2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Release the Transcripts"
I am a Bernie supporter, but I am baffled by the continued discussion of these transcripts of speeches that she gave before wall street. Do we really believe theirs some smoking gun there? That Hillary literally said "If President I pledge to ensure that you aren't ever regulated effectively?"
It seems more likely to me that, policy wise, it was a boilerplate third way speech about government and business working together, with necessary but limited oversight (probably emphasizing limited). Where the speech would be really damning for the Hillary Camp is when she butters Goldman Sachs and other Wall street firms up. The ad pretty much writes itself; "At a time when Goldman-Sachs was destroying the life savings of many retirees, Hillary said "Goldman Sachs is such an innovative company, and a key part of our American Economy.""
Given that is it any real mystery that the Clinton Camp doesn't want to release the transcripts? If you were working for Hillary would you advise her to release them or hold on to them?
Bryant
casperthegm
(643 posts)Just release them. Does Hillary have a trust issue with voters? Yes. Does holding back the transcripts do anything to change that? Nope. So I can't see any logical reason to keep them. Unless....
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)paid her to speak, it will fold nicely into an ad condemning her for being chummy with Wall Street.
And she almost certainly did say something positive about Wall Street.
Bryant
casperthegm
(643 posts)Would be not to actually be so chummy. But yeah, she's in a no win situation. And she took the money and put herself in that situation. Hard to feel sorry for her.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But there may be embarrassing, insulting or even worse quips and comments regarding the plebeians.
Like all things Hillary, her stonewalling and indirectness make it a story.
She should have responded in the first instance by saying "that is proprietary information that I was compensated to give. I am not going to produce the transcripts. However, what I said was nothing inconsistent with what I have said in public." And then go into her usual spill.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)She'd rather endure the speculation than have the contents go public. Kind of worrisome, I say.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You're right. It's probably innocuous, boilerplate stuff....
Instead, she made it seem much worse than it probably is.
Which is one of her basic problems. Her first instinct is always to hide and evade.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Nope.
They are setting up the false premise that the transcripts owned by Hillary are not being released because those transcripts prove that she is engaged in nefarious behavior.
After all, almost no one trusts Hillary, right? How do you overcome that and the receipt of millions of dollars in direct payments to the candidate?
Isn't the corollary to this manufactured narrative one that, when the transcripts show nothing but a little clubbiness, it means she didn't do anything wrong?
"Of course she made money when she could" they will say.
"After all, who wouldn't, right?"
"We're all a little greedy, right?"
I mean think about it, what is supposed to be going on at these talks that could be harmful to Hillary?
Hillary's part of a rigged system, not an idiot.
This big deal being made about the transcripts is intended to direct attention away from the real issue - the money was paid to gain access. In fact, the very existence of the topic seems tailor made to clean up an otherwise disqualifying act by the candidate. Can you imagine any other candidate getting away with it?
The storyline being created by the Clinton campaign and the media, by design, diverts attention away from the fact that the money bought access to the presidential candidate.
Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
More at link aboveTotal Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)She said she went to the banks in 2007 and told them to cut it out. Why not release one of the speeches to prove her claim? Can't have it both ways. Make a huge claim and then refuse to back it up.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)interests. Even if the transcripts detail the most benign of speeches, the voters
are left with..why would any group pay that kind of money for that? I suspect
they'll read as you say, not much there...or she could place herself in a
situation to be blackmailed.
If she doesn't release she knows speculation will grow and grow and the demand
will continue for their release. There is no winning for her on this and the voters
will continue to rank her low in trustworthiness as a result.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Media reports from the Goldman speech say that she's not being honest about what she ACTUALLY said... That's a good reason to keep them under wraps.
She's a long history of hypocrisy, so her recent economic populism is hardly believable. She is known as Goldman Handcuffs after all.
So if I was advising her I'd probably know what she actually said and tell her to stall as long as possible. But of course that's not a great suggestion either, as few buy her excuses, even her own supporters.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Because if it's just a matter of being chummy with Wall Street, while I find that troubling personally, I'm not sure that is a smoking gun.
Bryant
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)It was pretty glowing about us, one person who watched the event said. Its so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Same as I would have advised Nixon with his tapes. nt
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Is the reason she has not released the texts that she is contractually barred from doing so, or is it only her unwillingness?
I thought the likelihood of their containing smoking guns was low, but it seems to rise with every week they remain secret.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I'm darn sure I don't want to vote for a candidate for POTUS who can't be honest with me.