2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDoes anyone else thinks it is odd that HRC is calling for ALL the other candidates to release 'their
paid speeches' and that then, she might, consider releasing her's?
All?
She is running against Bernie Sanders at the moment.
He could probably release he 'paid speeches' in about 30 seconds.
I believe I have read that he donates all speech fees to VT charities.....maybe, but I don't think he gets that many high profile requests that he can't gather those speeches together by the end of today and presto:have at them - read away.
Is she talking about the GOP?
Uh, why would they do anything to conform to what she is now making a 'condition'?
And correct me if I'm wrong: but didn't this whole matter of 'releasing her transcripts' originate with a question from Chuck Todd?
Chuck Todd, as a moderator, asked her the initial question during a debate.
Not the Sanders Campaign.
But go ahead, correct me if I'm wrong.
I just have to say - whoever is advising HRC about this......or this is her decision.....this is ridiculous.
Defensive, stonewalling, ...the perception is toxic.
She has had a brutal weekend.
Madeline Albright probably pushed every Berning leaning undecided woman in NH INTO the Bernie column with her over the top remark.
Now this.
She is doing this to herself.
It's incredible.
Vinca
(50,168 posts)I wonder if Bernie has ever given a paid speech.
...but I think it only netted him a few thousand. He may not even have transcripts.
flor-de-jasmim
(2,124 posts)Vinca
(50,168 posts)Jarqui
(10,110 posts)That wouldn't pay for Hillary's teleprompter and stenographer.
lob1
(3,820 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,043 posts)show. Since is considered entertainment (not news) they have to pay people and he got scale.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Thing is, others aren't pretending their speaking fees are innocuous and nothing to be concerned about. She is.
In fact, her speaking fees are quite damaging as they impugn her integrity and independence from corporate influence. So, if she want's to keep mum on them, people will assume the worst...and that she's just business-as-usual establishment.
Who would pay Bernie to talk about anything? And why has Jane refused ALL requests to comment on the Burlington College mess?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)He got paid big-time too. Package deal.
senz
(11,945 posts)Guess you never noticed the tens of thousands waiting in line to hear him talk.
Hill never even came close.
So there's that.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)It's weird for her to act like she doesn't want people to read what she had to say.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)There's a fair chance there'd be more corp... er, people willing to fork over $250K if they had a preview of what they'd get for their money!
cali
(114,904 posts)ancianita
(35,812 posts)however much or little it reveals over this particular issue.
It looks defensive, and it's also a fair framing of future fair rules about accountability.
6chars
(3,967 posts)He can do it just for the hell of it, without asking that she do anything. His decisions are his, her decisions are hers.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)The "everyone else was doing it" defense.
TheBlackAdder
(28,070 posts).
This seems really odd.
There might be 47% comments in there, but since she talks to different companies and industries, she might be pitting different firms and industries against each other. What is said in private to one, might be said in opposite to the other.
There could also be comments about opening up the largesse of the government.
Who knows at this point.
.
senz
(11,945 posts)Hillary is not honest, direct, and forthcoming about anything. I doubt she understands the concept of truth.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)since if she releases them and you don't find anything in them to hang her with, it sounds like you'll say it's because she doctored them ... So what's the point of insisting she release them if you don't think you'll learn anything from them?
senz
(11,945 posts)I do, however, agree that the American people have a right to know what Hillary was up to during and after her SOS stint. If she wants us to hire her, she owes us a more complete resume than the one she's offered.
If her version of what she said to these power centers could be corroborated by the attendees, then perhaps we'd have a better idea why she was paid so handsomely.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Her waffling answers, this new demand of everyone else first.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...that could start a corruption investigation.
Regardless, it seems apparent that the content of the speeches would be more harmfull to her campaign than the bad PR of not releasing them.
ellennelle
(614 posts)There could also be comments about opening up the largesse of the government.
but, that is the point after all, is it not?
should we not know these things? transparency, accountability, of geese and ganders and all that?
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)We can all stop speculating about what was said, she told them what they wanted to hear. It's not rocket science. The problem with it is that what they wanted to hear would be things that are not fair to the 99% of us. That would be the only reason she has freaked out and said that even if EVERYONE ELSE released ALL of the transcripts for all of their speeches she would have to still think about it, "further!"
When you think about how many YEARS it takes the average person to make $300,000, what she made in less than 1 hour, it makes you sick! Her foux outrage over the issue should tell anyone what they need to know about her.
RDANGELO
(3,430 posts)After saying that she would look into it during the debate, it would look like she looked for them and couldn't find them. That at least would seem plausible since according to the contracts, she would be the only one to have copies. This appears to be a total dodge.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...she can probably find them on the dining room side table, under the Rose Law Firm billing records.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Good call.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Exchange started here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1162553
But continues in earnest here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1163179
I am still not sure if that one is a staffer (for Clinton or some Republican trying to make us look stupid)
Or just so drunk on Kool-aid that he/she can no longer make cogent arguments.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Never mud wrestle with pigs, you will both get dirty and the pig likes it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude, a call out and name calling of a DUer that's not even participating in this thread. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 8, 2016, 05:33 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing wrong with this post.
If you don't want to be quoted then don't post on a public forum.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Jake Tapper asked Bernie today if he wanted to see Hillary's transcripts and Bernie said "NO."
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)He wants to win simply because his ideas are better, and not because voters get to see what his opponents think of the American people when there aren't any cameras around.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)even though her husband's advisers slipped it into the bill and her husband signed it into law. "I'm the only one on this stage that didn't vote for it." Dirty stuff, lol. Someone in the TV media needs to call her out next time she says it. Tapper failed to do so today.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)If Bernie didn't vote for it, he would be voting not to fund the government. He doesn't do shit like that.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Either way pretty lame to say "I didn't vote for it" given the fact she was the First Lady in the White House and likes to brag about her influence on the POTUS at the time. He ended up signing the bill into law and his advisers were the ones who put the terrible derivatives thing in the bill.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She has all the micro movements of being obtuse. It is as if she is arguing what "is" is all the time. This is what kills the trust factor in a lot of voters' minds. You walk away from someone like that feeling that if you had asked the question differently, the answer would have been different. The facts remain for you to try to ferret out and her argument will be on semantics.
senz
(11,945 posts)Some call it "shifty."
Merryland
(1,134 posts)Hillary not so much.
livetohike
(22,084 posts)demands on her and everyone else skates by? It's harassment.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)she's the one getting paid 200k to 700k a pop for speeches at which her contract states that no one else can record them, and she gets to keep the only transcript? People wanted to know what Mitt Romney spoke of behind closed doors too, and when they found out, it killed his run for the WH. Hillary certainly learned from that - she learned to make sure absolutely no one had a chance to know what she was saying behind closed doors.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)I can guess what was said.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)since they go directly in the pocket unless the proceeds are donated to charity, in which case it's fine. I will grant that as a former SoS and first lady, she is in higher demand than a mere senator. And she is correct that all candidates should release details of what was said by them for money. She has a chance here to lead by example and go first.
senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie doesn't do that shit. I doubt Martin O'Malley did it either. I haven't heard of any of the Republican candidates doing it to that extent, either.
SHE is the one who's got a whole lot of explaining to do.
And do not even try to call it "harassment." Do not cheapen the term.
livetohike
(22,084 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)This may be very difficult to understand, but politicians are not supposed to be corrupt.
Bribery is a form of corruption. Hillary Clinton regularly engages in activities that reek of corruption.
Some of us find that objectionable.
You apparently do not. You owe it to yourself to give it further thought.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But then, neither does he likely demand that no one else record him as part of his speech contracts. His 'transcripts' are simply whatever video or audio other people have made at his speeches.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)exceeds what Sanders was paid for any of his speeches even.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Even Joe Sixpack's speech on tying flies down at the Elk's Lodge 1339.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(59,940 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Faux pas
(14,580 posts)Bernie is letting her.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)She can't make them public. They will crucify her. Better just to look Shady than Guilty. The Clinton's wear Shady quite well.
hedda_foil
(16,368 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)You would think she'd be used to special rules just for her by now.
polly7
(20,582 posts)her race?
No need to answer - because she knows he'd have no problem with it, and that by including the GOP candidates who would definitely refuse to, she's golden.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Unless, of course, you don't really care about the principle of the issue and just want something to use against Hillary.
polly7
(20,582 posts)But she knows there is no way in hell they would release anything, so she's safe by including them and doesn't have to release hers.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)And gains more by refusing to be pushed around than she losses by giving her haters another thing to kick their feet about.
polly7
(20,582 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Because if they push it, and the rest of the speeches turn out to be as innocuous as the ones we've already seen, the egg will be on Bernie's face, not Hillary's.
polly7
(20,582 posts)to know, just as Romney's 47% speech illustrated just where his loyalties lie. This isn't Bernie Sander's fault. He's not owned by Big Money and would have no problem with any of his speeches being released for people to judge him on - how many are there, by the way - I heard he earned just a couple thousand and gave it to charity?
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)If his campaign ramps up demands for the transcripts (And I don't think they will), and there's nothing damaging in them, Hillary will get a political windfall out of it.
So, yeah, go for it, Team Sanders.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Sander's camp or not, for wanting to know what's in them.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)But it could backfire on them politically, that's all I'm saying.
polly7
(20,582 posts)did when Romney's leaked video came out.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)If I demand you show everyone what's in your pocket, and build up the expectations and speculation that it's something terrible, and you pull out a rose, which one of us looks foolish?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Everyone loves giving flowers. But even if they were flowery no-content speeches, what's in them is irrelevant when you consider she now owes the people who paid her for them, right? Who gives away millions for nothing??
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)It's been shown over and over that the amounts they paid are not out of line for speakers of her statute.
Anyway, I've made my point, and I appreciate your thoughts, but we are going around and around.
But, if it turns out she is setting Bernie up on this issue, remember who said it first
polly7
(20,582 posts)What would both parties gain by that? I'm pretty sure they were aware of her political ambitions and are smart enough to realize a more progressive candidate just might possibly hurt their profits.
She's not setting Bernie Sanders up. Imo, she brought it on herself, he has nothing to hide. I appreciate your thoughts too, you're a very nice Clinton supporter.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)she doesn't release them and it allows everyone to fill in the blanks: corrupt, liar, hides shit
she releases them and everyone can see she sold herself to the corporations and if she edits them someone somewhere will say so and she's over. It's simple. If they were innocuous she would be leaping over peons to show it.
No matter how this goes, her arrogant self belief that she would have a cakewalk to the white house was her undoing. Taking bribes/zillions from the people who are gutting our country just before election season and not even bothering to hide their crimes from public view doomed her and she didn't believe it would matter because inevitability.
Clinton v Bush
How's that working out for you, JEB! and HRC?
the longer this go, the most direly it harms her. But then, she hasn't done anything right yet, so ...
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)he said "No" This is the media that has been asking. If, after all this stonewalling and excuse making, they do turn out to be innocuous like you claim, the story will be "Why was she hiding this?" It will dovetail nicely into the perception that she's not trustworthy. She's dug herself into a hole, she'll have to take the hit on it eventually.
senz
(11,945 posts)She should welcome a chance to clear the air.
I hope her supporters don't think they can wrap her and all her highly questionable activities up into an opaque little bundle and then sneak the whole stinky mess past the American people and into the presidency.
It's not supposed to work that way. Hillary is applying for a job and we, as the employers, have every right to know what she has done in the past.
We won't let her just fake her way in.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)I am ...
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)..."transcripts" of their paid speeches? But, yes, everyone will have to "release" them, now.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)The information would be useful. And if Clinton has to, they all have to.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)must be toxic to the max. the arrogance of someone surrounded by sycophants.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)wherein she sorta agrees to revealing the transcripts but qualifies it so that it's very unlikely to happen.
One of the games she's also known for is baiting her political opponents into deadends, this draws out the notion of conspiracy theories of people out to get her, and then it blows up in their face.
If I were the Sanders campaign I'd stay out of this and let the media take the risks. For Sanders it's enough that an apparent money connection exists between HRC and her sponsoring banks
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)look cooperative say as little as possible
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)would never release the content of their paid speeches. She's using the others as a shield for whatever the hell she told the banksters instead of simply owning up to what she said and accepting the consequences. Typical Clinton weasel move.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Don't see why she should be treated differently than any other candidate.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It's because she knows (as we all do) that she has said things in her speeches to wall street and other big money groups that would come across like Romney's 47% comment. And she can't allow that. She saw what that did to Romney.
No way in hell she didn't say things to Wall Street that can't hurt her. It's why she is prevaricating and stonewalling, and she's sounding desperate to me.
antigop
(12,778 posts)If she doesn't release them, it looks like she's hiding something.
If she does release them, then
1) The transcripts have damaging information -- in which case she's screwed.
or
2) The transcripts reveal that nothing of importance was said -- in which case the question will be asked, "Why the hell did GS pay so much for that?"
She's boxed in.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She's hiding something.
ellennelle
(614 posts)just beyond absurd.
actually, just as with her coy suggestion of one more debate before NH, i think bernie ought to take her bait. for that situation, she dangled the one debate, which to some here looked like the perfect trap for bernie, damned if he does and if he doesn't. but he, slyly, took the bait and ran circles around her, suggesting three more debates, with DNC approval. point bernie.
in this situation, his list would be most impressive, if your info is accurate (that's my memory, as well; donated to VT charities). it would put the differences in fees - and what's done with them - in bold comparison, first. but second, if she balks at ponying up, he could then simply ask, gosh, do you really mean to say you want to draw this particular comparison with the republicans? really?? what sense does that make here, and what a fully ingenuous challenge. point bernie.
it's almost sad how poorly she is playing these things, but too much like 8 years ago. you are right, she's done this to herself.
as for albright, also agree, but only for those who are still on her side after blankfein first pushed a few clinton and GOP supporters over to bernie.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)If Hillary releases the text of her speeches, why shouldn't Bernie and every other Republican candidate do the same? Why does one expectation apply to Hillary but not to anyone else?
lucca18
(1,238 posts)ellennelle
(614 posts)about the source of that question.
it was NOT chuck todd, tho he did ask it in the debate.
it was first asked by lee fang of the intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/23/clinton-goldman-sachs-laugh/
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I already posted on this when the issue first arose Friday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1145764
Her stonewalling confirms my opinion that she was cozying up to Goldman Sachs to such a shameless degree that the public would be disgusted by what they read--particularly in light of how often she's proclaimed she told Wall Street to "CUT IT OUT!" (her words, her shouting delivery).
Considering that her trustworthiness numbers are already in the basement--and this will drive them still lower--the content of the transcripts has to be pretty bad if she thinks stonewalling is the smarter choice.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)merbex
(3,123 posts)gwheezie
(3,580 posts)She's not looking only at the primary race. Bernie has already hung the hint of corruption on her with no proof. But if she is the nominee who ever the GOP nominee is will have every speech handed to them to use against her.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)She tends to be stuff and rather brittle. Add arrogance, a gigantic, Nixonesque sense of entitlement to the office and a tin ear for the public mood and this is what you get. "The rules are for thee but not for me" is as egotistical as you can get.
She has the common touch of Marie Antoinette and the humility of Napoleon.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)She knows that all bazillion clowns on the GOP side will not call her bluff. At least one will hold out (probably all). So then she gets to refuse without saying 'no' by laying down conditions that will not be met.
Doesn't matter. Bernie didn't ask for the transcripts; others did. Bernie said he doesn't need or particularly want to see them.
Personally, I'd love to see them, but know it's unlikely I (or we) ever will. We already do know that she blamed homebuyers for the fraudulent loans. God only knows what else she blamed us for in her speeches to her donors.
Really, this is all I need to see:
Hulk
(6,699 posts)More bull shit. We already know she is taking huge sums from Wall Street. If you weren't asleep during the 90's, you might have already realized rather clearly that the Climton administration was not much better than gop-lite.
This is just another worthless distraction. HRC is a shill for Wall Street. I know, she told them to "cut it out" once upon a time. Ouch! That really set her apart.
I think anyone with an objective point of view can already figure out that HRC most probably sucked up to Goldman Sachs, and any other Corp that was willing to fork out six figures for her "wise words of wisdom".
Come on America, save your time, energy and attention for things that matter.
(Get ready for the label of "enabler, etc." from the peanut gallery.....3, 2, 1.....)
jalan48
(13,797 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)ob·fus·cat·edob·fus·cat·ing
1
transitive verb
2
1
a : darken
b : to make obscure <obfuscate the issue>
3
2
: confuse <obfuscate the reader>
4
intransitive verb
5
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
ob·fus·ca·tion play ˌäb-(ˌ fəs-ˈkā-shən noun
ob·fus·ca·to·ry play äb-ˈfəs-kə-ˌtȯr-ē, əb- adjective
"Hillary Speeches" instead of the "Nixon Tapes"......What did she say and when did she say it.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Bernblu
(441 posts)that she doesn't want the public to know about. How can we then believe anything she says about Wall Street? The answer is we can't.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)With all the activity between agencies of Gov,what is the possibilities of the SEC,or FBI(because of investigation of Clinton's server)having interviewed people, esp Goldman Sachs?