president.
16
C'mon Hillary, where's your spin. "I'll do what I did for Goldman Sachs... for AMERICA!" Boom, all yours.
17
I for one don't think much of Sanders' "integrity". He's expecting (and it really does sound as though he's expecting it) to be nominated, and then elected, to an office he has no idea how to fill. And he's encouraging a whole bunch of people to get engaged in politics by presenting them with the bone-headed ideology of "we won't compromise!". When he loses the nomination, they'll all flounce off, either writing him in or not voting, which will have the same result, and whatever loathsome Republican will win. He's prepared to have that happen. That's disgusting, and the opposite of integrity.
18
@17, hell of a lot of assumptions you made there, even for a straw man argument such as it is.

Even accepting your ton of assumptions, why would his supporters' supposed actions have any bearing on his own integrity?
19
The most damning thing to me, from an article that quoted someone who was present at the speech, is that she praised Goldman for recruiting women (and maybe minorities, can't remember). Which is exactly the kind of clueless pandering to identity that progressives hate about Clinton. I don't blame her for not wanting that to be known.
20
Statements you are paid to give to a select audience will most likely not play well when presented to a different audience.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

These were not political speeches. They were paid presentations. As presenter she was hired to speak to a group, and the leaders of that group wanted her to send their audience a specific message. This was talked about and arranged beforehand between those hiring her and Hillary.

Of course, these paid promotional messages aren't going to play well when presented in a political arena. Hillary isn't stupid. She doesn't want to hand her political opponents ammunition, which she'll then have to waste time defending later on.

These weren't necessarily her personal beliefs. If you have never given paid presentations to a select audience you probably are incapable of comprehending.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.