The moral highground the Left is staking out grows daily more ridiculous. Woman tells rooms full of rich men what they want to hear. Gets paid the obscene amounts of money necessary for anyone, especially a woman, to run for office...and then campaigns on the best platform to regulate their industry. Don't hate the playa...
15
You are selecting a candidate who could be president for 'We, the People,' that includes the poor and the wealthy, the sick and the healthy, the prestigious and the downtrodden. That requires exemplary altruism, not a sense of entitlement. Of all the cast auditing for the job, only one individual has given proof of that, the Bern.
I agree with Pope Francis, "I am going with the Jewish guy" — see for yourself,
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3554015-155/bagley-cartoon-a-christian-nation
I agree with Pope Francis, "I am going with the Jewish guy" — see for yourself,
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3554015-155/bagley-cartoon-a-christian-nation
46
Would expect more maturity from the Editorial board than just asking to see 'the transcripts". Once read her e-mails, the Editorial Board may have developed a perverse addiction to any Hill sequel
4
It is completely implausible that someone who has taken such large sums of money for something such as speeches like this -- and from an industry that caused massive harm to many Americans, -- to the tune of billions of dollars over recent time -- would think that the public, whose votes she wants -- doesn't somehow need to know what was said and communicated. To dishonor the public intellect by claiming that no influence could possibly be connected to such extravagant largess received by her -- is incredibly insulting to anyone in this day and age of corruption, influence peddling, and vote purchase. Mrs. Clinton -- we the public deserve to know exactly why you are somehow above and beyond any reproach in this kind of matter...divulge fully the transcripts -- and not dependent on someone else's disclosure. An honorable person would have no hesitation in disclosing such.
42
The more Secretary Clinton stalls, the more Ibwant to read the transcripts. What is she trying to hide.
29
Why didn't The Times run an editorial like this before they endorsed her in the primaries?
47
Presumably at the first of her 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs (for each of which she earned a mere $225,000 = a paltry $3,750 per minute on an hourly basis) Mrs. Clinton lambasted the assembled crowd for their grossly irresponsible behavior which led to the crash of 2008. The audience and the firm enjoyed her slashing comments so much that they invited her back (at the same rate) to be blasted by her again for the damage they had done to the American middle class she champions. So what's the problem with releasing the transcripts of these speeches?
44
Ok, NYT Editorial Board, what's going on? You endorsed Madam Sec., now you're questioning her integrity and by extension, her credibility? What do you think does to the NYT's credibility, particularly since your Public Editor
Margaret Sullivan said that point of your endorsement was to influence readers who vote?
2-25-16@11:05 pm
Margaret Sullivan said that point of your endorsement was to influence readers who vote?
2-25-16@11:05 pm
28
For those keeping score at home, this is the second editorial in as many weeks criticizing the candidate this distinguished paper has endorsed, after the first one encouraged her to adopt Bernie's minimum wage policy. I feel I must ask, is it time to rethink that endorsement?
41
"Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House."
It is already too late. Clinton's credibility is quickly approaching zero, to the point where her electability facing Trump is now in question:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-...
It is already too late. Clinton's credibility is quickly approaching zero, to the point where her electability facing Trump is now in question:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-...
41
This is nonsense. We know that Clinton was paid generously to speak to powerful groups. This is not unusual for somebody who has been a First Lady, senator, or Secretary of State. If the Sanders campaign wants to comb through hours of these speeches to use a couple of contextless quotes, they should at least have the decency to not ask Clinton for help.
12
Maybe you also want to find out if she gave any speeches for free, like to charities or something! If she was doing speeches for nothing, it's certain she must have been expecting something in return and secretly involved in some--
Oops. Whew, that's much better. I keep forgetting to take off the GOP-tinted sunglasses. As I was saying, for Clinton it's always darned if she does, darned if she doesn't. It's the price of being a threat to the GOP.
Oops. Whew, that's much better. I keep forgetting to take off the GOP-tinted sunglasses. As I was saying, for Clinton it's always darned if she does, darned if she doesn't. It's the price of being a threat to the GOP.
9
Yes, stop obfuscating and show us the transcripts.
18
More media bias against Hillary. Constantly being held to a different standard than other candidates. If this editorial had demanded transcripts from all candidates it would have been fair, but it's obviously done to provoke more negativity towards Hillary. She's the only candidate from either party that has the brains and experience to run this country. She's got my vote in spite of the media campaign against her!
11
Great article! Well said!
10
Is Apple stonewalling the Justice department over unlocking the cell phone of one of the terrorists who murdered 14 people in San Bernardino with statements that Tim Cook is defending people’s privacy and serious hacking from China? This high profile story has many important people raising significant questions pro and con.
Is Hillary Clinton stonewalling the American people by not providing transcripts to speeches she made to a number of groups who were willing to pay her over $200,000 as the Editorial Board suggests?
Apple is stonewalling and making the government look bad. Hillary, if she is stonewalling, is not doing herself a favor, because she is in a campaign primary that she has to win. I caution the NY Times from blowing this story out of proportion before she provides her answer.
It’s hers to lose if she makes the wrong choice. I hope she makes the right choice. She could make a great president.
Is Hillary Clinton stonewalling the American people by not providing transcripts to speeches she made to a number of groups who were willing to pay her over $200,000 as the Editorial Board suggests?
Apple is stonewalling and making the government look bad. Hillary, if she is stonewalling, is not doing herself a favor, because she is in a campaign primary that she has to win. I caution the NY Times from blowing this story out of proportion before she provides her answer.
It’s hers to lose if she makes the wrong choice. I hope she makes the right choice. She could make a great president.
5
"By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House."
The NYT is correct but does not go far enough. The NYT does Sanders an injustice by saying that Clinton simply "plays into the hands." Clinton's disingenuous behavior is just the most recent example of her trust and truthfulness issues. She has a longstanding, over and over again pattern of 'truthiness' (to coin Stephen Colbert's wordage) which is frightening.
She even said recently that when she accepted the Goldman Sachs fees she did so because she was not sure at the time whether she was going to run for president. Baloney! That's a lawyer talking - you can't disprove what is being said but it's hollow and unworthy. It's like the difference between something being legal and something being morally right.
At the most recent Town Hall she said she really did not know why the overwhelming majority of young people, women included, were for Sanders and not her. More disingenuous baloney! She knows why but her calculating, lawyerly self opts not to address the issue but to deflect it.
She has a very difficult time holding herself accountable for her actions. This is NOT the person I want in the White House.
The NYT is correct but does not go far enough. The NYT does Sanders an injustice by saying that Clinton simply "plays into the hands." Clinton's disingenuous behavior is just the most recent example of her trust and truthfulness issues. She has a longstanding, over and over again pattern of 'truthiness' (to coin Stephen Colbert's wordage) which is frightening.
She even said recently that when she accepted the Goldman Sachs fees she did so because she was not sure at the time whether she was going to run for president. Baloney! That's a lawyer talking - you can't disprove what is being said but it's hollow and unworthy. It's like the difference between something being legal and something being morally right.
At the most recent Town Hall she said she really did not know why the overwhelming majority of young people, women included, were for Sanders and not her. More disingenuous baloney! She knows why but her calculating, lawyerly self opts not to address the issue but to deflect it.
She has a very difficult time holding herself accountable for her actions. This is NOT the person I want in the White House.
26
I would love to see a transcript for the speech Bernie gave to wealthy donors (including some from wall street) in Martha's Vineyard. Like with Hillary, I don't think he said anything illegal or inherently wrong, but I also wonder did he call those same donors frauds? I would also love to know why Bernie voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which played a direct role in the most recent economic disaster, far more so than any paid speech before corporations or banks in 2014.
8
I think the problem is that there are no transcripts to release. Her actual speeches were probably quite rare and the other "speeches" were just made-up excuses for Wall Street to give her bribes, er, contributions, er, speaking fees.
15
So, if Hillary Clinton does not produce the transcripts, will the New York Times retract its endorsement of her for the Democratic nomination?
25
All candidates, not just Clinton. Publish the transcripts of every paid word out of their mouths leading up to the election. Oh, and the would include all transcripts of The Apprentice. Can you imagine? In a country where most people don't read anything but an emoji? Sure, go for it. Absurd.
4
" Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
- Lewis Carroll
One of those things for me this morning is a NYT editorial taking a critical stance on Mrs.Clinton.
- Lewis Carroll
One of those things for me this morning is a NYT editorial taking a critical stance on Mrs.Clinton.
23
Fascinating, New York Times, that you would challenge your candidate, Hillary Clinton, to come clean on her speeches to Wall Street and the banksters (Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 in a single year for her speeches). But we all know that these speeches were not about re-regulating Wall Street or breaking up the too-big-to-jail banksters. Nonetheless, will the content of these speeches, if ever revealed by Hillary, be enough for the New York Times to admit it was wrong in endorsing Hillary Clinton for president? I wouldn't count on it, America!
21
The dodge she uses is worse than Romney's dodge on his tax returns.
11
What she said in the speeches is almost beside the point. Would she appear any less corrupt and self-serving had Goldman paid her 200k/hour to talk about the weather? As I see it, it was a bribe in disguise.
32
All the Wall Street and big Pharma can hold Clinton by the tail if she ever goes after them...
it scares me how much power they already have over her already.
it scares me how much power they already have over her already.
23
She will simply claim they were all lost when they wiped her server with a cloth.
14
I'm disappointed in editorial board. If Hillary must publish her transcripts, then Bernie should do likewise. Let's start with his speeches as a student socialist! I dont trust his voodoo economics and I certainly don't trust his ability to manage world crises. So he has an obligation to provide clarification if his views. Instead, he waves off criticism by pointing fingers and trying to smear her. I do appreciate you editorial in support of her but this double standard has no place in journalism!
5
Her point is this: when you hold other [read: male] candidates to the same standard as you are holding me, I'll happily play along and release every word I've ever spoken anywhere (including when I was a private citizen not holding office, which is exactly what she was during the GS speeches). Until then, you can go to h-ll.
It's not petulant. She is making an implicit statement about equality. And I couldn't agree with her more.
Is anyone demanding transcripts of Sander's private speeches be made public? Trump's? Rubio's? Cruz's?
The double standard witch hunts put forth by both right and left against HRC are vomit worthy. And yes, women notice, and vote.
It's not petulant. She is making an implicit statement about equality. And I couldn't agree with her more.
Is anyone demanding transcripts of Sander's private speeches be made public? Trump's? Rubio's? Cruz's?
The double standard witch hunts put forth by both right and left against HRC are vomit worthy. And yes, women notice, and vote.
7
Thank you editorial board for writing this opinion. That is the way journalism should be all the time, hard hitting, as the taxpayers are the only ones who are subsidizing all of this printed money, as my son the former office manager of a firm in Switzerland calls what has become America's only economic policy. My son probably was more prepared for what he learned from me in one aspect of his job in teaching him about character, decency, honesty, humility, and truth, as he found those often lacking in the world of finance because of greed, and he was prepared for what he saw.
10
Gosh oh golly, I didn’t know it was $11 million for 51 speeches. Well if all the others do it too, how much booty did they pile up and for how many speeches? Isn’t that news that’s fit to print--with a chart?
The Times is dissatisfied with its pick for prez and keeps urging her to improve herself. It couldn’t pick Bernie, the only other choice. We need a wider range of aspirants for nominee. Can they possibly be found in this vast nation? Explain why our field is so narrow for the Dems and so wide for the Gop.
Hillary will rein in big banks, ‘pragmatically’. She stated she’ll be the judge of when they’re going too far, and will tell them to ‘cut it out’ if she disapproves. Seems it’s all up to her judgment, not to the rule of law. What kind of democracy is this?
The Times is dissatisfied with its pick for prez and keeps urging her to improve herself. It couldn’t pick Bernie, the only other choice. We need a wider range of aspirants for nominee. Can they possibly be found in this vast nation? Explain why our field is so narrow for the Dems and so wide for the Gop.
Hillary will rein in big banks, ‘pragmatically’. She stated she’ll be the judge of when they’re going too far, and will tell them to ‘cut it out’ if she disapproves. Seems it’s all up to her judgment, not to the rule of law. What kind of democracy is this?
12
"Rules for the but not for me."
Welcome to a preview of the Hillary Clinton administration.
Welcome to a preview of the Hillary Clinton administration.
16
Where are the calls for scrunity of Republicans? I don't remember any outcry from the press when Mitt Romney refused to release his tax records during his 2012 run for the presidency. A different standard for Hillary? You betcha! The press has been trying to destroy the Clinton's for 25 years while the lying, racist GOP party of dinosaurs gets a pass. The truth is, Trump would have been road kill and labeled as a crazy crank yearsrs ago when he began spouting his birther conspiracy if he was a Democrat.
5
This is a ridiculous double standard. Either everyone produces their speeches or no one does. Period. You are very wrong.
4
"Everybody does it." That's the same line my kids used to try to do something that I did not approve of. Every parent knows theses words as a red herring. If we can't accept such arguments from our kids, why on earth would we do so with a presidential candidate?
"In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.” Her benevolence in helping to rebuild after 9/11 by taking millions for speeches several years later seems like a reeeeeeal stretch. It is also extremely difficult to understand how her taking these gargantuan amounts for so many speeches would in any way be "helping" Wall Street or rebuking terrorists.
Connect the dots here, folks. This lady is not being terribly honest - and not exercising the judgement appropriate for one who aspires to be our country's president.
"In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.” Her benevolence in helping to rebuild after 9/11 by taking millions for speeches several years later seems like a reeeeeeal stretch. It is also extremely difficult to understand how her taking these gargantuan amounts for so many speeches would in any way be "helping" Wall Street or rebuking terrorists.
Connect the dots here, folks. This lady is not being terribly honest - and not exercising the judgement appropriate for one who aspires to be our country's president.
25
Bully for her. She charged a fee and they paid it and she could have been giving them food recipes or how to pack for Tibet travel tips for all I care. The NY Times is at times as seedy as the National Enquirer.
2
You would think that, as the Nixonian Republican politician that she is, Clinton would understand that "It's not the crime, it's the coverup" that finally brings you down. This is going to be the latest example of that well-proven principle.
19
These politicians still think they can set the standards of conduct in a critical national election. We must remind all candidates of both parties they work for us. Hasn't Hillary learned the more you stall, the more they'll come after you - with good reason?
18
Does anyone really think that corporations shell out millions to polititions and do not expect something in return? Hillary is bought and paid for. Sadly her supporters are still drinking the Kool-Aid and insisting that "they do it too".
Great.
Great.
23
She will release them after super Tuesday.
4
It is worst than Rubio massaging his position on immigration speaking Spanish
3
I don't agree. If you want Clinton's transcripts -- get all the candidates to give their transcripts of their speeches to any group -- whether investment banks, churches, fund-raising, etc. There is a double standard w/Clinton and it's enough.
Just like you do w/their tax returns.
Look at her record and her results.
And there is nothing wrong with making money.
Just like you do w/their tax returns.
Look at her record and her results.
And there is nothing wrong with making money.
4
You are railing at the fire you set. Saying this happens on both sides is a blatantly false analogy. Republicans welcomed the Tea Party extremists to their tent when they needed the votes and now your party is being consumed it. Republicans need to fix this themselves and risk their majorities for the sake your beloved compromise and our beloved country.
2
Hillary should release those transcripts when all politicians who do it do the same. Almost 100% of people agreeing with the editorial wouldn't have voted for her anyway.
3
The Washington Post article linked to ("Hillary Clinton's Unseemly Speechifying") is dead on. Hillary's lack of judgment on this is appalling.
19
I think you are wrong. This is something Sander's people think they can beat her up with since he obviously would never have been asked to deliver similar speeches. Her 'trust' issues are mostly created by media. When taking on a job she has always done excellent work and has been justifiably lauded for it by people she works with. Why don't you go after everyone else running for all of their speeches too.
4
"Defining deviancy down."
6
No. A thousand times no. Her speech content was paid for and is copyrighted material. It should remain confidential. It is her property and that of the organization.
Celebrity speakers compose a variety of speeches that reflect on their experiences. These include vignettes and how they got through a calamity or major challenge. They provide insights into a person's life and personality often off stage and away from the lights.
The American public does not have a right to know. Using the NY Times arguments then Jack Welch, Rudy Giulianni, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell should also release their speech contents.
Before the New York Times shoots its mouth off maybe it ought to look at a few standard speaking contracts and see what they say about both parties rights and obligations regarding the speech content.
It most likely says something about limiting video taping or using the transcript in any future way.
What has not been mentioned is that Hillary's occupation was private citizen former politician in between new elected positions.
If the NY Times is eager to know what was said it can send out investigative reporters and get accounts of what was said.
Right now Wall ST is characterized as a bunch of thugs by Bernie Sanders which is a little over the top. A lot of Middle America gained wealth playing the market in boom times. Big names. Apple, Home Depot, Microsoft, Intel, Terex, AOL, EBay, Amazon, Google -- all made possible by the Wall ST engine.
Celebrity speakers compose a variety of speeches that reflect on their experiences. These include vignettes and how they got through a calamity or major challenge. They provide insights into a person's life and personality often off stage and away from the lights.
The American public does not have a right to know. Using the NY Times arguments then Jack Welch, Rudy Giulianni, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell should also release their speech contents.
Before the New York Times shoots its mouth off maybe it ought to look at a few standard speaking contracts and see what they say about both parties rights and obligations regarding the speech content.
It most likely says something about limiting video taping or using the transcript in any future way.
What has not been mentioned is that Hillary's occupation was private citizen former politician in between new elected positions.
If the NY Times is eager to know what was said it can send out investigative reporters and get accounts of what was said.
Right now Wall ST is characterized as a bunch of thugs by Bernie Sanders which is a little over the top. A lot of Middle America gained wealth playing the market in boom times. Big names. Apple, Home Depot, Microsoft, Intel, Terex, AOL, EBay, Amazon, Google -- all made possible by the Wall ST engine.
3
There will absolutely be statements in the speeches which, in context or not, will look bad for Clinton. And everyone, including the editorial board knows it. She is already under attack for servers, Foundation, Benghazi, you name it. Doesn't the media have enough fodder? Just because Sanders was such a non-entity before this election that no one would have paid him to speak for any real amount of money does not mean that Clinton should have to provide transcripts if she chooses not to. This is a red herring, again. Romney's comment came out from someone who was present who leaked it.
4
If she doesn't release them then skeletons are in her closet
7
No. Why is it that only the Democrats are supposed to supply the opposition with ammunition? This is a fight for the future of our country, and the Republicans don't disclose their stuff, so the Democrats shouldn't either.
Keep your powder dry, Hillary.
Keep your powder dry, Hillary.
7
Hoping that Clinton would "run an accountable and transparent White House" is seriously delusional.
25
I hope beyond hope that Ms. Clinton does not adopt the Nixonian strategy of stonewalling. It will cost her dearly.
11
More of the same from the 1% er HRC.
We won't see the speeches.
This is one more reason that there is a trust issue with HRC.
With her as a candidate the democrats might lose the election.
I will vote for HRC airplane bags with clothes pins are selling brusquely.
We won't see the speeches.
This is one more reason that there is a trust issue with HRC.
With her as a candidate the democrats might lose the election.
I will vote for HRC airplane bags with clothes pins are selling brusquely.
11
According to copyright law, Hillary's speeches belong to those who paid her to create them. Therefore, she cannot release them to anyone without the permission of those who paid her.
4
I will vote for HRC no matter what she said or did because she is the Democratic nominee and I am a Democrat. The alternative is to have a Republican president.
5
I don't care. I am sure she twisted her speeches to appear more supportive of "good work" that Wall Street does. Dah - we have no great candidates in this election. Perhaps we get what we deserve - Clinton has lead a life of supporting the causes I believe in - do the math - the others?... she is my pick. I am so sick of attacks and looking for as many "got ya" as we can find. Let's see, a candidate who bullies & insults 1/2 the world, a candidate who wants a "make the sand glow", good old Bernie who wants free college for all"... with Clinton we will probably continue with the hatred between the two parties (sad) but 30 years have given us a pretty good idea where she stands. I like that.
4
I agree, although part of me thinks that given how much the NYTimes loves Hillary, they must already know there is nothing incriminating in the transcripts. The problem is not the speeches, it's the fact that money is a corrupting influence. When legislation harmful to Goldman-Sachs comes to her desk, she'll be thinking, "Oh, but those are such nice people." It's illustrative to look at her vote on the bankruptcy legislation a few years ago. I encourage everyone to look up Bill Moyers' interview with Elizabeth Warren on the subject.
16
Rather than focusing on the 11 million dollars Hillary Clinton received as fees for speeches, may I suggest the NYT editorial team dig deeper and enlightening its readers on how the many coffers of the US tax payer system Donald Trump has exhausted through his multiple bankruptcies?
2
As one who supports Clinton, I really don't care what she said or how much money she got. She gets beaten up about everything, so this is more of the same.
4
At this point, I don't care if as a child she roasted bugs under a magnifying glass in the hot sun. She remains the most qualified candidate for the job. Full stop.
She also is the only one that can stop this Trump insanity in November.
America - pick your poison. I will gladly take the experienced ladies baggage over four years of the dangerously imbalanced Mr. T.
She also is the only one that can stop this Trump insanity in November.
America - pick your poison. I will gladly take the experienced ladies baggage over four years of the dangerously imbalanced Mr. T.
5
Let's say those transcripts reveal a weakness on her part does any serious person believe that the revelation will make her less saintly than the other candidates?.It is obvious that every candidate or any other person occasionally makes a misstatement or a gaffe that he or she later regrets , especially once the person decided to run 4 the Presidency. The real agonizing the voting public need to do is in deciding which of the candidates, as a package, is most ready to assume this most important responsibility in the world.Whatever she might have said she has evolved into a truly fire tested person.Passing under the crucible of that Marathon Congressional hearing and come out intact is 1 proof that she is better prepared than other pres candidates to sail through some of the turbulent phases ( with regard domestic and Global Affairs) that occasionally surface with the US presidency territory.A US Pres need to have a good relation with the private sector, especially with the big Banks and this relation is forged over time not once the person became a Pres.When the Pres makes a trip to Europe,Africa,Asia,S.America,M.East,etc it is common to take Buis leaders and interest them in investing and engage in trade relation as a tool 4 strengthening bilateral ties and augment US's global influence.May be she has said that to encourage their strategic buis involvement overseas she will support their getting a reduced Tax, guarantee against loss Vis-a-Vis turmoils,etc.So?.TMD.
Really, if Hillary were to release her Wall Street speech transcripts, who would believe they had not been heavily edited? Her biggest voter issue is trust and those paid Wall Street speeches just add coal to her fire.
14
The Pentagon Papers. The facts are hazy but I suppose back then the NYT published a very persuasive editorial asking the US government to hand over any documents relating to behind-closed-doors decisions and conversations concerning the Vietnam War and the government complied...right?
The NYT can't find a way to get its hands on a transcript of a single speech delivered to hundreds at a corporate gathering?
Two things are true: 1) What she said in those speeches is important information that voters should be able to weigh in their decision to support her. 2) What she said could be damaging to her campaign.
Thus the editorial today is the weak way the NYT has decided to address this important and pressing issue --without damaging their favored candidate.
The NYT can't find a way to get its hands on a transcript of a single speech delivered to hundreds at a corporate gathering?
Two things are true: 1) What she said in those speeches is important information that voters should be able to weigh in their decision to support her. 2) What she said could be damaging to her campaign.
Thus the editorial today is the weak way the NYT has decided to address this important and pressing issue --without damaging their favored candidate.
12
The Republicans cannot wait to use the fact that she won't release the speeches against her.
She is going to hand them the election on one of her gem-encrusted, 24-carat gold platters.
She is going to hand them the election on one of her gem-encrusted, 24-carat gold platters.
9
I could care less what she told the crowd during her speech...unless it was illegal. I find it ludicrous that everyone is making such a big deal about her speech - it was a paid speech. No reason to believe that what she said when paid is any real indication of what she actually believes. Sanders needs to grow up and so does the author of this opinion piece.
3
She is proving that she is two faced. One face for the banks and corporations, another for the gullible voters.
20
The transcripts for Clinton's speeches are not hidden, and the Times could transcribe a recording from someone who was there if they wanted to. But then they couldn't pretend she laid out some devious plan just for the ruling class.
3
The Clinton Dynasty "I didn't inhale" legacy rolls on.
12
Subscription (and respect) renewed.
7
Next she will say that she will release her transcripts when Trump releases his tax returns.
8
Anyone who cannot see that Hillary will not release those transcripts because the truth of what is in them would be devastating to her, her campaign, her claims of being concerned about the "common man" and that they would prove she lies about her cozy relationship with Wall Street and Big Money, is ignorant enough to believe in and vote for her.
15
The NYTimes' endorsement of Hillary Clinton is clearly full of ambivalence, which speaks to the general flaws of her campaign: in sum, trustworthiness. The Democrats will have a very hard time prevailing if Clinton is the nominee. Running against Bernie Sanders, she has the rare opponent who will not drag her through the dirt. Not so with the Republicans. If the Democrats want a candidate who walks the walk on campaign finance reform, reigning in Wall St., and income inequality, the choice is clear.
I wonder if the NYTimes has ever recanted an endorsement? This one is starting to look shaky.
I wonder if the NYTimes has ever recanted an endorsement? This one is starting to look shaky.
16
Those transcripts are going to sink her.
And she knows it.
And she knows it.
14
it is odd - the Clintons get so much undeserved or unfair abuse from the GOP wingnuts that when the Clintons do something that does deserve criticism, it looks unfair.
3
When they all do, so should she.
5
Know what happened when the Ice Queen got too close to the Fire Breathing Dragon? Right. She melted.
8
The Democrats should be ashamed to put this candidate forward.
12
Please release them now, before you become the eventual nominee, so the press can skewer you into a million pieces. Then perhaps the voting public will grow weary of hearing about how typically mainstream a candidate you are compared to Bernie Sanders, and still vote for you in the primaries. If you release your transcripts as the Democratic nominee for president, you may never recover, and we will have President Trump instead of President Sanders.
4
She can keep on stonewalling, only to, come November, end up buried in a landslide of the Trump brand. Millions of voters are waking up to the fact that the 'ancien (corporate) regime' has cost them dearly in jobs, homes and frankly the very basics of life and, to put it mildly, they're not happy campers.
Abraham Lincoln said it all: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln said it all: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
12
Hillary wisely avoids publishing her own 47% moment.
6
Why did the Times endorse her with all her issues including the FBI investigation? Wasn't it premature to endorse her until we know the outcome of all these investigations?
11
HRC has a point, why don't the other candidate's release their talks to big business and what pay they received. This is a one sided editorial to me. Seems all you want to do is vilify Hillary because she made a lot of money making speeches, which you all would have accepted if you were in her position. This is another witch hunt.
3
You really think Hillary would run an accountable and transparent White House? She would point to what Republicans did, like Richard Nixon. That would be the end of an accountable and transparent White House.
What was Hillary hiding in her private email server? What is Hillary hiding in the transcripts of her speeches? Why does Hillary stonewall every request for transparency? Why does Hillary constantly look like she has something to hide? How can we know anything about this woman when she refuses to answer questions honestly and id constantly hiding things?
What was Hillary hiding in her private email server? What is Hillary hiding in the transcripts of her speeches? Why does Hillary stonewall every request for transparency? Why does Hillary constantly look like she has something to hide? How can we know anything about this woman when she refuses to answer questions honestly and id constantly hiding things?
12
I disagree that the "public" wants to know what's in Secretary Clinton's speeches. It's the rightwing and the Sanders campaign that have been pushing this. The multiple investigations of Hillary Clinton amount to harassment and far outweigh the vetting of other candidates. Where are the questions about Bernie Sanders' visit to the Soviet Union? Whom did he meet and what were their positions in the Communist party? Why did he live in an Israeli kibbutz with a history of Stalinist connections? What about his out-of-wedlock child? What about the bank loan application in which his wife, as director of Burlington College, falsified income data - the repayments led to the college's bankruptcy and Mrs. Sanders' dismissal. What about the Sanders' campaign working to turn out Republicans to vote for Sanders in the Nevada Democratic caucuses - a felony according to Nevada's voter fraud laws.
Instead, the media, including the NY Times, are assisting Sanders and the rightwing with their data-mining and slander operations. Of course, somewhere in Secretary Clinton's speeches there will be remarks that can be taken out of context, twisted, and used against her. This has no bearing on how she will function as President.
It's about time to put a little more of the spotlight on St. Bernard, don't you think?
Instead, the media, including the NY Times, are assisting Sanders and the rightwing with their data-mining and slander operations. Of course, somewhere in Secretary Clinton's speeches there will be remarks that can be taken out of context, twisted, and used against her. This has no bearing on how she will function as President.
It's about time to put a little more of the spotlight on St. Bernard, don't you think?
3
Mrs. Clinton, we, your own base, are asking for you to release the transcripts. And we don't care what the Republicans do or don't do because we find them untrustworthy anyway.
5
For the Democratic Party the decision is simple:
You have a choice between someone who can be bought and someone who can't.
You have a choice between someone who can be bought and someone who can't.
15
In the one corner, we have the anti-immigration Republican Donald Trump whose companies aggressively exploit the loopholes to obtain foreign guest worker visas AND in the other corner we have the ostensibly for-the-working-Joe Hillary Clinton who earns $11 million a year in speeches to Wall Street companies and refuses to release transcripts. Which one is a bigger hypocrite?
7
I am a Liberal, Social Democrat who believes Mrs. Clinton should reveal her speeches only if all candidates are require to do so. She should not be singled out.
4
When Mrs. Clinton says "Everybody does it" she isn't referring to everybody she is referring to the elite who take care of each other at the expense of "Everybody Else"
13
This is unfair. She may as well divulge all private conversations she had with important people.
4
As usual, the NYT Editorial Board has overreacted and billed these speeches as if they were the some vast plot. The truth is, I don't care whether HC said nice things about Wall Street or not, because most of us retired folk live off pensions or IRAs invested in Wall Street. In fact, it's Bernie Sander's indiscriminate Huey-Long-style rant against Wall Street that sets me against him. So as usual, your headline is off key and overstated.
4
This editorial is baffling.
Since Mrs. Clinton often thrives on portraying herself as a victim of partisan and journalist badgering, if Mrs. Clinton does comply, releases these transcripts and nothing damning is found in them, she will no doubt once again portray herself as such a victim.
If, however, the New York Times, after having endorsed Mrs. Clinton, is now demanding the release of these transcripts because the New York Times has reasons to believe that they contain implicating revelations about Mrs. Clinton’s surreptitious relations with her banking and corporate donors, the New York Times should say so.
Smart lawyers do not put on the witness stand a witness before knowing what he might say.
It would therefore seem that Mrs. Clinton should not be asked to release these transcripts unless there is creditable and unimpeachable evidence that they contain implicating and damning information.
Since Mrs. Clinton often thrives on portraying herself as a victim of partisan and journalist badgering, if Mrs. Clinton does comply, releases these transcripts and nothing damning is found in them, she will no doubt once again portray herself as such a victim.
If, however, the New York Times, after having endorsed Mrs. Clinton, is now demanding the release of these transcripts because the New York Times has reasons to believe that they contain implicating revelations about Mrs. Clinton’s surreptitious relations with her banking and corporate donors, the New York Times should say so.
Smart lawyers do not put on the witness stand a witness before knowing what he might say.
It would therefore seem that Mrs. Clinton should not be asked to release these transcripts unless there is creditable and unimpeachable evidence that they contain implicating and damning information.
6
Finally, a NYT article on Clinton that I agree with. And this one is extremely thorough in debunking all of her excuses. Thank you, thank you. It makes me angry to have the candidate who is supposed to represent me (a female Democrat) act in such a high-handed manner. It is disrespectful and it doesn't inspire confidence that she will listen and respond to voters if elected.
The truth is, she is a terrible candidate. She deserves to be indicted over the email fiasco and how she handled it.
Some commenters are taking the NYT to task for endorsing Clinton before looking into these things. It is possible that this opinion piece is making the best of a bad situation since the speeches are about to come out anyway. Gawker ran an item last week suggesting that the speeches were in the hands of a journalist and were soon to be leaked.
The truth is, she is a terrible candidate. She deserves to be indicted over the email fiasco and how she handled it.
Some commenters are taking the NYT to task for endorsing Clinton before looking into these things. It is possible that this opinion piece is making the best of a bad situation since the speeches are about to come out anyway. Gawker ran an item last week suggesting that the speeches were in the hands of a journalist and were soon to be leaked.
9
I can only echo "Wildwest" who says: "As a Democrat who enthusiastically supports Mrs. Clinton I will keep this short. I agree."
1
For 200k, I am sure she pandered and , for voters , I am sure she is pandering now. No real surprises: the current campaign was started by a listening tour which always sounded more vacant than open minded. Hillary and Trump both want to win; policies may vary accordingly.
4
Is there even a little doubt that her speeches are sprinkled with acknowledgement of the good that these companies do? Does anyone really believe her speeches were uncomplimentary to the companies who hired her and paid 6 figures for her to speaking? Right now her team is poring over the transcripts trying to find the one or two that will be least favorable to "Wall Street". She has made a serious tactical error in falling into Bernie's trap about the whole system being "rigged" and that is why these transcripts are a problem for her.
3
Seriously, who cares? I couldn't care less. Clinton haters are going to hate Hillary no matter what. It's not like her speeches to banksters are going to tell us anything about Hillary that we don't already know. We know her, warts and all. Bernie has performed an estimable service, highlighting Wall Street's corrupting influence on the body politic. From here on out Hillary will have to hold to a higher standard. Thank you Bernie! Yes Dems, by all means, if you want ideological purity, vote in the primaries for Bernie. But don't be duped, this is yet another ginned up, pseudo controversy meant to undermine Clinton now, and ultimately the Democratic ticket in November, while this editorial gives a pass to the entire GOP thoroughly corrupt clown car (really, NY Times?). Democrats, look at last night's Greed Over People "debate" to see what Clinton, Sanders and the thinking half of the US electorate are really up against. Don't be diverted by road kill along the way. And be afraid of whatever the GOP nominates for President, very afraid.
2
And once the transcripts are released, the New York Times and others will comb through them for inflammatory sentence fragments to put in headlines. It's a giant game of "gotcha!" which Clinton can't win. At this point, her only question is, "is it better to suffer the attacks for not releasing them now, or the attacks that will come when they are released later." Given Americans' attention span, "now" is probably the correct calculation.
2
Organizations paid Ms. Clinton $225,000 per speech for access. To her network of insiders in government, to information about gaining funding for projects from her family foundation and as a down payment for access to the white house in case she becomes president. She never had to say it. Once you hired her, via seemingly innocuous exchanges of information, you received numerous names emails and phone numbers of her confidants to contact when you were looking for some special favor or access to officials or insider information. Once you paid you know they would take your future call.
9
I am a lifelong Democrat. There is no way that I will vote for any of the Republicans vying for the Republican nomination. They are all unsuited to be POTUS.
However, I do want to do my "due diligence" as regards the person that I vote for in the primary here in Massachusetts next Tuesday.
One speech that Senator Hillary Clinton gave in 2007 about financial matters to NASDQ is available on the web in both video and transcript. She said that Wall Street shared blame for such things a securitized securities. She talked about "transparency." Some of what she said in that speech about foreclosures was that people who took mortgages in which they knew the facts about their earnings were being misstated (or omitted) should not blame others when the mortgage went into default.
It is not clear to me why speeches she gave more recently should not be similarly available, unless she can show that the copyright is no longer hers or that her speaking contract (under which she was paid those huge YUUUGE fees) has some provison that makes the content confidential. If she gave the speeches with no such limitation, why should she not let all of us know what was said? She is making the argument that they were speeches that were "tough on Wall Street." If true, fine. Just show us what was actually said.
In case any of you out there forgot, Republicans are not running to vote for Hillary. That is not the issue. Whether she earns the vote of a Democrat like me IS the issue.
However, I do want to do my "due diligence" as regards the person that I vote for in the primary here in Massachusetts next Tuesday.
One speech that Senator Hillary Clinton gave in 2007 about financial matters to NASDQ is available on the web in both video and transcript. She said that Wall Street shared blame for such things a securitized securities. She talked about "transparency." Some of what she said in that speech about foreclosures was that people who took mortgages in which they knew the facts about their earnings were being misstated (or omitted) should not blame others when the mortgage went into default.
It is not clear to me why speeches she gave more recently should not be similarly available, unless she can show that the copyright is no longer hers or that her speaking contract (under which she was paid those huge YUUUGE fees) has some provison that makes the content confidential. If she gave the speeches with no such limitation, why should she not let all of us know what was said? She is making the argument that they were speeches that were "tough on Wall Street." If true, fine. Just show us what was actually said.
In case any of you out there forgot, Republicans are not running to vote for Hillary. That is not the issue. Whether she earns the vote of a Democrat like me IS the issue.
7
Hillary can always claim that she wiped them from her server which should be a good enough defense. If that doesn't work, she can always claim the dog ate them, which would also work with her supporters.
10
So I guess no other candidates gave paid speeches. Oh wait a minute - the Clinton Rules are in effect.
2
The real Hillary is blatantly revealed in her refusal to release the content of speeches to Wall Street and mega corporations.
Hillary feels she is 'entitled' to be President of the USA. She has made deals with big money, the Democratic political establishment, and anyone or anything else she believes will get her to the white house again. She has taken millions from the rulers of the .001%.
Hillary is so self absorbed to the point of sociopathy that she is more willing to let the raving GOP candidates bring her down in the general election and make the whitehouse republican than to allow a true progressive without baggage, Bernie Sanders, become the President.
This woman is truly frightening in her unreleting egotism.
America doesn't need her or anyone like her.
Hillary feels she is 'entitled' to be President of the USA. She has made deals with big money, the Democratic political establishment, and anyone or anything else she believes will get her to the white house again. She has taken millions from the rulers of the .001%.
Hillary is so self absorbed to the point of sociopathy that she is more willing to let the raving GOP candidates bring her down in the general election and make the whitehouse republican than to allow a true progressive without baggage, Bernie Sanders, become the President.
This woman is truly frightening in her unreleting egotism.
America doesn't need her or anyone like her.
11
It is amazing, there are people who think she is trustworthy.
8
This is simply sexist. You have not asked anything similar of any other candidate now or in the past, including John Kasich who worked for Lehman (the bank that brought down the world economy) and whom you endorsed.
Shame on you and Bernie's supporters on this issue. Sexism is the new casual racism.
Shame on you and Bernie's supporters on this issue. Sexism is the new casual racism.
2
Release the transcripts at the same time you release your taxes, Hillary. BTW has any reporter asked The Donald if he will adhere to practice and put all his assets into a Blind Trust if (ever) he became President?
1
Why does Hillary Clinton still have a following? Because her main block of supporters do not follow the news because of laziness and because of misplaced loyalty to a party which does nothing for its members. Will a President Clinton remember these people who follow her with blinders? If her main block of supporters listened to more than MSNBC they would clearly be informed that the answer to that question is a resounding NO.
9
No one except Fox News cares.
2
Really, she's trying to tell the truth, really, she is... and failing.
9
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?” It is because in her specific case failure to do so will likely mean defeat in the general election.
3
NYT,
Why not do the right thing and rescind your endorsement?
If you think things were ugly during the republican debate last night, just wait and see the hamburger one of those guys makes of your endorsement during the general election.
Senator Sanders can win.
Why not do the right thing and rescind your endorsement?
If you think things were ugly during the republican debate last night, just wait and see the hamburger one of those guys makes of your endorsement during the general election.
Senator Sanders can win.
11
Is Clinton ashamed of her speeches to Wall Street? Is she ashamed of what she does in private? Are they things she says in private her real views and what she says in public false? Is that why her public pronouncements sound hollow and false?
We won't know until we see her private speeches?
We won't know until we see her private speeches?
9
Im confused as to the issue here. The woman seems to have a penchant for never telling the truth when its so much easier to do so.
When an "adult" answers a crisp question: have you always told the truth? by "answering", "I try to..." folks, its pretty clear that the person has no moral compass and no sense...absolutely no sense...of who she is and what she is doing.
Seriously, ask any parent if they would accept that answer from a child. The answer from 99.9% would be, No, Id tell my child that you must ALWAYS tell the truth.
Alas, dear Democrats, that is your problem. The GOP may need to wince at some of Trumps boorish comments, but you need to literally look away from and do mental gymnastics over Clinton to accept her nonsense as anything other than calculated and Nixonian.
Game. Set...and in November, match.
When an "adult" answers a crisp question: have you always told the truth? by "answering", "I try to..." folks, its pretty clear that the person has no moral compass and no sense...absolutely no sense...of who she is and what she is doing.
Seriously, ask any parent if they would accept that answer from a child. The answer from 99.9% would be, No, Id tell my child that you must ALWAYS tell the truth.
Alas, dear Democrats, that is your problem. The GOP may need to wince at some of Trumps boorish comments, but you need to literally look away from and do mental gymnastics over Clinton to accept her nonsense as anything other than calculated and Nixonian.
Game. Set...and in November, match.
8
Let's all just agree that, with all this push-back from Clinton, whatever she said in those speeches...cannot be good! Her statements to Wall St must obviously be ones that counter what she is saying now on the stump. Imagine what Wall St likes to hear, and that's what she said.
8
If there's nothing to hide, why not release them? It's an opportunity for her to confirm her honesty and ethics while demanding others do the same. Now she seems to be confirming that she's just like all the rest.
9
This made me laugh "Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.". Whoever thinks that's even an option in a Hillary Clinton White House, has to be the most naive person. That is the scariest thing about a Clinton presidency. She will be there first and foremost to do everything and anything that will make her richer, she will not be there to serve and do things for the greatness of our country. She is never to be trusted, hiding so much.
10
Sure.
Clot will release these transcripts with the expediency and honesty she released her emails. Or, just after she coughs up her next hairball, which ever comes first.
Clot will release these transcripts with the expediency and honesty she released her emails. Or, just after she coughs up her next hairball, which ever comes first.
5
I happen to agree that she should release these transcripts. What I do not agree with is that only Hillary Clinton should release them. This editorial should be calling on ALL the candidates to release transcripts of speeches that they gave. It is totally unfair to single her out. Additionally, why limit it to speeches given to Wall Street firms? Why aren't other groups included?
3
Many are saying that Hillary is under no obligation to release her speeches until the Republicans do so. That's absurd. She will, if she wins the nomination, eventually face a Republican who will then face similar demands if he has not released transcripts of speeches. However, until that nomination is firmly in hand she is running against Bernie Sanders.
Come on Mrs. Clinton, show democratic voters what you said in your speeches that earned you all those millions. I'm guessing it will provide a clear picture of how different you and Mr. Sanders view Wall Street and the big money boys and give insight into your real intentions and sympathies.
Come on Mrs. Clinton, show democratic voters what you said in your speeches that earned you all those millions. I'm guessing it will provide a clear picture of how different you and Mr. Sanders view Wall Street and the big money boys and give insight into your real intentions and sympathies.
8
Hillary Clinton has released more personal data than any other candidate ever in the history of the World. They continually try to make something of nothing by repetition. Republicans just can't find anything there. Enough already! Let's listen to her policy's. She has a lot of really good ones!
2
This is all quite simple. The election was Clinton's to lose against anyone. The first female President of the United States! I have a 21 year old daughter. However, the hubris of what the Clinton Foundation has done, the wiping clean of an email server (why in heaven's name) much less the issue of classified documents, the Bengazi lies, and now having the NYT Editorial Board question her continual double standards ~~~ amongst much else. If she had simply kept in clean. None of this was remotely necessary. All of her supporters, take an honest look in the mirror. If she were clean, there would be no Sanders, no Trump, etc. She blew it. Period. Greed and ego.
11
As a woman, as a Democrat, is it fair to judge Ms. Clinton by remarks she made to Wall Street bankers? Her financial life has revolved around "leveraging" her and her husband's government service for personal and political profit. Her "character" traits are well established. There is not much that is new to learn.
2
I've heard her talk for years and none of it is worth 2 cents. Those companies were buying access, not speeches.
8
Releasing the transcripts will probably not get anyone to vote for her who was otherwise disinclined to, but the release could conceivably cause people to vote against her.
1
These speech transcripts are becoming to Clinton what the long-form birth certificate was to Obama.
3
Sad that you would print this trash let alone at such a pivotal time in the campaign. The only thing it makes my question is my continuing subscription to this paper.
3
It's hard to imagine that the content of the transcripts is innocuous because her failure to release them will effectively prevent her from playing the "wall street" card in the general. Can't believe she would give that away over something innocuous.
3
If the republicans were to release their speeches, she would insist that Kim Jon-il release all his speeches. Bernie has integrity and honesty - qualities sorely lacking in Clinton.
10
I guess this is what an ill thought out endorsement looks like, but I guess "everybody does it"...Hopefully you'll learn from this and endorse the better candidate next time.
9
What I find mystifying is the people commenting here about how Clinton's being unfairly held to a higher standard, she's being singled out because she's a woman, etc. Apparently, all of these commenters find nothing whatsoever wrong with a person who's about to become a candidate for president taking tens of millions of dollars from large, powerful corporations for doing nothing in return (yet). You Clinton defenders are really OK with that???
13
I read one article that stated that Secretary Clinton wanted to hold off releasing the transcripts until she got the nomination.
That is really a "yuuuge" miscalculation because Trump will use those transcripts as tweets and screams.
That is really a "yuuuge" miscalculation because Trump will use those transcripts as tweets and screams.
7
If all she talked about was the Yankees, the Mets and the weather it would not make one bit of difference in terms of where her basic allegiances lie.
7
There has been another mass shooting and once again Sanders has to explain his pro gun votes in Congress. Thousands have died from gun violence since those votes yet we are worried about Hillary Clinton's speeches.
2
"Why won't she release the transcripts" is a perfect example of Smear by Innuendo. It's exactly the same as "why won't he release his birth certificate."
Work it through by the numbers. Smear by Innuendo works by 1) pointing to a document for which there are legal issues with release, for example Hawaiian law prohibiting public release of long form birth certificate or standard client confidentiality terms in a speaker contract 2) imply that there's something incriminating in that document and 3) claim that the failure to immediately produce said document is an obvious coverup.
It's outrageous that the Times is participating in the smear tactic perfected by Donald Trump against Barack Obama.
Work it through by the numbers. Smear by Innuendo works by 1) pointing to a document for which there are legal issues with release, for example Hawaiian law prohibiting public release of long form birth certificate or standard client confidentiality terms in a speaker contract 2) imply that there's something incriminating in that document and 3) claim that the failure to immediately produce said document is an obvious coverup.
It's outrageous that the Times is participating in the smear tactic perfected by Donald Trump against Barack Obama.
2
The DNC tried to allow Clinton the luxury of short, trouble free cruise through the primaries. Then Bernie came along. The DNC is becoming apoplectic about the young people so fed up with a rigged political process that they are turning to Sanders. Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate, whom never should have been given a free pass. Wasserman/Schultz and her ilk tried to rig the debate process to expose as little about Hillrod's short comings as possible. Release the tapes, Hillary. Hopefully there are no redactions and deletions, but I'm guessing we will never know.
9
I see the real failure of this yet another self-inflicted mess involving the Clintons and money as Hillary Clinton's failure to learn from all the damaging episodes of stonewalling and dissembling that have sullied her and her husband's political careers from the beginning. After Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, the Lincoln Bedroom favors, the pardoning of Marc Rich, the email scandal, you would think she would have learned by now: the cover-up can be worse than the "crime" (though nobody is accusing her of illegality). And as a presidential hopeful, aware of Wall Street's central role in the Great Recession, why was she accepting those outrageous speaking fees from bankers in the first place? What does this say about her judgment - yet again?
13
The more Hillary stonewalls, the more we speculate that she really has something to hide; that for all her postulating on how tough she would be with big business, she would actually be extremely soft on them. The former UK prime minister Tony Blair once famously said that he gives any political crisis two weeks to see if there is still public and media interest before taking action. The attention on Hillary's transcripts is not going to go away. The liberal media, Bernie Sanders' campaign, and even her own supporters are going to keep asking the question. She needs to stop using the pathetic double standards excuse, since she is running against Sanders right now and not the Republicans. Time to come clean soon Hillary, or to forever be stuck with the labels of untrustworthy and dishonest.
8
I agree with Hillary. We need a level playing field or all. Mrs. Clinton didn't invent paid political speeches, politicians have been giving them for years. I don't recall ANY of our male candidates, in this or any other cycle, being asked to provide this info. Enough already.
2
I get that people are unsure about trusting Hillary and want her to release the transcripts of those speeches so they can reassure themselves about her or move on in making voting choices. But requiring her to disclose without requiring ALL of the candidates to do so will not help voters make a choice. She can't be expected to voluntarily expose herself to a higher level of scrutiny than the other candidates--that's fundamentally unfair and unwise.
2
It's pretty obvious why she's not releasing the speeches. According to one attendee, she "sounded like a Goldman Sachs managing director":
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969
This issue will not die down. If Ms. Clinton wants to be President, she'd better release them now and try to get the heat behind her. Otherwise she will be beaten over the head with them every day of the general campaign--and that likely will mean "President Donald Trump".
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969
This issue will not die down. If Ms. Clinton wants to be President, she'd better release them now and try to get the heat behind her. Otherwise she will be beaten over the head with them every day of the general campaign--and that likely will mean "President Donald Trump".
10
Hey, I'm just wondering if there is anyone out there would pay those of us commenting $225,000 per comment. If a few words are worth so much money (rather than something else that those payments are buying), well, shucks, I want in as well.
6
Sure, all candidates should reveal the substance of their paid talks. Someone has to be first to go and it might as well be Hillary; anything less just makes it looks like she has something to hide. While at it, it would be revealing to show the contracts for these presentations; her 'everywoman' persona would likely crumble with the specific details of her requirements, over and above the amount---which I doubt seriously is simply "what they offered."
3
Hillary says she wants to regulate Wall Street, but not all regulation hurts big business. Regulation can make certain firms (ahem, donors) grow their market share over its competitors or mandate the firm's (ahem, donors) consumers to buy additional services.
5
Obviously, there's a serious reason for Clinton not to release the transcripts, and as the NYT Editorial Board pointed out, she sounds pathetically whiny when it comes to her defense as to why she should make millions making speeches to big banks, and then not want to disclose what she said. She claims "every Secretary of State did it." How ridiculous. Well, not every Secretary of State has been running for the presidency, and possibly outlined assurances in those speeches to protect an unscrupulous industry. All the more reason I suppose, to donate to Bernie Sanders again.
11
This is a very dangerous game for Mrs. Clinton to be playing during an election with clearly anti-establishment overtones. And as for asking why she should be held to a different standard, the answer is simple: She is asking to be elected to the highest office in this country. She should be demanding the higher standard, not trying to hide behind everyone else's.
8
Doubtless, the speeches contain some passages that would sound unsavory to voters. Especially when looked at out of context.
Nevertheless, if anyone can overcome skeletons in the closet and be still standing, it's Mrs. Clinton.
Nevertheless, if anyone can overcome skeletons in the closet and be still standing, it's Mrs. Clinton.
The Clintons have always had an annoying habit of letting small matters become big. This time it could result in a GOP president, senate, and Supreme Court.
In other words. the end of our country as we know it.
In other words. the end of our country as we know it.
8
Another example of a woman being held to a higher standard and a double standard. Has this ever been asked of a male candidate for president, I'm sure they gave many many speeches that might have been deemed controversial.
1
I'm yet to hear an explanation for why Hillary would get more votes in November than Bernie would, that doesn't depend upon the fantasy that there's a block of 'independent' voters who compare (R) and (D) candidate resumes and drift back and forth.
There simply isn't a meaningful number of such voters, although the description fits a bunch of people who never vote.
Rather, the general election winner is the candidate who energizes and inspires sometimes-voters to go to the bother to register and to vote. Obama did this better than Kerry and Gore, which is why he won and they didn't. Obama didn't win a 'qualifications' battle against McCain, and Kerry and Gore didn't lose a 'qualifications' battle against G.W. Bush. McCain, Kerry and Gore clearly had more 'experience' than their opponents, but all 3 lost because they were less able to motivate their supporters who only sometimes bother to vote. Hillary will clearly be more qualified than her opponent, but people: that hasn't mattered in a general election in a very long time.
If you want to win in November, nominate the Obama, not the Kerry/Gore.
There simply isn't a meaningful number of such voters, although the description fits a bunch of people who never vote.
Rather, the general election winner is the candidate who energizes and inspires sometimes-voters to go to the bother to register and to vote. Obama did this better than Kerry and Gore, which is why he won and they didn't. Obama didn't win a 'qualifications' battle against McCain, and Kerry and Gore didn't lose a 'qualifications' battle against G.W. Bush. McCain, Kerry and Gore clearly had more 'experience' than their opponents, but all 3 lost because they were less able to motivate their supporters who only sometimes bother to vote. Hillary will clearly be more qualified than her opponent, but people: that hasn't mattered in a general election in a very long time.
If you want to win in November, nominate the Obama, not the Kerry/Gore.
3
Just when I was getting my head around her shortcomings and accepting that she is deeply flawed but probably the best option for the country, Clinton goes and does it again. Crouches into a defensive position, whines and makes it difficult to reconcile her moral lapses with her pretty ok (not great), least worst positions....argh!
6
Why do we care what the Republicans will or won't release? This is about transparency as it relates to the actions of our Democratic candidates. Secretary Clinton is once again using the very same logic that she used to justify earning exorbitant speaking fees on Wall Street---everybody does it. No, not everybody does.
Just because Republicans lack transparency doesn't mean we should in turn lower our standards as Democrats. Secretary Clinton. is now facing the same cries that greeted Nixon: Please release those tapes and transcripts now.
Just because Republicans lack transparency doesn't mean we should in turn lower our standards as Democrats. Secretary Clinton. is now facing the same cries that greeted Nixon: Please release those tapes and transcripts now.
7
Everyone does do it, all well-known politicians give speeches and get paid for it, why wouldn't they? And all national politicians need to raise money. We are making mountains out of molehills. I say this as someone who is not a Hillary supporter. I am honestly not interested in what she said at these speeches. The real issue is campaign finance reform.
Note to everyone crying double standard: Check out the situation of Virginia's former governor, Bob McDonnell, who received a tiny, tiny fraction of the money Hillary did, and did nothing to benefit the donor. But the donor was given immunity for his own SEC troubles to testify against him. And now, unless he wins his appeal, McDonnell is going to jail.
Although I don't agree with Gov. McDonnell politically--am a Democrat, voting for Bernie--I respect him, and I think that's a double standard.
Not to mention, the everybody does it excuse is disheartening to say the least--isn't a great leader someone who goes above and beyond, character-wise, what "everybody" else is doing?
Although I don't agree with Gov. McDonnell politically--am a Democrat, voting for Bernie--I respect him, and I think that's a double standard.
Not to mention, the everybody does it excuse is disheartening to say the least--isn't a great leader someone who goes above and beyond, character-wise, what "everybody" else is doing?
8
Are we entering an era of growing citizen activism, you think?
1
Stalling is not a good idea. Being open and transparent w/us voters is.
6
I abhor any candidate who is so inexperienced and so unrealistic that no one really cares what he thinks, like Bernie. So....he never gets invited or paid to speak. He never gets asked to be Secretary of State. Or any other position that prepares you for POTUS. Wow! No problem. No transcripts! No mistakes. Voter beware! If you are worried about gridlock and lack of progress, go with the old white guy who has done little or nothing since joining public life. Feeling the Bern? Not me. I'll go with Hillary.
1
Oh, really, what do you think they hired her to say? To talk about if she were President she would regulate the heck out of them? Of course not. They paid to hear her speak from her experience. If you really think, back then, she was making campaign promises to Wall Street, you need to have your head examined. Why would Wall Street PAY her to hear that? Today I heard her being attacked for what her husband did getting tough on crime...If we spent more time looking at candidates deeds, rather than picking apart every word they ever spoke, we would have a better idea about what kind of President they would be!
1
What's in the transcripts is irrelevant, even if there IS something juicy there. What's FAR more important is deflating the speculative balloon that's inflating around her. The PERCEPTION that they're important to her fuels this speculation, while if she treats them like they were transcripts of what she mumbles about before coffee in the morning, no one would care and the problem would evaporate--poof!
2
If it's about politics, then fine she can release them, and maybe that will help her in the campaign, although I doubt it. But she has no moral, not civic obligation to do that. She was a private citizen doing a job. And if I thought that once she released her speeches that would be the end to the witch hunt - and yes, that phrase is intentional - then fine. But you and I and the American people know that she will be again and again asked to release this document or that document and then more and more and more. It will never end.
So now anyone can ask the question - why doesn't the Times release the minutes of all editorial meetings? If you balk, you're stonewalling. Why doesn't Sanders release the text of speeches he made in favor of revolutionary governments, including Iran. Or the speeches that he made about dumping nuclear waste on a Texas town. Or the minutes of meetings the Burlington College board of trustees of Burlington had when pressuring Jane Sander to resign as president. The American people deserve to know. We also deserve to know whether Mr. Sanders has any investments in Wall Street, what about his Senate retirement fund - is that invested in mutual finds i.e. Wall Street - or does he have some alternate investment vehicle? The American people need to know.
So now anyone can ask the question - why doesn't the Times release the minutes of all editorial meetings? If you balk, you're stonewalling. Why doesn't Sanders release the text of speeches he made in favor of revolutionary governments, including Iran. Or the speeches that he made about dumping nuclear waste on a Texas town. Or the minutes of meetings the Burlington College board of trustees of Burlington had when pressuring Jane Sander to resign as president. The American people deserve to know. We also deserve to know whether Mr. Sanders has any investments in Wall Street, what about his Senate retirement fund - is that invested in mutual finds i.e. Wall Street - or does he have some alternate investment vehicle? The American people need to know.
3
Why should Clinton share what republicans won't? Because the voters who would consider voting for her already know the republicans have weird big money. Sanders sets the standard, not the republicans, for voters concerned about pervasive influence peddling in government. That's the group she needs to reassure.
6
Maybe they are "innocuous", maybe not. But her refusal is in line with her self-perceived privilege. And it is telling what is important to the Clintons as their net worth is 150 million and the Sanders is less than half of one million. The 1% does not get it--we don't want our doctors, teachers, preachers or politicians to be more interested in money than they are interested in us.
7
Hillary should show the transcripts. But the real reason she made ten of millions of $ for speeches was not what she said in the speeches, but rather the assurances of protection the Clintons gave to Wall St. execs in super private meetings.
8
Does anyone believe Clinton was paid those fees to admonish and scold the bankers? Of course, not. She was paid to be a cheerleader and to provide political insights.
It was her false statements implying that she did otherwise that is creating problems for her. If she had just been honest, she wouldn't find herself boxed in like this.
Her problem is that she is a congenital liar. She cannot resist lying when the truth would do. In the Clintons' case, it's always the lie versus the act itself.
This is a preview of what a Clinton White House would be like. One controversy after another. Sure, Clinton is a battle-hardened warrior when it comes to stonewalling and withstanding inquiry and will come through it all just fine, but she will leave the rest of us bruised and weary.
It was her false statements implying that she did otherwise that is creating problems for her. If she had just been honest, she wouldn't find herself boxed in like this.
Her problem is that she is a congenital liar. She cannot resist lying when the truth would do. In the Clintons' case, it's always the lie versus the act itself.
This is a preview of what a Clinton White House would be like. One controversy after another. Sure, Clinton is a battle-hardened warrior when it comes to stonewalling and withstanding inquiry and will come through it all just fine, but she will leave the rest of us bruised and weary.
10
One thing is clear from these comments. A lot of people don't understand that Hillary was not giving the paid speeches to fund her campaign. She was giving the paid speeches to increase her personal wealth. There is a difference.
10
Why would any corporation, bank, or other business interest pay a mind-boggling near-$700,000 "fee" to Mrs. Clinton for a 45-minute speech? Shudder at the obvious answer. And of course many others paid her six figures as well, resulting in her raking in over 11 million in a 12 month period alone. It certainly provides fodder for those who believe it is why she used a private server for all her communications - out of the reach of the FOIA. With a solid majority of Americans believing Clinton to be dishonest and untrustworthy, one must wonder: what was the Democratic Party thinking??
10
I like Clinton's take on this. She's going for the long game. She does not have the same things to hide that republicans do and she's strategic to leverage her speeches that have little to lose against those who do.
Smart move and I hope it gets the equivalent of Romney's infamous "takers" speech that probably looks relatively vanilla to what any republican has said to "corporate" people.
Smart move and I hope it gets the equivalent of Romney's infamous "takers" speech that probably looks relatively vanilla to what any republican has said to "corporate" people.
1
As a long term progressive I will not vote for Hillary unless she releases the text.
I will even go further and vote for any horrible Republican over her silence. This issue is so powerful that it will derail her candidacy.
I will even go further and vote for any horrible Republican over her silence. This issue is so powerful that it will derail her candidacy.
9
Sorry, Hillary is 100% right.
Bernie gets to hide behind the Senate, so NOBODY is allowed to request any information about ANY of his communications.
That's a very convenient use of entrenched Washington establishment rules to gain the upper hand here.
If he waives his Senatorial privilege and allows FOIA requests of his data, then maybe Hillary can reconsider.
This double standard is nauseating.
Bernie gets to hide behind the Senate, so NOBODY is allowed to request any information about ANY of his communications.
That's a very convenient use of entrenched Washington establishment rules to gain the upper hand here.
If he waives his Senatorial privilege and allows FOIA requests of his data, then maybe Hillary can reconsider.
This double standard is nauseating.
2
This is why I am voting for Bernie. Hillary has NO INTENTION of re-regulating wall street or protecting the remaining middle class.
Socrates originally posted this.
Wall Street paid Hillary the following speaking fees in 2013 alone - all in a single year:
Morgan Stanley $225,000
Deutsche Bank $225,000
Fidelity Investments $225,000
Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
Itau BBA USA Securities $225,000
Sanford C. Bernstein $225,000
Goldman Sachs $225,000
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts $225,000
UBS Wealth Management $225,000
Goldman Sachs $225,000 (again)
Goldman Sachs $225,000 (again !)
Golden Tree Asset Management $275,000
Bank of America $225,000
CME Group $225,000
Hillary's TOTAL speaking fee income in just 2013 was $3.2 million from Wall Streeters.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/documents/13/HRC_2013_Speeches_-
This is factual, Hillary, not a smear. You are part of the problem. Your husband helped overturn Glass Steagall, which deregulated the banks. Your husband had bankers like Rubin running our economy. Your daughter is married to a hedge fund guy and bought an apartment recently for $10M, which covers an entire city block. In 15 years you and your husband accumulated $138 Million. You are part of the 1%.
Socrates originally posted this.
Wall Street paid Hillary the following speaking fees in 2013 alone - all in a single year:
Morgan Stanley $225,000
Deutsche Bank $225,000
Fidelity Investments $225,000
Apollo Management Holdings $225,000
Itau BBA USA Securities $225,000
Sanford C. Bernstein $225,000
Goldman Sachs $225,000
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts $225,000
UBS Wealth Management $225,000
Goldman Sachs $225,000 (again)
Goldman Sachs $225,000 (again !)
Golden Tree Asset Management $275,000
Bank of America $225,000
CME Group $225,000
Hillary's TOTAL speaking fee income in just 2013 was $3.2 million from Wall Streeters.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/documents/13/HRC_2013_Speeches_-
This is factual, Hillary, not a smear. You are part of the problem. Your husband helped overturn Glass Steagall, which deregulated the banks. Your husband had bankers like Rubin running our economy. Your daughter is married to a hedge fund guy and bought an apartment recently for $10M, which covers an entire city block. In 15 years you and your husband accumulated $138 Million. You are part of the 1%.
15
Where the NYT is wrong here is that they haven't called for ALL candidates to release their private speaking transcripts.
5
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
We just want to avoid a Romney moment; we need to know that what you say privately is the same as you state publicly.
Thank you in advance for the release.....
We just want to avoid a Romney moment; we need to know that what you say privately is the same as you state publicly.
Thank you in advance for the release.....
9
Donald Trump - Hillary Clinton - Bill Clinton - Tim Geithner - Ben Bernanke - George W. Bush - Larry Summers - Condoleezza Rice - Al Gore - Sarah Palin - David Plouffe - Rudy Guilani -
All have given paid speeches. Why has no one asked for their transcripts?
All have given paid speeches. Why has no one asked for their transcripts?
2
Why single out one candidate in these demands for transparency? Require all public servants and/or candidates to create a public record of speaking engagements. It's either that or we encourage an army of fake waiters or anti-'whatever' activists to go all video commando on such public figures: hardly a reliable vehicle for the truth.
1
"Republicans make no bones about their commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans"? This is a blatantly false statement.
Please cite one example of a Republican politician publicly proclaiming his or her commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Please cite one example of a Republican politician publicly proclaiming his or her commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Remember these same editors endorsed Hillary for the democratic nomination several weeks ago.Hillary's reluctance to release these transcripts means there's damaging comments in them.Hillary has made several mistakes in the last few weeks.this is one example.Example 2 was her response on 60 minutes when asked if she ever lied.Example 3 was her obvious upset at being challenged at a private SCarolina fundraiser about her changing attitude on crime/incarceration.All of this just tells me Hillary is simply not trustworthy or ethical.She has no moral compass and she will say/do anything to be elected.
12
Hillary Clinton's predictable knee-jerk response to any tricky question about her integrity is always the same and can be captured in the old song-line: "Why's everybody always pickin' on me??!!" She is increasingly belligerent and combative with that response, apparently seeing in Donald Trump a model for how to bully, rather than a model in the decent, polite humanity of Bernie Sanders. If the pundits are to be believed when they endlessly cite every known poll on the planet, fool-hardy America is about to take yet another stupid route into the future - the Clinton Road to Worship and Enrichment of the Clintons. Go Bernie, please, we beg of you. You don't have to be so nice to snakes quite willing to go for your neck.
12
While I am not a huge fan of the Clintons and I believe they're pretty much like every other politician, I think the women of America should really pay attention. Mrs. Clinton is the only woman to seriously run for the presidency and she's the only one who has faced these kinds of demands. As best I can remember, no other male president or presidential candidate has ever faced this kind of scrutiny over speeches they've given, and I'm fairly certain many of them have given a lot of paid speeches. Of course they all have one thing she doesn't.
2
Asking for transcripts of Clinton's speeches is almost as ridiculous as the Birthers wanting to see Obama's birth certificate. It's childish to think that Clinton (or anyone) would be making secret deals with Wall St in a room full of hundreds of people. If someone was making deals with Wall St it would be behind closed doors. Obama received substantial contributions from Wall St when he ran for President and he still reformed Wall St.
If you're really concerned about motives, maybe you should ask Sanders for transcripts of his meetings when he visited the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua. We have a lot more to fear from Sanders than Clinton. Even Paul Krugman calls Sanders policies "Voodoo Economics"
If you're really concerned about motives, maybe you should ask Sanders for transcripts of his meetings when he visited the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua. We have a lot more to fear from Sanders than Clinton. Even Paul Krugman calls Sanders policies "Voodoo Economics"
1
This is not a gender issue. It has to do with who she represents. For far too long our elected officials have tried to have it both ways. They want to "represent" us and take money from special interests whom they truly represent. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
We need to demand answers from our elected officials. We need to know whom they truly represent. I wonder why so many are willing to give her a pass on this...
For far too long she's said one thing, but actually "meant" another:
Proof in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matte...
We need to demand answers from our elected officials. We need to know whom they truly represent. I wonder why so many are willing to give her a pass on this...
For far too long she's said one thing, but actually "meant" another:
Proof in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matte...
10
Secretary Clinton was paid a lot of money to give these speeches. The speeches were not private or secret, as they were made to large groups of people. She presumably said something about how the government was or was not working, and her thoughts on the issues. If she wants to receive the nomination and be elected President she should release the transcripts immediately.
12
Hillary is looking at the political landscape before her: she has a better chance of beating Bernie by not divulging this information and the voters will (have already) largely give(n) her a pass. The republicans may hammer her on it in the general, but they can't fault her too much for siding with wall street without exposing their own vulnerabilities to the same criticism.
It's unfortunate that historically as voters we have allowed those who ask us for our votes to avoid telling us who they are and whose interest they truly represent.
We may not have to settle for that this time around. My information is almost entirely third-party sourced - what various media sources convey, but my sense is that in Bernie you really are seeing and hearing what you'll ultimately get.
It's unfortunate that historically as voters we have allowed those who ask us for our votes to avoid telling us who they are and whose interest they truly represent.
We may not have to settle for that this time around. My information is almost entirely third-party sourced - what various media sources convey, but my sense is that in Bernie you really are seeing and hearing what you'll ultimately get.
6
The transcripts would probably show congratulating good job they are doing, which contradicts the statements about rigged economy and reining in the Wall Street. The trust issue will re-surface and could end her bid to party nomination. If she doesn't, she will loose in general election, because republicans would not be as gentle as Sanders. Either way, she will loose.
4
Here we go again. First, Hillary's private email server was off-limits to Congress and anyone else who wanted to see all of her emails while Secretary of State. Then, the "private" emails were deleted -- because, duh, they were "private." It was no big deal until she made it one. Now, after claiming that her speeches to banks and other corporate donors were innocuous, she refuses to release them until everyone else does. No one else was exploring a presidential candidacy while making speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop. Now, Hillary will be pounded and pounded until she releases the transcripts -- all of them.
6
The private server/email scandal shows that Hillary is not transparent and this issue over the payoffs by Wall Street for "speeches" is the same behavior. This is a pay to play deal similar to the contributions to the "Clinton Foundation"
There are themes that run through this behavior and to overlook them because any one is better than a republican is cheapens ones integrity.
I would rather fight for Bernie that lose my soul with Hillary.
There are themes that run through this behavior and to overlook them because any one is better than a republican is cheapens ones integrity.
I would rather fight for Bernie that lose my soul with Hillary.
9
The Clintons have long had an aversion to the truth,,,,If the transcripts where as boring as the Clinton surrogates claim she would probably would release them....If she made no promises to the boys from Wall street , she would in my opinion release them. If however she made promises to her payers that may dissuade her from ever letting them be released.. Personally I do not believe she will ever release them.
Perhaps you should review her record on equality particularly in her White House Years and he 2008 run against the President....
Perhaps you should review her record on equality particularly in her White House Years and he 2008 run against the President....
5
Bravo, Editorial Board!!
What a country! Go, Bernie! Go, Bernie!!
What a country! Go, Bernie! Go, Bernie!!
10
First, let’s see transcripts of Bernie Sanders’ meetings with Communist and Socialist dictators, such as the one he had with Daniel Ortega and his officials in a visit largely financed by the Sandinista government. Sanders arrived in Nicaragua in a car furnished by the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Though perhaps not in the meeting, the event was attended by dignitaries from many of the communist Eastern Bloc countries.
Let’s see the NYT release a transcript of Sanders’ essay he wrote as a thirty year old mayor, “A Man and A Woman” with its abusive sexual imagery. Next, perhaps a report of money Sanders’ family has received from his campaign since 2000 for “consultative services”.
No Republican. Democrat or Independent running for office has ever been asked to release transcripts of all HIS speeches. I resent the constant stone throwing by the Republicans, the Berniistas, Fox News and other media. This catchy little idea spread by the Sanders team is just another chapter in misogyny and public scapegoating. Any anti-Hillary idea is promoted by media, but some of us are not buying what they are selling and can anticipate every little morsel from any transcript would start a new feeding frenzy.
Let’s see the NYT release a transcript of Sanders’ essay he wrote as a thirty year old mayor, “A Man and A Woman” with its abusive sexual imagery. Next, perhaps a report of money Sanders’ family has received from his campaign since 2000 for “consultative services”.
No Republican. Democrat or Independent running for office has ever been asked to release transcripts of all HIS speeches. I resent the constant stone throwing by the Republicans, the Berniistas, Fox News and other media. This catchy little idea spread by the Sanders team is just another chapter in misogyny and public scapegoating. Any anti-Hillary idea is promoted by media, but some of us are not buying what they are selling and can anticipate every little morsel from any transcript would start a new feeding frenzy.
2
There are now only two Democratic candidates in the race.
Following is the FULL transcript of Bernie Sanders paid speeches to bankers:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Following is the FULL transcript of Bernie Sanders paid speeches to bankers:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
9
It is well known that Mrs Clinton is attaching herself to Mr Obama for political reasons, not personal (Mr Obama beware). She is vowing to protect his legacy which is like telling Mr Obama, by attaching myself to you at the hip, I will run as a pro Obama administration candidate. While it is only too well known that Bill Clinton had no love for the previous democratic President Jimmy Carter (and it was mutual), he similarly had and has no love for Mr Obama, except that his wife was Sec of State in Mr Obama's administration. Here, in Bill Clinton's own words, “I’ve heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I’ve heard from Obama. I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever. Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s an amateur.”
14
She's a noted person who was on the speaker circuit.
Companies et al hire famous people to speak at conferences. Both internal and external.
Therefore the money she earned was personal, same for anyone else who does this.
These were not campaign speeches, and transcripts are the property of Goldman Sachs et al. Therefore submitting these would be a violation of their contract.
I wish that Bernie Sanders would get a clue. He doesn't have this issue because nobody wants to pay to hear him speak.
Companies et al hire famous people to speak at conferences. Both internal and external.
Therefore the money she earned was personal, same for anyone else who does this.
These were not campaign speeches, and transcripts are the property of Goldman Sachs et al. Therefore submitting these would be a violation of their contract.
I wish that Bernie Sanders would get a clue. He doesn't have this issue because nobody wants to pay to hear him speak.
2
There is a trust issue with Clinton and may loose general election on this issue alone. In democratic primary, she can win the party nomination with strong black support, but in general election, it is not that helpful. So, it is better to come out now so that it can be treated as an old story. If she feels that a release is a suicide, she is not going to release and that confirms she is dishonest. Either way she is stuck between rock and hard place. NYT is correct to advice her to put the issue behind now.
8
Such evasiveness reduces her trustworthiness in my eyes. The longer she fails to produce the transcripts, the greater the suspicion that she was "kkissing up" to the big banks and wealthy corporate donors whom she disengenuosly claims she will reform. She may have the experience to be president, but she lacks the integrity and transparency for voters to trust her.
8
Let's get real: everybody knows why Clinton doesn't want to release the transcripts.
But the real thing is: democrats don't have an excuse to vote for her in the primaries because of this. It's easy to play the innocence card to hide your cynicism/conservative self. In this era of internet, where the careers of each pre-candidate is easily available, it can't be used as an excuse.
That said, I think there is a lot of closeted conservatives in the democrat voter base. There's simply no logic argument that can prove Clinton is better than Sanders. Even the pragmatist argument of winning the national elections against the republicans does not apply anymore.
But the real thing is: democrats don't have an excuse to vote for her in the primaries because of this. It's easy to play the innocence card to hide your cynicism/conservative self. In this era of internet, where the careers of each pre-candidate is easily available, it can't be used as an excuse.
That said, I think there is a lot of closeted conservatives in the democrat voter base. There's simply no logic argument that can prove Clinton is better than Sanders. Even the pragmatist argument of winning the national elections against the republicans does not apply anymore.
3
Why are we demanding a higher level of transparency from Mrs. Clinton than we are from other candidates, particularly since her emails have revealed probably revealed much more about her than her "best foot forward" public policy speeches ever could?
This request does nothing more than feed an overarching narrative that she has she has "something to hide". If she wins, and that is looking less and less likely, she will have been the most vetted President in the history of the United States.
This request does nothing more than feed an overarching narrative that she has she has "something to hide". If she wins, and that is looking less and less likely, she will have been the most vetted President in the history of the United States.
1
When Richard Nixon was vice president, he fought his natural paranoia to release his income tax returns, which one of the news magazines treated as a "scoop."
Still in my early teens and with zero aptitude for accounting, I took a look at them. I then discovered that he had given a donation of $100 to the Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts: Pretty racy stuff!
Mrs. Clinton might consider steeling herself for a few days of criticism, releasing the blasted transcripts, and then enduring 48 hours of being flayed alive--rather than this constant, ongoing water torture of drip, drip, drip. Elsewise, she might discover, as both Mr. Nixon and her own husband would come to find, the cover-up is worse than whatever transgression has been committed.
Still in my early teens and with zero aptitude for accounting, I took a look at them. I then discovered that he had given a donation of $100 to the Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts: Pretty racy stuff!
Mrs. Clinton might consider steeling herself for a few days of criticism, releasing the blasted transcripts, and then enduring 48 hours of being flayed alive--rather than this constant, ongoing water torture of drip, drip, drip. Elsewise, she might discover, as both Mr. Nixon and her own husband would come to find, the cover-up is worse than whatever transgression has been committed.
5
First Lady. Twice. Secretary of State. Running for the White House. Twice. One standard for her and one for everybody else. Yes. It has to be clear by now. Clinton should know that. Ask any female baby boomer. It is like being her own enemy all over. Again. Just show the world the transcripts and think if there is additional information you will share. Disclosure. Disclosure. Disclosure. It will be healthy to think like the lawyer she are.
There are Americans counting on Clinton to win the nomination and, the job for the White House. There is too much at risk with populists Trump or Sanders (not mentioning other Republicans candidates).
Whatever Clinton said will not sound half as bad as what we heard from her opponents. Her greatest challenge next eight months will be to demonstrate transparency. Please.
There are Americans counting on Clinton to win the nomination and, the job for the White House. There is too much at risk with populists Trump or Sanders (not mentioning other Republicans candidates).
Whatever Clinton said will not sound half as bad as what we heard from her opponents. Her greatest challenge next eight months will be to demonstrate transparency. Please.
"That's what they offered, "Everyone does it," leaders don't make those statements. Those excuses are made by shysters, trying to justify their villainy. Hillary doesn't get it, yet maybe she does--it's her utter contempt for her own constituency. She's confident, that the progressive image she groomed over the decades, will transcend her transgressions, and dubious deals.
Hillary recently proclaimed, that she won't release those transcripts until others do. But the only other, she is running against "now" is Bernie Sanders. Again, her inverted logic is rooted in her arrogance, and audacity which continues to give life to her lack of integrity.
Hillary recently proclaimed, that she won't release those transcripts until others do. But the only other, she is running against "now" is Bernie Sanders. Again, her inverted logic is rooted in her arrogance, and audacity which continues to give life to her lack of integrity.
7
I could not disagree more. Hillary has been subject to witch hunt after witch hunt and I completely agree she needn't disclose anything more than anyone else does ie let's demand everyone disclose their activities. She is currently running against Bernie, yes, but ultimately will be running against the republican candidate so it is appropriate her activities be weighed with theirs, not Bernies. If the consultants hired to vet her background "overlooked" these speeches, it is probably because they were not expected to be problematic, ie common practice as she claims. Chances are she'd be happy to disclose transcripts - just make it a standard for everyone. Enough of the witch hunt.
2
"That's what they offered, "Everyone does it," leaders don't make those statements. Those excuses are made by shysters, trying to justify their villainy. Hillary doesn't get it, yet maybe she does--it's her utter contempt for her own constituency. She's confident, that the progressive image she groomed over the decades, will transcend her transgressions, and dubious deals.
Hillary recently proclaimed, that she won't release those transcripts until others do. But the only other, she is running against "now" is Bernie Sanders. Again, her inverted logic is rooted in her arrogance, and audacity which continues to give life to her lack of integrity.
Hillary recently proclaimed, that she won't release those transcripts until others do. But the only other, she is running against "now" is Bernie Sanders. Again, her inverted logic is rooted in her arrogance, and audacity which continues to give life to her lack of integrity.
10
The speaking fees in excess of $200K that Hillary took repeatedly from major banks and Wall Street are about four times bigger than the median annual household income in this country, ~$54K. In other words, such an average family needs to work for about four years in order to make what Hillary received for a single pleasant afternoon on Wall Street. Clearly, her greed was stronger than whatever sense of decency she may have. Also stronger than basic common sense, which should have told her that taking such obscene fees would make mockery of her claim to be the fighter for the middle class and poor.
9
If Mrs. Clinton, a private citizen no longer in office, was paid to offer her extraordinary insight and experience in a speech to a commercial client, without violating any confidentiality, it would seem a legitimate purchase of a valuable resource by that client. It would, likewise, seem unfair to now require that the opinions expressed at that time now be freely shared with competing organizations.
2
Hillary says she wants to regulate Wall Street, but it's important to remember that not all regulation necessarily burdens an industry.
Regulation can make certain firms (ahem, donors) grow their market share over its competitors or mandate the firm's (ahem, donors) consumers to buy additional required services.
Regulation can be a cash cow for certain forms (ahem, donors). It's why they spend so much time rent seeking in lobbying and proposing regulatory language, in taking on their competitors in the DC offices rather than the market, and getting their executives appointed to lead federal agencies.
Regulation can make certain firms (ahem, donors) grow their market share over its competitors or mandate the firm's (ahem, donors) consumers to buy additional required services.
Regulation can be a cash cow for certain forms (ahem, donors). It's why they spend so much time rent seeking in lobbying and proposing regulatory language, in taking on their competitors in the DC offices rather than the market, and getting their executives appointed to lead federal agencies.
3
Hillary says she wants to regulate Wall Street, but it's important to remember that not all regulation necessarily burdens an industry.
Regulation can make certain firms (ahem, donors) grow their market share over its competitors or mandate the firm's (ahem, donors) consumers to buy additional required services.
Regulation can greatly benefit certain forms (ahem, donors). It's why they spend so much time rent seeking in lobbying and proposing regulatory language, in taking on their competitors in the DC offices rather than the market, and getting their executives appointed to lead federal agencies.
Regulation can make certain firms (ahem, donors) grow their market share over its competitors or mandate the firm's (ahem, donors) consumers to buy additional required services.
Regulation can greatly benefit certain forms (ahem, donors). It's why they spend so much time rent seeking in lobbying and proposing regulatory language, in taking on their competitors in the DC offices rather than the market, and getting their executives appointed to lead federal agencies.
6
Yes, so let's force Hillary to disclose the contents of the speeches so that the Repubs can take them and misquote and misrepresent and take out of context from here all the way to November. Maybe they'll convince a lot of people (re: Benghazi, re: email server) that Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy, and maybe we'll end up with a Republican president. Now won't that be just wonderful!
1
Why bother? it is more of a headache than it is worth, as her enemies— left and right— will selectively and misleadingly pick out isolated sentences and post them out of context to portray her position as evidence of this or that contradicting that or this. No one running for office today has had her personal and political life subjected to more exploratory surgery and more vicious attack than her. I have never voted in a presidential election where I did not wish I had a different choice, but we have what we have and she could have said some nice things about the gargoyles of Wall Street and I will still vote for her. I don't think she turns into Satan by, when out of office, making some money off her well earned reputation by giving a speech that does not offend an audience paying a lot of money to listen to her.
1
It does not matters what Ms. Clinton said in her bank-funded speeches. As anyone familiar with lobbyists and corporations knows, what someone says in a paid speech is irrelevant. All the corruption occurred before the speech. Rich people did not become rich by wasting money. They do not care what Ms. Clinton says in her speech to them. They care that when they pay her and her husband money, they do the things that help that company even if it puts a lot more African Americans in prison sends a lot of Americans' jobs out of the country. When pharmaceutical companies pay for doctors to go to Hawaii and be wined and dined for free and call it an honorarium that the doctor is going to speak at, it does not matter what the doctor says in his speech. The fact that he will prescribe that companies' drugs to people when much cheaper, equally effective ones are available is what matters. That is how the system works. It hurts me as an American to see that when someone wants something from the government, all they need is a large enough bribe to the right people. We can do better and as Americans, we deserve better. While people in other countries like Syria often run away when things get difficult in their country, we fought it out through the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and the civil rights era afterwards so we could have the country that we wanted. We must demand and work towards a better system.
11
It is sad to read the comments from the Hillary supporters adopting the victim stance "why me" instead of addressing Clinton's profound character flaws and lack of judgment.
The Clinton supporters should be grateful that the mainstream media have given Hillary a complete pass on the way she lied to convince Obama to support the overthrow of Qaddafi.
History will not be so unforgiving. The facts will emerge.
Libya is now a failed state, a humanitarian catastrophe and a stronghold for ISIS.
The NYT has completely neglected its duty by refusing to inform the readership that Amnesty International has said that the coalition forces that invaded "need to be held to account for the horrors that have unfolded in Libya."
Instead, Hillary stood up on CNN the other night and stated that the elections held in Libya were actually a tremendous achievement.
For Hillary to continue tout her foreign policy successes as proof of her fitness for the presidency is so divorced from reality that it is psychotic.
As a registered Independent, I will be voting for Bernie.
In the general election, if my choices are between Hillary the psychotic or the embarrassing bully Trump, I will cast that ballot for Trump without hesitation.
The NYT eviscerates Bernie because his plans are unrealistic, but Hillary's plans to end racism and sexism, along with her noble plan to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East are reasonable goals.
It's the war criminal thing, stupid.
The Clinton supporters should be grateful that the mainstream media have given Hillary a complete pass on the way she lied to convince Obama to support the overthrow of Qaddafi.
History will not be so unforgiving. The facts will emerge.
Libya is now a failed state, a humanitarian catastrophe and a stronghold for ISIS.
The NYT has completely neglected its duty by refusing to inform the readership that Amnesty International has said that the coalition forces that invaded "need to be held to account for the horrors that have unfolded in Libya."
Instead, Hillary stood up on CNN the other night and stated that the elections held in Libya were actually a tremendous achievement.
For Hillary to continue tout her foreign policy successes as proof of her fitness for the presidency is so divorced from reality that it is psychotic.
As a registered Independent, I will be voting for Bernie.
In the general election, if my choices are between Hillary the psychotic or the embarrassing bully Trump, I will cast that ballot for Trump without hesitation.
The NYT eviscerates Bernie because his plans are unrealistic, but Hillary's plans to end racism and sexism, along with her noble plan to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East are reasonable goals.
It's the war criminal thing, stupid.
10
First, It is important to point out that elected officials aren't even allowed to accept large speaking fees - only minimal honorariums. Sanders did not therefore have a choice in the matter. Clinton was a private citizen at the time and could set fees commensurate to demand. It is specious to compare the relative fees received as somehow representative of any moral stance on Sanders part.
Second, I don't understand why Democrats want Clinton to release any transcripts which no matter how innocuous could be picked apart by Republicans completely out of context? That is ridiculous and buying into this Hillary Clinton murky conspiracy paranoia. For heavens sake, people are foaming at the mouth to read transcripts of speeches they would probably have either made every excuse to skip out on at the time or dozed thru had they attended!
Second, I don't understand why Democrats want Clinton to release any transcripts which no matter how innocuous could be picked apart by Republicans completely out of context? That is ridiculous and buying into this Hillary Clinton murky conspiracy paranoia. For heavens sake, people are foaming at the mouth to read transcripts of speeches they would probably have either made every excuse to skip out on at the time or dozed thru had they attended!
First, It is important to point out that elected officials aren't even allowed to accept large speaking fees - only minimal honorariums. Sanders did not therefore have a choice in the matter. Clinton was a private citizen at the time and could set fees commensurate to demand. It is specious to compare the relative fees received as somehow representative of any moral stance on Sanders part.
Second, I don't understand why Democrats want Clinton to release any transcripts which no matter how innocuous could be picked apart by Republicans completely out of context? That is ridiculous and only fueling this Hillary Clinton murky conspiracy paranoia backlash. For heavens sake, people are foaming at the mouth to read transcripts of speeches they would probably have either made every excuse to skip out on at the time or dozed thru had they attended!
Second, I don't understand why Democrats want Clinton to release any transcripts which no matter how innocuous could be picked apart by Republicans completely out of context? That is ridiculous and only fueling this Hillary Clinton murky conspiracy paranoia backlash. For heavens sake, people are foaming at the mouth to read transcripts of speeches they would probably have either made every excuse to skip out on at the time or dozed thru had they attended!
Trump claims credit for his wealth and savvy business acumen, but refuses to release his tax returns on the lame excuse that they are under "audit." HRC claims that she is born-again populist who will stand up to Wall Street, but refuses to release the speeches that she was paid $11 million by that devil to give. Both decisions are the product of cynical political calculation made by hypocritical front-runners, who believe that they can continue to fool enough of the voters long enough to secure their respective parties' nomination. Sadly, both are probably right. Sadly, the people will once again elect a president that they deserve.
5
Finally an editorial I can get onboard with. Happy to see I'm not the only one shocked that someone who's asking for our votes to lead the free world has the audacity to say she'll wait in line not only behind Sanders, but behind a pack of random republicans on this seemingly trivial issue. Release the transcripts!
I see echoes of Hillary's 'double standard' argument in many of these comments. Alternatively, many folks saying, 'she's been through so much,' or 'everyone is always flinging mud at her.' These are total non sequiturs, and go right to the heart of the weakness of Hillary's candidacy. She is the perfect candidate on paper, from Wellesley all the way to State and the Senate. But Hillary the flesh and blood person is defined by an odd sense of entitlement and secrecy. Her wounds are almost entirely self-inflicted.
I see echoes of Hillary's 'double standard' argument in many of these comments. Alternatively, many folks saying, 'she's been through so much,' or 'everyone is always flinging mud at her.' These are total non sequiturs, and go right to the heart of the weakness of Hillary's candidacy. She is the perfect candidate on paper, from Wellesley all the way to State and the Senate. But Hillary the flesh and blood person is defined by an odd sense of entitlement and secrecy. Her wounds are almost entirely self-inflicted.
9
This is a defining election cycle the country is entering, one that has the potential to reinvigorate American democracy by making candidates and the policies they advocate accountable to all the citizenry. Hillary Clinton's speeches to anyone regarding government and economic policy should be a matter for public scrutiny and debate. Her failure to this point in releasing transcripts unredacted for that examination is beyond troubling. It points to either a fear of accountability on her campaign's part, an assumption that raises further issues, or the recognition that what she had to say in those speeches will harm her chances for the White House. In either case, her credibility suffers and credibility is one of the qualities most in demand by the electorate. Should she continue to delay the release of transcripts of these private talks, her trustworthiness becomes more and more open to question- a potentially fatal flaw in a general election.
5
What a school marmish editorial, of course, deflecting from the fact that the media - way back in the campaign - should have asked ALL the candidates to release their transcripts of paid speeches whether paid directly or by the support of super pacs. After all don't Dr. Carson and Ms. Fiorina make their living primarily as speakers now? Wasn't Mike Huckabee selling weight loss products (dubious ones at that)? But no, the editors opine that Mrs. Clinton's success as a sought after speaker suddenly becomes a detriment affecting her liberal creds since only she has been the most successful. I guess the USA no longer admires success but instead it is suspect in our new brave world. As to the false analogy to Mr. Sandersity bity speeches of decades ago - he might not be paid directly but his union generated super pacs are a form of payment and perhaps the media and others might be interested to know what he has promised unions. While I am sure I would be supportive there are many voters that would not be - yet no clamor to hear about his appearances at those events. Let's not even start on the Republicans Cruz, Rubio and the others. It truly is a double standard.
2
Lately in both national print and broadcast media, and especially, in this critical impending presidential election cycle; that features enough characters to complete a novel of comedy or tragedy. The media seems to have overreached their status as the 4th rung of power in American governance: Executive, Congress, Supreme Court; and lastly, the Press. The media, it seems, from my observations are trying to manipulate who the American people elect as president. And if you watch them closely, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are not their favorites. Since the electorate/people in early caucuses and primaries have favored Trump and Clinton, the media has focused more on these two with prosecutorial questions as if to uncover wrong doing and sullen images of these two leading candidates. And, this article by the NYT's editorial is just a case in point. Despite the overreach, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. However, the repeated barrage of these type of unfair questions may weaken her in the general election. A similar methodology is being used against Trump and is being fueled by the GOP establishment that feel he would be a uncontrollable; his own man president, and not the puppet candidate they are accustom to manipulating. The national media is not comfortable with a Trump or Clinton. Rubio is a programmable toy. Cruz is a reincarnated 50's McCarthy; Sander's, the Independent is unelectable; so, that leaves us with former governor of Ohio.
2
Let us address the elephant in this power-non-sharing room.
High speaker fees are the very definition of mainstream success, and still an unprecedented exception for women. Shut out of "Old Boys Club" systems and not able to make powerful career advancement because of it, women have struggled to remove "No Girls Allowed" signs in business, sports, higher education, and the arts. But they still remain. Until we see large speaking fees for more women being the norm and not the exception, Clinton’s success can be seen as a significant raising of the bar for professional women. There is no level playing field for women competing with men in this world.
Is it just lip service to say there should be more female CEOs, bank presidents & Hollywood film directors, but women who actually make it to that level are derided as Establishment Sellouts? Talk about crazy making! 227 years after (the first) George's inauguration, is it not a kind of sickness to now deride over and over again as an Establishment Sellout the only woman to ever be in a position to actually achieve this gold standard of American success, growing up to be President of the United States? It is unspeakably distressing as a mother of a young daughter to imagine what this models to her.
On October 22, 2014, Hillary Clinton was invited to Goldman Sachs to give a speech at a dinner honoring young women entrepreneurs. That speech is available for all who would like to listen. How many will? http://tinyurl.com/jhcvkuk
High speaker fees are the very definition of mainstream success, and still an unprecedented exception for women. Shut out of "Old Boys Club" systems and not able to make powerful career advancement because of it, women have struggled to remove "No Girls Allowed" signs in business, sports, higher education, and the arts. But they still remain. Until we see large speaking fees for more women being the norm and not the exception, Clinton’s success can be seen as a significant raising of the bar for professional women. There is no level playing field for women competing with men in this world.
Is it just lip service to say there should be more female CEOs, bank presidents & Hollywood film directors, but women who actually make it to that level are derided as Establishment Sellouts? Talk about crazy making! 227 years after (the first) George's inauguration, is it not a kind of sickness to now deride over and over again as an Establishment Sellout the only woman to ever be in a position to actually achieve this gold standard of American success, growing up to be President of the United States? It is unspeakably distressing as a mother of a young daughter to imagine what this models to her.
On October 22, 2014, Hillary Clinton was invited to Goldman Sachs to give a speech at a dinner honoring young women entrepreneurs. That speech is available for all who would like to listen. How many will? http://tinyurl.com/jhcvkuk
3
As a supporter of Hillary, she can do what she wants. I have already made of my mind, in '08 to be exact, when I voted for her in the primary, and before that, for the Senate in '00 and '06.
When it comes to politics, I have a closed mind. That may sound terrible. I see it differently. Sports fans pride themselves on their loyalty to a team. Through thick and thin, they never waver. It has to do with where someone is born, their family, or where their roots lie. So it is with me when it comes to politics.
In the seven decades I've spent on this spinning blue marble for over a half century I have been a Democrat. From JFK to BHO, I have supported the Democratic candidate, though in '68 with much trepidation. Those old enough to remember will know why. Those who don't know, and don't care, need not read any further. As a lifelong liberal in a viable two-party system the only choices are heads or tails. I'm fine with "third" parties, a term which means a myriad of parties. But I am of the belief that I want my vote to matter as much as it can.
As a native New Yorker, except for ' 72 and '84, which went Republican, one could say my vote doesn't matter. Nonetheless, I have and will continue to vote. Now, If I lived in Chicago during old man Mayor Daley's reign, I would have the luxury of voting past my expiration date. In Chi-town, once a Dem always a Dem, even after one passes. It's politics, folks. Always has been, always will be.
DD
Manhattan
When it comes to politics, I have a closed mind. That may sound terrible. I see it differently. Sports fans pride themselves on their loyalty to a team. Through thick and thin, they never waver. It has to do with where someone is born, their family, or where their roots lie. So it is with me when it comes to politics.
In the seven decades I've spent on this spinning blue marble for over a half century I have been a Democrat. From JFK to BHO, I have supported the Democratic candidate, though in '68 with much trepidation. Those old enough to remember will know why. Those who don't know, and don't care, need not read any further. As a lifelong liberal in a viable two-party system the only choices are heads or tails. I'm fine with "third" parties, a term which means a myriad of parties. But I am of the belief that I want my vote to matter as much as it can.
As a native New Yorker, except for ' 72 and '84, which went Republican, one could say my vote doesn't matter. Nonetheless, I have and will continue to vote. Now, If I lived in Chicago during old man Mayor Daley's reign, I would have the luxury of voting past my expiration date. In Chi-town, once a Dem always a Dem, even after one passes. It's politics, folks. Always has been, always will be.
DD
Manhattan
1
The transcripts should be released. Since she demanded in her contract that no recordings of the speeches ecept for transcriptions recorded by her personal transcriptionist, there should also be an attestation by the transcription its that the transcription is accurate and unaltered, or if altered, what the alterations are. In addition, all those in attendance should be identified and freed of any restrictions on their ability to discuss the contents of the speeches. It is my understanding that in the contract she demanded transportation to the event to be via private jet of a minimal size and that accommodations be in the presidential suite of a luxury hotel of her choice.
She should release the content of the contract and the company paying for the speech, travel and accommodations be required to provide the records documenting those expenses. Doctors are required to provide information of any payments by pharmaceutical companies, it is time our elected and appointed public officials did the same regarding payments or transfers to them of any cash, gifts, or services provided to them by groups and individuals so that that public can be aware whenever they have a conflict of interest. This should also be required of Justices of the Supreme Court. The other justices should then decide whether a Justice should recuse themselves from a case because of such a conflict of interest.
She should release the content of the contract and the company paying for the speech, travel and accommodations be required to provide the records documenting those expenses. Doctors are required to provide information of any payments by pharmaceutical companies, it is time our elected and appointed public officials did the same regarding payments or transfers to them of any cash, gifts, or services provided to them by groups and individuals so that that public can be aware whenever they have a conflict of interest. This should also be required of Justices of the Supreme Court. The other justices should then decide whether a Justice should recuse themselves from a case because of such a conflict of interest.
3
The transcripts should be released. Since she demanded in her contract that no recordings of the speeches ecept for transcriptions recorded by her personal transcriptionist, there should also be an attestation by the transcriptionist that the transcription is accurate and unaltered, or if altered, what the alterations are. In addition, all those in attendance should be identified and freed of any restrictions on their ability to discuss the contents of the speeches. It is my understanding that in the contract she demanded transportation to the event to be via private jet of a minimal size and that accommodations be in the presidential suite of a luxury hotel of her choice.
She should release the content of the contract. The company paying for the speech, travel and accommodations should be required to provide the records documenting those expenses. Doctors are required to provide information of any payments by pharmaceutical companies, it is time our elected and appointed public officials did the same regarding payments or transfers to them of any cash, gifts, or services provided to them by groups and individuals so that the public can be aware whenever they have a conflict of interest. This should also be required of Justices of the Supreme Court. The other justices should then decide whether a Justice should recuse themselves from a case because of such a conflict of interest.
It is time we cleaned up the graft and corrupt present in our government and courts.
She should release the content of the contract. The company paying for the speech, travel and accommodations should be required to provide the records documenting those expenses. Doctors are required to provide information of any payments by pharmaceutical companies, it is time our elected and appointed public officials did the same regarding payments or transfers to them of any cash, gifts, or services provided to them by groups and individuals so that the public can be aware whenever they have a conflict of interest. This should also be required of Justices of the Supreme Court. The other justices should then decide whether a Justice should recuse themselves from a case because of such a conflict of interest.
It is time we cleaned up the graft and corrupt present in our government and courts.
8
The other issue the NYT needs to address is the private email server. Some may see this as an irrelevant distraction, but think of what the NYT would be saying if a Republican candidate had:
1. Set up an non-secure server in her home to store official communications, thereby avoiding government systems subject to FOIA requests.
2. When asked to provide copies of official State Department communications, only paper (and pdf) copies are provided. This allows for potential editing of those emails and the removal of electronic information that might be embarrassing.
3. Only those emails selected by the candidate are released and everything on the server is deleted to prevent further disclosure. Copies of emails sent or received by other parties reveals that the candidate did not disclose everything, but the extent of non-disclosure is unknowable.
The likely disclosure of highly classified information to Russia, China, Iran, and others is a major concern, but in my mind it's secondary to the whole issue of why there was a private email server in the first place.
The evasion and secretiveness would have made Nixon proud. And this is the candidate the Democratic establishment is promoting? Heaven help us if we are forced to choose between Trump and Clinton this November.
1. Set up an non-secure server in her home to store official communications, thereby avoiding government systems subject to FOIA requests.
2. When asked to provide copies of official State Department communications, only paper (and pdf) copies are provided. This allows for potential editing of those emails and the removal of electronic information that might be embarrassing.
3. Only those emails selected by the candidate are released and everything on the server is deleted to prevent further disclosure. Copies of emails sent or received by other parties reveals that the candidate did not disclose everything, but the extent of non-disclosure is unknowable.
The likely disclosure of highly classified information to Russia, China, Iran, and others is a major concern, but in my mind it's secondary to the whole issue of why there was a private email server in the first place.
The evasion and secretiveness would have made Nixon proud. And this is the candidate the Democratic establishment is promoting? Heaven help us if we are forced to choose between Trump and Clinton this November.
7
Just as expected, Clinton will say anything and everything and then change it to say something else. Enough said.
13
Until she releases them, it's fair to assume the worst.
14
More slime from the NYT for HRC. Don't you get tired of this, NYT? I sure am.
1
More media bias against Hillary. Constantly being held to a different standard than other candidates. If this editorial had demanded transcripts from all candidates it would have been fair, but it's obviously done to provoke more negativity towards Hillary. She's the only candidate from either party that has the brains and experience to run this country. She's got my vote in spite of the media campaign against her!
1
This is nonsense. We know that Clinton was paid generously to make speeches to powerful groups. This is not unusual for somebody who has been a First Lady, senator, or Secretary of State. If the Sanders campaign wants to comb through hours of these speeches to use a couple of contextless quotes, they should at least have the decency to not ask Clinton for help.
1
Who cares? More muckraking.
1
Hillary Clinton is guilty of running for President while female. Why else would she have to release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street while she was a private citizen? Why does Clinton have to jump through all the hoops and Sanders goes unvetted? Why don’t you do your job to vet Sanders’?
The voters have a right to know more about Sanders’ than the repetitious stump speech. Ask Sanders to release the transcripts of all his speeches endorsing Noam Chomsky, speeches at the Liberty Union Party. Release the itineraries of his “good will” trips to USSR, Cuba and Nicaragua as mayor of a minor city. Why did he found the American People’s Historical Society?
According to the National Review, the Liberty Union party Sanders belonged to in the 1970s “sometimes ran its own candidates but generally endorsed candidates from other parties, most often the Socialist Party USA, making a few exceptions: twice for Lenora Fulani’s New Alliance party and once for the Workers World party, a Communist party that split with Henry Wallace’s Progressives over its view of Mao Zedong’s murderous rule and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary — both of which it supported.“
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-soc....
Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League while at U of Chicago from 1960-64. “By 1964…the YPSL was becoming more radicalized, and tended toward Trotskyism” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_People%27s_Socialist_League_(1907)
The voters have a right to know more about Sanders’ than the repetitious stump speech. Ask Sanders to release the transcripts of all his speeches endorsing Noam Chomsky, speeches at the Liberty Union Party. Release the itineraries of his “good will” trips to USSR, Cuba and Nicaragua as mayor of a minor city. Why did he found the American People’s Historical Society?
According to the National Review, the Liberty Union party Sanders belonged to in the 1970s “sometimes ran its own candidates but generally endorsed candidates from other parties, most often the Socialist Party USA, making a few exceptions: twice for Lenora Fulani’s New Alliance party and once for the Workers World party, a Communist party that split with Henry Wallace’s Progressives over its view of Mao Zedong’s murderous rule and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary — both of which it supported.“
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-soc....
Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League while at U of Chicago from 1960-64. “By 1964…the YPSL was becoming more radicalized, and tended toward Trotskyism” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_People%27s_Socialist_League_(1907)
1
The double standard that Hillary has been held all of her life is infuriating. Why is she the only one being asked to do this? All this began with the artful smear by Sanders and his people. If anyone has an accusation, then make it. If you have proof of wrongdoing, show it. Otherwise, shut up. Very simple.
This is so rich. She claims to have given these speeches to fight terrorism! It was her patriotic duty to uplift the crestfallen Wall Street bankers. You simply cannot make this stuff up.
But aside from the absolutely bizzare and absurd, as a student of history I simply cannot fathom why someone so important, influential, and famous would work so hard to keep their words hidden. She should be sprinting from Wall Street to the top NY publishing houses, demanding that they bind together her prose so they could be hocked to the masses. Someone this obstinant has something to hide.
But aside from the absolutely bizzare and absurd, as a student of history I simply cannot fathom why someone so important, influential, and famous would work so hard to keep their words hidden. She should be sprinting from Wall Street to the top NY publishing houses, demanding that they bind together her prose so they could be hocked to the masses. Someone this obstinant has something to hide.
8
She can't: its her Mitt Romney moment. Once unedited transcripts come out she's toast.
8
This is such a mischievous request.
How can you not understand, that when Clinton said "I will look into it", that meant "not on your life"?.
How can you not understand, that when Clinton said "I will look into it", that meant "not on your life"?.
10
Hillary has a lot to hide and if she gets the nomination, she will not get the White House. The American people are wise now and abhor liars and the politics of Washington.
8
"Only the little people, pay taxes". Calling for Mrs. Clinton to release transcripts and fees for her speeches to the financial industry is a step forward in the right direction. Publishing a complete breakdown to include salaries, expenditures, et al from the Clinton Foundation would be more interesting.
8
i am very disappointed that the NYT has taken this position. And the tone of the opening paragraph is entirely unacceptable. Secretary Clinton is an adult woman, not a "mischievous child," and thoughtful people know a misogynist dogwhistle when they hear one.
If the transcripts of speeches made to groups which paid candidates for their presentations are germane to the campaign, and important for voters to see,than all the transcripts are. And if they are not, then Secretary Clinton need not release hers unless and until all the candidates do.
If the transcripts of speeches made to groups which paid candidates for their presentations are germane to the campaign, and important for voters to see,than all the transcripts are. And if they are not, then Secretary Clinton need not release hers unless and until all the candidates do.
What these speeches will likely show is that they weren't worth the money she received and were obviously payment for prior services rendered. The Clintons carried a lot of water for Wall Street and other corporations, like many White House occupants before them. They just made the mistake of accepting payment before they retired from "public service." They have every right to refuse to release the transcripts, but no right to the votes of people who think trustworthiness is vital in a president of the most powerful country in the world.
8
Typical. Just ask the woman to show transcripts of speeches she made as a private citizen. Sanders has spoken to Wall Street as part of Democratic Senate campaign for years. For Sanders to solicit campaign money and expect nothing in return is ridiculous. With Hillary's speeches, she sold a product for money, like capitalism allows, and she received her "there, there". Just asking for money means the ROI still lingers. Why aren't men being asked to do the same? Misogyny is as gross as racism boys.
She's right. There is one standard for her and another for everybody else. Why do people imply she made speeches for money and said to the audience, "Take me, I'm yours"? Has any other candidate taken money for speeches? I suspect the answer is yes. Only Hillary would face a demand for transcripts.
When I heard Mrs. Clinton explain the contents of those speeches to Goldman Sachs I thought that if it is true that she told them to take the progressive road I might vote for her, though I am firmly in Mr. Sanders’ camp of political transformation. Refusing to make the transcripts public makes me ever stronger in favor of Mr. Sanders’ approach.
In Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" I have proposed a way to apply his political revolution to the international dimension of the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system by transforming it through the adoption of a monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this carbon-based international monetary system are updated at www.timun.net.
In Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" I have proposed a way to apply his political revolution to the international dimension of the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system by transforming it through the adoption of a monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this carbon-based international monetary system are updated at www.timun.net.
1
Please. The transcripts of every candidate's speeches to private interests should be made public at the same time. These transcripts are live ammunition in this campaign season, and to compel only one candidate to arm her opponents while giving those opponents a free pass is completely unfair.
Besides, don't you want to see what Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio said to their donors behind closed doors?
Besides, don't you want to see what Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio said to their donors behind closed doors?
Now let the New York Times put an investigative reporter on this issue and compare the amount of money Mrs. Clinton earned in speaking fees compared to the amount of money all the other candidates earned in speaking fees. That, I think, would put her in an entirely different ballpark and make the case why she should release those tapes. To be fair, yesterday the New York Times had a front page story in which they interviewed potential American workers who were rejected by Donald Trump and highlighted the number of foreign workers hired by Donald Trump at his resort in Florida. When you get the facts on Clinton and the other candidate's speaking fees I would love to see it on your front page.
1
A leader wouldn't make statements full of If' but and whens. Clinton isn't a leader, and she never has been. Her main success was to marry someone as narcissistic as she was who supported her political career after she managed to downplay his impeachment. If Clinton was a leader she would have already released her transcripts and challenged the GOP candidates to do the same.
We have a particularly poor crop of politicians this year. The election was originally the GOP's to lose and they have done that, now its the democrats. You can nominate Hillary and face the disturbingly real possibility of a Trump presidency or nominate Sanders and face the possibility of a relatively honest man in office. Neither Sanders nor Clinton have any idea how or why jobs are created or what wall streets proper role in our economy is but Sanders will work for the American people while Clinton will put herself first as she has historically done. Just as the current President uses the race card to reply to political criticism she will blame all critique of her failures and bad ideas on people not wanting a woman in the office. Leadership? That's not Hillary.
We have a particularly poor crop of politicians this year. The election was originally the GOP's to lose and they have done that, now its the democrats. You can nominate Hillary and face the disturbingly real possibility of a Trump presidency or nominate Sanders and face the possibility of a relatively honest man in office. Neither Sanders nor Clinton have any idea how or why jobs are created or what wall streets proper role in our economy is but Sanders will work for the American people while Clinton will put herself first as she has historically done. Just as the current President uses the race card to reply to political criticism she will blame all critique of her failures and bad ideas on people not wanting a woman in the office. Leadership? That's not Hillary.
5
I have been reading the Times since the 1950s, when it was handed out free in New York City public schools. But I am so disgusted now with the paper's pervasive bias against Sen. Sanders that I barely glance at it any more. This editorial is a tentative step forward, but overall the Times seems to be protecting its own economic interests, and elitist social position, rather than picking the candidate who obvious embodies the liberal principles it has long professed. Editorial Board—reverse your endorsement!
11
Of course, Clinton needs to come clean and release the transcripts. Only private speeches, conferences, and meetings given by Republicans are allowed to go unchallenged and remain private. Haven't you figured that out by now? It's OK If You're a Republican. All others must reveal their cards.
1
I was pleasantly surprised to see the NYT's Editorial Board take up this issue about HRC. I am a woman, and up to now, have always been a great supporter of Mrs. Clinton. Unfortunately, I have been terribly disappointed with her handling of both the issue of the personal email server, as well as the speech transcripts -- they reflect very poor judgement, and reinforce the narrative that she makes her own rules.
This makes her very vulnerable when she goes up against Donald Trump in the general election, especially with independent voters or moderate Republicans who are looking for a sensible option to Mr. Trump. And I dread that should she become president, she will spend the next 4 years, like she did before with Mr. Clinton's 8 years, defending herself against investigations and probes from the Republicans instead of governing and addressing the pressing issues of this country. For me, it is becoming harder and harder to justify her answers, or to defend her. If you wish to be transparent, Mrs. Clinton, release the transcripts, and let us judge for ourselves.
This makes her very vulnerable when she goes up against Donald Trump in the general election, especially with independent voters or moderate Republicans who are looking for a sensible option to Mr. Trump. And I dread that should she become president, she will spend the next 4 years, like she did before with Mr. Clinton's 8 years, defending herself against investigations and probes from the Republicans instead of governing and addressing the pressing issues of this country. For me, it is becoming harder and harder to justify her answers, or to defend her. If you wish to be transparent, Mrs. Clinton, release the transcripts, and let us judge for ourselves.
5
Taking Wall Street campaign money is one thing. But if you are going after Clinton for that, what about the Republicans who have gotten far more? How about equal standards of disclosure here?
And why go after Clinton about donations to their charity? Is our media so cynical that even good deeds are attacked?
And why go after Clinton about donations to their charity? Is our media so cynical that even good deeds are attacked?
Sec. Clinton is an attorney, or at least a former attorney. She knows that failure to disclose allows opposing parties to draw the most negative of conclusions, which, in fact, they have. And regardless of what is in those transcripts, excerpts will be used to prove whatever point the user wants to prove.
To me, this is a non-issue. I simply assume that Sec. Clinton shaped her comments to the audience at hand.
Earning money by giving speeches is a non-issue. It is called fund raising in anticipation of a major political campaign. Absent a quid pro quo, it is neither immoral or illegal.
Any meaningful change in this country will require the buy-in of many people from all sectors, including the banks and Wall Street. Some people think demonization only will win change. I don't. I also don't think fawning adulation will. I do think keeping the lines of communication between people with opposing interests is important.
If the transcripts of one candidate's speeches are important, the transcripts of other candidates' speeches are also important. Ask for all speeches from all candidates.
To me, this is a non-issue. I simply assume that Sec. Clinton shaped her comments to the audience at hand.
Earning money by giving speeches is a non-issue. It is called fund raising in anticipation of a major political campaign. Absent a quid pro quo, it is neither immoral or illegal.
Any meaningful change in this country will require the buy-in of many people from all sectors, including the banks and Wall Street. Some people think demonization only will win change. I don't. I also don't think fawning adulation will. I do think keeping the lines of communication between people with opposing interests is important.
If the transcripts of one candidate's speeches are important, the transcripts of other candidates' speeches are also important. Ask for all speeches from all candidates.
Hillary should release nothing about her speeches until the squawkers begin to squawk for the texts of every paid speech by every politician and they all hand them over.
I had the opportunity to listen to one of her "paid" speeches at a marketing conference. Mrs. Clinton covered a variety of topics and I was thoroughly inpressed at her mastery of many issues.
My bottom line is this: She should not be held to different standards than any other candidate. She was a private citizen after all. Will each Mr. Trump's business deals be opened to scrutiny, or Mr Cruz's spouse's business dealings on Wa Street?
My bottom line is this: She should not be held to different standards than any other candidate. She was a private citizen after all. Will each Mr. Trump's business deals be opened to scrutiny, or Mr Cruz's spouse's business dealings on Wa Street?
There are two critical points here. First, once again the Clintons have been arrogantly, willfully blind to the fact that making $11 million from speeches to groups whose livelihoods you could affect as President of the United States raises legitimate questions about possible commitments made or implied. Given the role banks played in the 2008 economic debacle, Republican enthusiasm for avoiding any kind of restraints on them, and the Obama administration's incredible weakness in pursuing potential wrongdoing the public has a strong interest in knowing what Clinton's stance was. Pretending this is not true just underscores why so many voters regard her as an unprincipled weasel.
Nevertheless she has a valid argument regarding being singled out on this matter. Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for 3 speeches......why doesn't the New York Times demand Goldman Sachs make the speeches public as in effect they represent consulting advice paid for? If Goldman Sachs or other clients want to release the speeches there is nothing Ms. Clinton can say as they are now the property of those who wrote the checks. But the Times should also be asking Mario Rubio about the conversations and commitments involving New York financiers that resulted in millions of dollars flowing to PACs supporting his campaign. Ditto for the millions supplied by Texas money men to Senator Cruz. To claim Clinton benefited directly while the others simply gain campaign support is to treat the public as idiots.
Nevertheless she has a valid argument regarding being singled out on this matter. Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for 3 speeches......why doesn't the New York Times demand Goldman Sachs make the speeches public as in effect they represent consulting advice paid for? If Goldman Sachs or other clients want to release the speeches there is nothing Ms. Clinton can say as they are now the property of those who wrote the checks. But the Times should also be asking Mario Rubio about the conversations and commitments involving New York financiers that resulted in millions of dollars flowing to PACs supporting his campaign. Ditto for the millions supplied by Texas money men to Senator Cruz. To claim Clinton benefited directly while the others simply gain campaign support is to treat the public as idiots.
1
Mrs. Clinton says she will release the transcripts "if everyone else does it." How's that for leadership? How about setting the example so that everyone else will be motivated or shamed into doing it?
She is her own worst enemy, circling her wagon and acting victimized about anyone having the nerve to question her about her transcripts. This is part of a pattern for a fabric that has become quite tattered and bodes poorly for an effective general election campaign.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
She is her own worst enemy, circling her wagon and acting victimized about anyone having the nerve to question her about her transcripts. This is part of a pattern for a fabric that has become quite tattered and bodes poorly for an effective general election campaign.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
8
I like Hillary. She's one of the few adults running for president-- a candidate who treats voters as thinking grown-ups. That having been said, it's stunning to see her repeat the mistake of her husband, who wasn't impeached for what he did, but for covering up what he did.
Get it over with, get it out in the open, and get back to issues that matter: what she intends to do if she's elected.
Get it over with, get it out in the open, and get back to issues that matter: what she intends to do if she's elected.
3
This is a question of ethics and judgment. Both incredibly important in a President. She should drop the childish stance she's taking and release them.
7
I can't see her being able to edit the transcripts, and remove embarrassing thoughts, but she may be able to do just that, and I presume the reason we have yet to see the transcripts, is she and her handlers are making sure everyone who has had contact with the transcripts, will not squeal.
In any event, following is an interesting article by Glen Greenwald, in The Intercept -
Excerpts and link -
"In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street cash, has “electability” in her favor? Maybe one can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment, “electability” is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong candidate in 2016?"
"Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure."
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-...
In any event, following is an interesting article by Glen Greenwald, in The Intercept -
Excerpts and link -
"In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street cash, has “electability” in her favor? Maybe one can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment, “electability” is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong candidate in 2016?"
"Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure."
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-...
8
Your comment that the Republicans have a commitment to Wall Street obscures the fact that the Democratic Party is now owned by Wall Street. Some may cherish the notion that The Democrats are the party of the working man but they lost the working man decades ago and have abandoned Roosevelt's focus on working people.
If the Republicans are the party of the 1% (and the disaffected white working class) the Democrats are the party of the 10%: Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the affluent, educated urban upper middle class. The very people who have no reason to notice how weak the recovery from the recession has been and how the middle class and lower middle class are suffering.
Bernie and Trump didn't happen in a vacuum. More and more people are noticing that both parties are bought and paid for my special interests and that they are not members of those special interest groups.
If the Republicans are the party of the 1% (and the disaffected white working class) the Democrats are the party of the 10%: Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the affluent, educated urban upper middle class. The very people who have no reason to notice how weak the recovery from the recession has been and how the middle class and lower middle class are suffering.
Bernie and Trump didn't happen in a vacuum. More and more people are noticing that both parties are bought and paid for my special interests and that they are not members of those special interest groups.
7
Ms Clinton is maybe one of the most Experienced Candidate to run for President. But she lacks good judgement.
She voted for the Iraq War, one of the main reason she lost to then Senator Obama. One might expect that she would learn from her mistakes. As secretary of State, she pushed for the U.S intervention that turned Libya into ISIS hotbed. And she is more hawkish than most Democrats when it comes to Syria.
Ms Clinton knew after leaving the State Department that she will run for President in 2016, that did not stop her for giving $200.000 speeches to groups that Americans, especially Democratic Primary voters despise the most.
Did she need that money? Her Husband had already made more than $100 Million since he left the WH. Her daughter went to work for a Hedge Fund and married a Hedge fund Manager ( I won't blame Chelsea for that).
Ms Clinton should release those Transcripts. But most important, what was she thinking giving those speeches in the first place?
She voted for the Iraq War, one of the main reason she lost to then Senator Obama. One might expect that she would learn from her mistakes. As secretary of State, she pushed for the U.S intervention that turned Libya into ISIS hotbed. And she is more hawkish than most Democrats when it comes to Syria.
Ms Clinton knew after leaving the State Department that she will run for President in 2016, that did not stop her for giving $200.000 speeches to groups that Americans, especially Democratic Primary voters despise the most.
Did she need that money? Her Husband had already made more than $100 Million since he left the WH. Her daughter went to work for a Hedge Fund and married a Hedge fund Manager ( I won't blame Chelsea for that).
Ms Clinton should release those Transcripts. But most important, what was she thinking giving those speeches in the first place?
8
She is the most depressing candidate imaginable. She cannot "regulate" Wall Street because her husband is the Very One Who Deregulated Wall Street,in '99, in a deal with the Republicans over perjury.
No more Bushes. No more Clintons. They have ruined our country. The Clintons have an enormous amount of scandals around them. It's very difficult to see why any American would vote for her ever given the money, the gossip, the dead in their wake, the women sexually assaulted by her spouse. S&L crisis, Walmart board, on and on. Her grinding campaign is depressing. Of course she is going to stonewall and not show the transcripts. What could the sheeple be thinking??
Sen. Sanders has not been on the take from his years in Washington. When Hillary praised Kissinger, Sen. Sanders did not hesitate in his retort about Kissinger. Those of us who recall, recall the Nobel Peace Prize of '73 and how Kissinger was accused of war crimes. Listening to Hillary is always going down the rabbit hole. Trump will lacerate her, and does he know more MORE about foreign or domestic policy than Sen. Sanders?
No response needed.
Never has a campaign been so grim, with only one bright spot of hope, Bernie, who is not a socialist but a New Deal politician like FDR.
Fraud and corruption have taken years to be "institutionalized" and it's going to take someone like Bernie to slowly turn the boat around so we can set sail again as the country we were meant to be.
No more Bushes. No more Clintons. They have ruined our country. The Clintons have an enormous amount of scandals around them. It's very difficult to see why any American would vote for her ever given the money, the gossip, the dead in their wake, the women sexually assaulted by her spouse. S&L crisis, Walmart board, on and on. Her grinding campaign is depressing. Of course she is going to stonewall and not show the transcripts. What could the sheeple be thinking??
Sen. Sanders has not been on the take from his years in Washington. When Hillary praised Kissinger, Sen. Sanders did not hesitate in his retort about Kissinger. Those of us who recall, recall the Nobel Peace Prize of '73 and how Kissinger was accused of war crimes. Listening to Hillary is always going down the rabbit hole. Trump will lacerate her, and does he know more MORE about foreign or domestic policy than Sen. Sanders?
No response needed.
Never has a campaign been so grim, with only one bright spot of hope, Bernie, who is not a socialist but a New Deal politician like FDR.
Fraud and corruption have taken years to be "institutionalized" and it's going to take someone like Bernie to slowly turn the boat around so we can set sail again as the country we were meant to be.
8
While I think that Hillary Clinton is often defensive, I am not sure it is because she has done anything wrong--it may be because she fears having her words taken out of context or fears being misunderstood. Anyone who has been involved in the legal process may have experience how statements and facts can be taken out of context. It happened to me: When I was a young woman, I was accused of stealing $6.00 and change from a job, and fired. However, I was exonerated and reinstated to my job. Imagine my surprise in a later legal proceeding when the fact I had been fired for stealing was brought up, but opposing counsel neglected to mention that the amount was less than $7.00, that I was exonerated, and that I was reinstated in my job. Hillary Clinton has been subjected to many, many unfair attacks over the years--her actions and words have been taken out of context many times. That may have a lot to do with why she is being so defensive now.
Such nonsense. Why isn't the NYT demanding that all of the candidates do this? It seems they've bought into the idea that Clinton has her own special standard that she alone must live up to, while the other candidates can give private speeches galore.
People like Clinton are hired because they bring star-power to expensive conferences, selling more tickets. They in turn say a lot of nice things about the company and industry. Some of these things could be embarrassing if made public, but they are hardly the stuff of nefarious backseat wheeling and dealing, assumed by her detractors. Such collaborations, if they occurred, would happen in secret, not at speeches made to dozens and in many cases hundreds of attendees.
Every President in modern history has made countless such speeches. None have ever been forced to release public transcripts of all of them.
People like Clinton are hired because they bring star-power to expensive conferences, selling more tickets. They in turn say a lot of nice things about the company and industry. Some of these things could be embarrassing if made public, but they are hardly the stuff of nefarious backseat wheeling and dealing, assumed by her detractors. Such collaborations, if they occurred, would happen in secret, not at speeches made to dozens and in many cases hundreds of attendees.
Every President in modern history has made countless such speeches. None have ever been forced to release public transcripts of all of them.
Hillary Clinton is right in demanding that the standards applied to her be applied to all other candidates. Either require all candidates to disclose all private speeches or require none to do it.
Hillary Clinton is right, there is one standard for her and one for everyone else. This a lot of complaining about nothing. Believe me if there were anything nefarious about her speeches the vast right wing conspiracy would have let us know the details.
It seems as if the Times has already concluded Hillary Clinton said something ugly in these speeches.What if she did?Does what she said at paid speeches disqualify her from being the first female Potus.She has said she will release those speeches when her republican opponent releases theirs.It is not a foregone conclusion that she said anything nearly as nefarious as Romney's 47% diatribe.Finally,what if Nothing 'indictable,is found,will the times feel vindicated in it's baseless query.This is a capitalist country where individuals are compensated for their labor.The equity of that situation is debatable,but it is the essence of America...
She's correct in saying she's asked to reveal more than other candidates. Let's talk full disclosure - I'd like to see Bernie's correspondence with the NRA. He voted against the Brady bill at least once. Does anyone dream of questioning his motives? I'm a fan of the Times and Hillary, but this defines double standard.
She might agree if all other candidates agree.
And then the press will say, "And is this ALL your speeches? You aren't hiding any?"
And then the press will say, "Well, how do we know these aren't redacted..."
And the press will say, "Well, was this a meeting, or a speech. Shouldn't we also have minutes from all your meetings?"
There will be no end to the foolishness.
Paging Tim Cook.
And then the press will say, "And is this ALL your speeches? You aren't hiding any?"
And then the press will say, "Well, how do we know these aren't redacted..."
And the press will say, "Well, was this a meeting, or a speech. Shouldn't we also have minutes from all your meetings?"
There will be no end to the foolishness.
Paging Tim Cook.
As a lifelong female Democrat, and a voter who is for Bernie Sanders, thanks for saying what I've been waiting for someone to say. I would sooner vote for Trump than support Hillary if she doesn't release her Wall Street speech transcripts. It's time to realize Wall Street's ownership of our politicians has got to stop. Period. Hillary Clinton is disrespectful of our intelligence. Goldman Sachs partners called the payments "Goldman Handcuffs" - and that says plenty.
7
I wonder if the odds makers in Vegas are taking bets on which event will come first:
The Senate to hold hearings of an Obama nomination to replace Justice Scalia;
or
Hillary releasing the transcripts of her Wall St speeches
The Senate to hold hearings of an Obama nomination to replace Justice Scalia;
or
Hillary releasing the transcripts of her Wall St speeches
3
RUBBER YARDSTICK Indeed there are standards that Hillary is expected to meet that all the other candidates are not asked to do. I think it's highly likely that she will have said something to Goldman Sachs that her critics will pounce upon in the decades-long mud-slinging that she and Bill have subjected to. Nobody demanded that Reagan release every document about the 299 US and French military killed in Beirut, Lebanon. Yet Hillary has been put through the wringer for 4 deaths in Benghazi. Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice used personal servers while Secretary of State. Neither one has been investigated for the use of a personal server. But Hillary has been minutely scrutinized. She has even been criticized for sending documents currently classified as secret which were unclassified at the time they were sent. Yes, I agree that Hillary should release the speeches, so long as Bernie, Trump, Rubio Cruz and Watson do the same. I disagree with the NY Times Editorial Board that Hillary should demand that only Bernie release the content of his paid speeches. I find that the Editorial Board, in most instances, is evenhanded and fair. Given the grueling experiences she has had about Benghazi and her personal server, for which no other Secretaries of State--especially the two who were Republicans: Powell and Rice--have had, while on the face of it it seems fair only for Bernie to respond, it is a different standard being used for HiIlary than all the other hopefuls.
There's a saying I read somewhere, if you want credibility for the future you have to show accountability for the past.
7
I see that the NY Times philosophy that "it is better to be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very late than never" is at play here. Super Tuesday is next Tuesday. How soon do the NYTimes editors expect the Hillary Clinton campaign to respond in any meaningful way? It is called "Super Tuesday" because so many delegates for either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton will be decided that day. The vast majority of the super-delegates have already committed in favor of Hillary Clinton. Do the Editors of the NYTimes believe that the voting on Super Tuesday will be delayed until Hillary Clinton does respond in a meaningful manner?
So, this NYTimes editorial might be beneficial to the ultimate Republican candidate for President but it will probably be too late to be of any meaningful significance or benefit to the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Is it time for the NYTimes to re-run its endorsement editorial for Hillary Clinton?
1) In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” 2) At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” 3) The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
So, this NYTimes editorial might be beneficial to the ultimate Republican candidate for President but it will probably be too late to be of any meaningful significance or benefit to the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Is it time for the NYTimes to re-run its endorsement editorial for Hillary Clinton?
1) In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” 2) At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” 3) The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
9
She can't show them now because they will likely reveal she is just another functionary going through the "I'm just like you" motions to get votes. With Bernie in the mix, that would be fatal. However, when she is sure that Bernie is safely contained, she will release them.
3
Hillary is Richard Nixon in a pantsuit. Nixon's Tapes = Transcripts. The need for open government is clearly not a belief or ideal she holds evidenced by her choice to have her own email server.
Not worthy of the office of president
Not worthy of the office of president
9
If Hillary Clinton made objectionable statements in her speeches, it makes sense that she would be reluctant to reveal what she said. Romney lost the election because he did not have the option to stonewall on his ‘47% of Americans’ remark, or deny that he drove with his dog on the roof of a car.
However, if none of her speeches contain anything of interest, one also has to wonder what made them worth 200 grand apiece.
There is no easy way out of this for her.
However, if none of her speeches contain anything of interest, one also has to wonder what made them worth 200 grand apiece.
There is no easy way out of this for her.
5
Fair enough that all speech makers to influential corporations as banks be made public, but all need to do it.
The Clintons had huge bills to pay during the Lewinsky Affair and maybe even Whitewater.
Starr was going after Bill like a bull terrier and that must have cost a fortune to defend himself with so any money made either from speeches, lectures or writing books is fair as in reality the pay for a president pails compared to that of a CEO of a bank or any large corporation.
In truth I would hate to be a politician in the USA because you are stripped naked by the opposition party and others and you are so exposed publicly that you would have to buy a place in space to live just to have a modicum of privacy.
The job that comes with jibes and insults just ain't worth it.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
26 Feb 2016.
The Clintons had huge bills to pay during the Lewinsky Affair and maybe even Whitewater.
Starr was going after Bill like a bull terrier and that must have cost a fortune to defend himself with so any money made either from speeches, lectures or writing books is fair as in reality the pay for a president pails compared to that of a CEO of a bank or any large corporation.
In truth I would hate to be a politician in the USA because you are stripped naked by the opposition party and others and you are so exposed publicly that you would have to buy a place in space to live just to have a modicum of privacy.
The job that comes with jibes and insults just ain't worth it.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
26 Feb 2016.
I think there is no upside to her giving the transcripts. She should continue to stonewall. Otherwise she will get pecked and picked - death by a thousand cuts.
1
Hillary is Richard Nixon in a pantsuit. Nixon's secret Tapes = Hil's Transcripts. The need for open government is clearly not a belief or ideal she holds evidenced by her choice to have her own email server.
Not worthy of the office of president
Not worthy of the office of president
5
Hasn't her past demonstrated that she is incapable of running " an accountable and transparent White House"?
She has got a lot of nerve running for president. Are there no more Democrats willing to step up and run?
She has got a lot of nerve running for president. Are there no more Democrats willing to step up and run?
5
This article has just rescued my subscription. I was beginning to think unbiased reporting had hidden in the closet!
7
"Besides, Mrs. Clinton is not running against a Republican in the Democratic primaries. She is running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess ..."
All the more reason, then, not to disclose what was said. She's surely worried, and rightfully so, that her comments will be taken out of context by Sanders fanatics and used to imply (or 'prove') that she's what they have long claimed her to be: a shill doing the Street's bidding.
In any case, if she DOESN'T release the transcripts, conspiracies will pop up everywhere; so it's a lose-lose situation for her. Only her campaign can decide on which side to take blows, because blows there will be -- but if there is indeed much material in those transcripts that can be used to fuel an already nuclear progressive base, I think she's right to withhold them.
Appeasing the tetchy socialists, it's not easy.
All the more reason, then, not to disclose what was said. She's surely worried, and rightfully so, that her comments will be taken out of context by Sanders fanatics and used to imply (or 'prove') that she's what they have long claimed her to be: a shill doing the Street's bidding.
In any case, if she DOESN'T release the transcripts, conspiracies will pop up everywhere; so it's a lose-lose situation for her. Only her campaign can decide on which side to take blows, because blows there will be -- but if there is indeed much material in those transcripts that can be used to fuel an already nuclear progressive base, I think she's right to withhold them.
Appeasing the tetchy socialists, it's not easy.
Release. Better yet for Bill and Hillary to donate to charity (other than their own) all net of tax income accumulated from speeches. Both Bill and Hillary receive excellent pensions. how much money does the former Arkansas and us first couple need to live in Little Rock?
4
Hillary is Richard Nixon in a pantsuit. Tapes = Transcripts. The need for open government is clearly not a belief or ideal she holds evidenced by her choice to have her own email server.
Not worthy of the office of president
Not worthy of the office of president
7
This is no small matter.
First, the amount of money Mrs Clinton made from even one of these speeches represents years of work for salaried Americans, even in the upper-middle-class.
Second, some of the speeches were given to the very institutions who caused the world economy to tank in 2008, a disaster we still haven't recovered from, which ruined tens of thousands of ordinary people permanently. It is legitimate to insist on knowing what Mrs Clinton, running for president, told these institutions behind closed doors.
Third, her excuse that "everybody does it" is a textbook example of the tu quoque ("you too") fallacy: if murderers point out that other people murder too, does that excuse murder? Indeed, it is amazing that Mrs. Clinton does not know how much damage her deploying this weak justification is doing to her image and to her campaign.
Let me help her: by saying "everybody does it, and that includes Republicans" she brands herself a card-carrying member of the Washington-Wall-Street-bankers insider club that people are sick and tired of. And it is not true that "everybody does it." I didn't. Millions of others didn't. Only those on the inside get paid $225,000 for an hour's talking to a closed room. We have seen what this moneyed cabal has done to our country, all to line their own pockets. We want something different, yet Mrs Clinton is essentially proclaims that she is no different from Republicans on the take.
And this is supposed to recommend her to voters?
First, the amount of money Mrs Clinton made from even one of these speeches represents years of work for salaried Americans, even in the upper-middle-class.
Second, some of the speeches were given to the very institutions who caused the world economy to tank in 2008, a disaster we still haven't recovered from, which ruined tens of thousands of ordinary people permanently. It is legitimate to insist on knowing what Mrs Clinton, running for president, told these institutions behind closed doors.
Third, her excuse that "everybody does it" is a textbook example of the tu quoque ("you too") fallacy: if murderers point out that other people murder too, does that excuse murder? Indeed, it is amazing that Mrs. Clinton does not know how much damage her deploying this weak justification is doing to her image and to her campaign.
Let me help her: by saying "everybody does it, and that includes Republicans" she brands herself a card-carrying member of the Washington-Wall-Street-bankers insider club that people are sick and tired of. And it is not true that "everybody does it." I didn't. Millions of others didn't. Only those on the inside get paid $225,000 for an hour's talking to a closed room. We have seen what this moneyed cabal has done to our country, all to line their own pockets. We want something different, yet Mrs Clinton is essentially proclaims that she is no different from Republicans on the take.
And this is supposed to recommend her to voters?
13
Nixon in a pantsuit.
10
The reason Hillary gets singled out is because she has a transparency "issue". Bernie does not; he has perhaps a foreign policy "issue" which he gets singled out on. The republicans do not have any transparency issues either regarding being paid for anything - we already know they are all about the money.
8
It's pretty obvious that there's no excuse for not releasing the transcripts unless there's something she's ashamed of. It is the reason why her trust level remains so low among so many. It also shows her lack of confidence in the American people not to judge her honestly. She can only stonewall for so long. Sooner or later she's going to have to release them. One only wonders that, when she does, how much of it will be blacked out for "national security" purposes. She could save us all a lot of time, especially those of us who want her to be President.
7
There's a very good reason she doesn't want to release the transcripts, the same reason that Nixon didn't want to release the tapes: they're incriminating.
Does anyone - even her most ardent supporters - believe that she didn't make promises - implied or direct - to these special interests in return for their contributions?
If you're still in doubt look at her track record. When she was in the WH, she supposedly convinced Bill to veto the bankruptcy "reform" bill that made it more difficult to get relief from debt via bankruptcy. But when she became a Senator, she sponsored the same legislation and voted for it. What was the reason for her "evolved" position? No doubt she received contributions from the banking industry to support it. And it's that type of quid pro quo that is likely contained in those transcripts.
But though the NYT now urges her to come clean, why didn't they do their job in finding this out BEFORE they endorsed her, and tried to freeze out Sanders? Mrs. Clinton isn't the only one at fault here.
Does anyone - even her most ardent supporters - believe that she didn't make promises - implied or direct - to these special interests in return for their contributions?
If you're still in doubt look at her track record. When she was in the WH, she supposedly convinced Bill to veto the bankruptcy "reform" bill that made it more difficult to get relief from debt via bankruptcy. But when she became a Senator, she sponsored the same legislation and voted for it. What was the reason for her "evolved" position? No doubt she received contributions from the banking industry to support it. And it's that type of quid pro quo that is likely contained in those transcripts.
But though the NYT now urges her to come clean, why didn't they do their job in finding this out BEFORE they endorsed her, and tried to freeze out Sanders? Mrs. Clinton isn't the only one at fault here.
7
Dissimulation is a form of deception that involves hiding information that would allow others to reach a better judgment of that person's character. Hillary hasn't provided those transcripts for the same reason that she conducted public business on a private email server. HRC is an accomplished dissimulator.
Bill and Hillary have a long history of hiding and suppressing evidence that reflects poorly on their character. Bill's lechery is a prime example. Rather than admit the truth, Bill and Hillary have attacked the women who have witnessed and been victims of Bill's lechery. These attacks aimed to deceive the public about what really happened behind closed doors in Little Rock and the White House. Just ask Leon Panetta. He viewed this couples' machinations from a front row ringside seat.
Bill and Hillary have been wagging their fingers at us for years. I've had my fill of them both. I wish they would just take their millions and go away.
Bill and Hillary have a long history of hiding and suppressing evidence that reflects poorly on their character. Bill's lechery is a prime example. Rather than admit the truth, Bill and Hillary have attacked the women who have witnessed and been victims of Bill's lechery. These attacks aimed to deceive the public about what really happened behind closed doors in Little Rock and the White House. Just ask Leon Panetta. He viewed this couples' machinations from a front row ringside seat.
Bill and Hillary have been wagging their fingers at us for years. I've had my fill of them both. I wish they would just take their millions and go away.
8
We voted for Hillary Clinton when she ran against Obama But we will not be voted for her this time She is corrupt and can not be trusted
8
Surprising to see the high number of readers endorsing HRC's unethical behavior. By demanding so little of their candidate for the presidency, they nullify their right to demand accountability should she ever get elected.
8
Hillary Milhous, the Hobson's choice from the Party of Choice, a cosmic irony without parallel. "Transparency"? What dat? To paraphrase Jeb!, "With Hillary as president it will be a constant shuttle from the White House to the court house." Her teflon is wearing real thin.
6
Hillary Clinton's political protip:
Here's how you make a mountain out of a molehill. Take a small incident and become defensive and refuse to alleviate concerns about it until the entire nation is outside your window screaming at you to do the right thing. Any questions?
Here's how you make a mountain out of a molehill. Take a small incident and become defensive and refuse to alleviate concerns about it until the entire nation is outside your window screaming at you to do the right thing. Any questions?
5
Why is no one pushing Bernie to explain why he once said gun manufacturers should not be held accountable after children had just been shot at a school? Why hasn't anyone pushed him to explain why the NRA gave him $20,000? Why hasn't anyone wondered why his strategist is Tad Devine?
I feel that to make a fair choice when I vote, I need to be explained why Bernie hired a man who once legally represented Monsanto and Goldman (his funder's money is going to him!). If this is how it's going to be, we need to put this kind of pressure on all politicians. Anything that could possible affect my vote needs to be released immediately. Anything that they ever said. Anything that they were ever paid for. Anything that they've ever done.
It isn't surprising to me that Hillary sees everyone, even people who make a lot of money, as part of those she must serve as president. It isn't surprising to me that, though Hillary holds liberal values about the financial system, she is eager to share her ideas with those who don't. This shows me that she is willing to reach across the aisle.
Without releasing the transcripts, we can imagine the worst case scenario of what she could have said; that is one thing we have control over and we can allow that to influence our vote or not.
Even in that worst case scenario, where she's making promises to the banks and admitting that she's going to lie to the less powerful (I doubt it!), I think we know enough about Hillary to vote with confidence.
I feel that to make a fair choice when I vote, I need to be explained why Bernie hired a man who once legally represented Monsanto and Goldman (his funder's money is going to him!). If this is how it's going to be, we need to put this kind of pressure on all politicians. Anything that could possible affect my vote needs to be released immediately. Anything that they ever said. Anything that they were ever paid for. Anything that they've ever done.
It isn't surprising to me that Hillary sees everyone, even people who make a lot of money, as part of those she must serve as president. It isn't surprising to me that, though Hillary holds liberal values about the financial system, she is eager to share her ideas with those who don't. This shows me that she is willing to reach across the aisle.
Without releasing the transcripts, we can imagine the worst case scenario of what she could have said; that is one thing we have control over and we can allow that to influence our vote or not.
Even in that worst case scenario, where she's making promises to the banks and admitting that she's going to lie to the less powerful (I doubt it!), I think we know enough about Hillary to vote with confidence.
1
In the final analysis, it is not the speeches themselves that are the problem. The problem is that here is a hopeful "leader of the free world" whose first instinct is to dodge, deflect and backpedal. About speeches, about emails, about the lunch menu.
It would be some much wiser to just do the right thing first. But that is not in the Clinton playbook.
It would be some much wiser to just do the right thing first. But that is not in the Clinton playbook.
8
At this point I think we all have an idea of what was in the transcripts. Let's not rush to demonize Secretary Clinton; I'm fairly certain she didn't say something like "Wall Street should have the right to implant chips in everyone's minds and control our thoughts." It's likely that she was friendly, defensive, and not very controversial in those speeches.
The real issue is her lack of transparency, her deflecting, her equivocation. We saw this with the transcripts. We saw this with the emails. She simply has no credibility as a public official. If my trust in her was 50% before this, it's now 0%.
The real issue is her lack of transparency, her deflecting, her equivocation. We saw this with the transcripts. We saw this with the emails. She simply has no credibility as a public official. If my trust in her was 50% before this, it's now 0%.
7
Why is Hillary making the same mistake that she made concerning her e-mails? It really troubles me that the obfuscation goes on. Does she not realize that this plays right into the narrative that she's not trustworthy? Bright woman but totally tone deaf.
6
This is nonsense. We know that Clinton was paid generously to make speeches to powerful groups. This is not unusual for a former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State. If the Sanders campaign wants to comb through hours of these speeches to use a couple of contextless quotes, they should at least have the decency not to ask Clinton for help.
1
The last politician in America who refused publicly to accept financial rewards for having held office was Harry Truman.
Hillary belongs to my generation of aggrieved Vietnam Nam Era college students who did not come from money, feigned a preference for poverty, but secretly harbored an avaricious desire for all the wealth they could grasp when given the opportunity.
Hillary's downfall is her lifelong hypocrisy of pretending to be a liberal who hates the wealthy but can't wait to grab as much as possible because "everybody does it".
I believe that this character trait is why many voters harbor reservations about Hillary. They smell a rat!
Hillary belongs to my generation of aggrieved Vietnam Nam Era college students who did not come from money, feigned a preference for poverty, but secretly harbored an avaricious desire for all the wealth they could grasp when given the opportunity.
Hillary's downfall is her lifelong hypocrisy of pretending to be a liberal who hates the wealthy but can't wait to grab as much as possible because "everybody does it".
I believe that this character trait is why many voters harbor reservations about Hillary. They smell a rat!
10
I happily voted for Bill Clinton twice (though, in retrospect he was more Supply¬Side Republican¬lite than Sixties¬Progressive).
I supported Hillary against Obama (not because I questioned Obama, but because I thought Hillary was more battle¬tested with 8 years in the White House, as First Lady). When Obama won, I supported him.
But now, Hillary has become a pure political chameleon.
Bernie says passionately ¬¬ and with unwavering principle (over 55 years of active commitment) exactly what he believes, while Hillary seems like the smart¬girl who puts an apple on every teacher's desk every day, so she'll be guaranteed top grades and be named Homecoming Queen and Valedictorian. She has developed an aura of chameleonic calculation and instant¬pandering ¬¬ without her husband's persuasive charm (for good or ill).
I used to believe she was the world's most versatile and resiliant woman, but now I refuse to vote for a political chamelon, a political reptile, for president of the United States.
How the mighty have fallen (or: "The Empress Hath No Closure").
Win or lose, Bernie rules!
Let the chips fall where they may.
"The hardest thing in the world is getting the people to do what's best for themselves."
¬¬ Jefferson
I supported Hillary against Obama (not because I questioned Obama, but because I thought Hillary was more battle¬tested with 8 years in the White House, as First Lady). When Obama won, I supported him.
But now, Hillary has become a pure political chameleon.
Bernie says passionately ¬¬ and with unwavering principle (over 55 years of active commitment) exactly what he believes, while Hillary seems like the smart¬girl who puts an apple on every teacher's desk every day, so she'll be guaranteed top grades and be named Homecoming Queen and Valedictorian. She has developed an aura of chameleonic calculation and instant¬pandering ¬¬ without her husband's persuasive charm (for good or ill).
I used to believe she was the world's most versatile and resiliant woman, but now I refuse to vote for a political chamelon, a political reptile, for president of the United States.
How the mighty have fallen (or: "The Empress Hath No Closure").
Win or lose, Bernie rules!
Let the chips fall where they may.
"The hardest thing in the world is getting the people to do what's best for themselves."
¬¬ Jefferson
10
Our politics has become a game of gotcha. Perhaps this has always been so, but I was hoping that Democrats would not play the game with each other But the stakes are high now and the transcripts have become not a tool for information, but a means to destroy another candidate. So here we are battling each other and playing out the drama of gotcha which can be played against anyone. The Democratic conversation should not sink to the level of a bar brawl or Republican 'debate'. Perhaps I am asking too much in the heat of a campaign, but I am so tired of the insanity.
2
Come on, as a Fortune 50 corporate employee, I attended motivational events with notable keynote speakers from politics. Trust me, they did not make secret campaign promises or backroom deals in front of two thousand people. The only memorable one was Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, who told a charming story about his two dogs.
I also know a couple of people who make a living as public speakers. The pay is very high for people with a unique "product" or story. If someone offered me that kind of money, I wouldn't turn it down. Believe it or not, no favor is implied beyond the speaking engagement.
Clinton was a private citizen, neither setting policies nor publicly conspiring with a bunch of mid-level-management brokerage employees. But it sure is fun to dream up conspiracies. The GOP has been doing it for decades. But sure, pile on Clinton and roll around in imagined dirt. It's only the Republican control of all three branches of government that's at stake. Enjoy.
I also know a couple of people who make a living as public speakers. The pay is very high for people with a unique "product" or story. If someone offered me that kind of money, I wouldn't turn it down. Believe it or not, no favor is implied beyond the speaking engagement.
Clinton was a private citizen, neither setting policies nor publicly conspiring with a bunch of mid-level-management brokerage employees. But it sure is fun to dream up conspiracies. The GOP has been doing it for decades. But sure, pile on Clinton and roll around in imagined dirt. It's only the Republican control of all three branches of government that's at stake. Enjoy.
1
Come on Hillary! Those transcripts must be on your private server somewhere!
7
Hilary has been proudly proclaiming lately that she has never lied to,the public. Saintly as she proclaims to be, why is she withholding the truth?
7
Asking questions that verify a candidate's stated position does not require the same question to be asked of everyone.
For those that think the Dems are against the Big Banks, go back and research Dodd-Franks, a bill the Dems supported. The Big Banks have gotten bigger and the community banks, the ones lending to small business, have been eviscerated.
For those that think the Dems are against the Big Banks, go back and research Dodd-Franks, a bill the Dems supported. The Big Banks have gotten bigger and the community banks, the ones lending to small business, have been eviscerated.
2
A woman who all of a sudden pretends she's tough on Wall Street because it's working for Bernie should release the transcripts from the speeches she was paid hundreds of thousands of $$$ to give from the same Wall Street banks who are donating millions $$ to her campaign. #ReleaseTheTranscripts
7
Personally, I don't care what the Republicans are saying in their paid speeches because they have not to this day, nor do I expect them to in the future, taken a hard stance against the large and powerful banks. But when it is rumored that one of Hillary's speeches to a bank was entitled "I am One of You", it's really difficult to ignore the contents of them. From someone who has worked on Wall Street for the past 10 year I can assure you that everything these companies do and spend money on have one focus - return on investment. These speeches are no different.
9
Why doesn't the Times do some investigative reporting, get the transcripts, and publish them?
12
I happily voted for Bill Clinton twice.(though, in retrospect he was more Supply¬Side Republican¬lite than Sixties¬Progressive).
I supported Hillary against Obama (not because I questioned Obama, but because I thought Hillary was more battle¬tested with 8 years in the White House, as First Lady). When Obama won, I supported him.
But now, Hillary has become a pure political chameleon.
Bernie says passionately ¬¬ and with unwavering principle (over 55 years of active commitment) exactly what he believes, while Hillary seems like the smart¬girl who puts an apple on every teacher's desk every day, so she'll be guaranteed top grades and be named Homecoming Queen and Valedictorian. She has developed an aura of chameleonic calculation and instant¬pandering ¬¬ without her husband's persuasive charm (for good or ill).
I used to believe she was the world's most versatile and resiliant woman, but now I refuse to vote for a political chamelon, a political reptile, for president of the United States.
How the mighty have fallen (or: "The Empress Hath No Closure").
Win or lose, Bernie rules!
Let the chips fall where they may.
"The hardest thing in the world is getting the people to do what's best for themselves."
¬¬ Jefferson
I supported Hillary against Obama (not because I questioned Obama, but because I thought Hillary was more battle¬tested with 8 years in the White House, as First Lady). When Obama won, I supported him.
But now, Hillary has become a pure political chameleon.
Bernie says passionately ¬¬ and with unwavering principle (over 55 years of active commitment) exactly what he believes, while Hillary seems like the smart¬girl who puts an apple on every teacher's desk every day, so she'll be guaranteed top grades and be named Homecoming Queen and Valedictorian. She has developed an aura of chameleonic calculation and instant¬pandering ¬¬ without her husband's persuasive charm (for good or ill).
I used to believe she was the world's most versatile and resiliant woman, but now I refuse to vote for a political chamelon, a political reptile, for president of the United States.
How the mighty have fallen (or: "The Empress Hath No Closure").
Win or lose, Bernie rules!
Let the chips fall where they may.
"The hardest thing in the world is getting the people to do what's best for themselves."
¬¬ Jefferson
8
Although I do not agree with the editorial board of NYT, I am not happy either about the fact that Hillary Clinton was paid so much for the closed-dore speeches she gave to big banks and the Wall Street firms. I wish she had not. It is too big money for an average person to reckon with. On the other hand, I do not find it admirable that Sanders asked for less than $1,000 for his closed-door speech. Or, it may have to be translated to current currency ($10,000or more?) because it was 20 years ago that Sanders was paid $1,000 for his closed-door speech. In any case, Sanders seems to value too much monkish virtues whereas Clinton values too much bankish virtues. Personally, I would be happy with someone who goes between Clinton and Sanders. Obama, maybe? But he is leaving soon.
From Hillary’s point of view:
Clinton defends Goldman Sachs speaking fees, Jan 22, 2016, The Hill.
“Clinton said there was nothing wrong with accepting the money, pointing to the diversity of organizations who solicited her for speeches. “I have spoken to so many different groups,” she said.
She pointed to Sanders’s own track record on Wall Street, including a vote in 2000 to deregulate trade on credit default swaps and derivatives, which some say contributed to the financial crisis.
“He’s never owned up to it, he never explained it,” she said.
“ Obama accepted contributions from financial firms during his 2008 White House bid.”
“That did not stop him from doing what he was supposed to do,” she said. “He pushed through the Dodd-Frank bill. He signed it into law. He has defended it from constant Republican and special interest assault.”
Clinton defends Goldman Sachs speaking fees, Jan 22, 2016, The Hill.
“Clinton said there was nothing wrong with accepting the money, pointing to the diversity of organizations who solicited her for speeches. “I have spoken to so many different groups,” she said.
She pointed to Sanders’s own track record on Wall Street, including a vote in 2000 to deregulate trade on credit default swaps and derivatives, which some say contributed to the financial crisis.
“He’s never owned up to it, he never explained it,” she said.
“ Obama accepted contributions from financial firms during his 2008 White House bid.”
“That did not stop him from doing what he was supposed to do,” she said. “He pushed through the Dodd-Frank bill. He signed it into law. He has defended it from constant Republican and special interest assault.”
Come on, NYT, you know better than this. Why should she capitulate when no one else is even being asked for their speech transcripts? You guys are as bad as the Republicans.
1
Don't entirely agree with the first sentence in the last paragraph which states that it is the public who decides how much disclosure is enough. Actually, it is Mrs. Clinton's political adversaries who fear her, perpetually planting seeds of doubt about her lack of transparency and being untrustworthy, who are attempting to make these speeches appear as if she has committed some crime against humanity. I don't disagree that Mrs. Clinton might be better served by releasing the transcripts of her speeches but her detractors will no doubt carefully pick and choose select sentences and key words that fit their narrative which is solely intended to discredit her at any cost. She is damned if she does release the transcripts and damned if she doesn't because that just plays into the narrative her political foes have tried to levy on her for most of her adult life in politics as a woman who is hiding something and can't be trusted. Either scenario, both Bernie Sanders and Republicans will certainly use this against her campaign. I don't care what any candidate collects as a speaking fee. Speaking to a Wall Street audience carries little weight as well, at least as far as I'm concerned. Not everyone on Wall Street is the personification of evil. Even if Mr Sanders were a strong supporter of big banking with modest reforms, he never possessed any name recognition or the star power and worldly experiences of Hillary Clinton, to be asked to speak for free or a paid fee.
1
Great idea! Can we also have a transcript of Marco Rubio's meeting(s) with Sheldon Adelson?
She has every right to speak to ANYONE that offers her money to do so. It's part of what public servants do (for work) after serving in their positions. It doesn't matter if it's from a financial institution. Her speeches are private and do not need to be shared, its insulting to ask. I think the reason why she says she will release them if the Republicans release theirs, was meant to say, the Republicans are helping the Sanders camp to make her look bad. Shame on the Sanders camp to try this Republican tactic. Im happy she took that from the banks to use against them and to use against the Republicans when she becomes the Democratic nominee!
Thank you Gray Lady for sticking up for the American voter so we can make an informed decision. Next to Bernie, she is so plastic. Apparently, when she said she'd look into it, her handlers gave her the new pat answer - that's what's transparent.
7
It doesn't really matter what's in the speeches. The speeches are an instrument to launder a payment to a politician for future consideration and maintain that it is a legal transaction.
7
It happened when Hillary struggled to finish her speech in Harlem, in which she said that white Americans needed to recognize their "privilege." Then she started coughing and trying to suppress the various apparently living and moving objects coming out of her mouth.
2
As if you didn't know this about her when you endorsed her. What a tragic error you have made. If you had any sense, you would apologize to your readers and get behind Bernie, our only hope.
10
Trump may well beat Hillary because of things like this and her continuing fiasco with her server and the deleted e-mails.
By denying Sanders fair coverage the NYTimes is complicit in that happening.
By denying Sanders fair coverage the NYTimes is complicit in that happening.
8
People who support Clinton assume the best. People who don't support her assume the best. Both have little evidence of their claims. So how about Hillary provides us with some evidence?
2
Obviously Mrs. Clinton is not releasing these transcripts because some of them will hurt her badly. She would apparently rather endure the damage her refusal is causing than the clearly greater damage the contents would wreak.
7
Did Mitt Romney ever release is tax returns?
Seriously, wouldn't you like to see what Donald Trump said in his private speeches? If Clinton releases hers unilaterally there will be no leverage to see the GOP side.
Seriously, wouldn't you like to see what Donald Trump said in his private speeches? If Clinton releases hers unilaterally there will be no leverage to see the GOP side.
It's issues like this, and the many little lies she tells, like "I'm not part of the Establishment", or being under sniper fire in Bosnia, and sending her surrogates out to do the dirty work of attacking Bernie by making stuff up, like Chelsea did about Bernie's Healthcare plan, that makes one wonder how anyone can trust her or think she has the character to be a leader. She's not a leader. She's an opportunist.
8
She took millions of dollars from the banking industry. She says she wants to champion the regulation of this same industry. But she refuses to release what she said to them behind closed doors for those millions of dollars she took. Then she comes up wth a bunch of lame excuses to why she took their money and all her contingencies to releasing the transcripts. I guess common people don't have a right to know. What arrogance! Come on people vote for Bernie for a real change.
8
Secretary Clinton is under no obligation to release the content of these speeches. She is totally within her rights to refuse to make this information public.
And I, a lifelong Democrat, whose first presidential vote was for JFK, am totally within my rights, to conclude that the transcripts would show that despite all her talk about cracking down on Wall Street, she is completely in their pocket.
She thinks this issue is about her and her rights. It's not. It's about us and our right to make reasonable, informed judgments. If she won't tell, that's the information I have.
And I, a lifelong Democrat, whose first presidential vote was for JFK, am totally within my rights, to conclude that the transcripts would show that despite all her talk about cracking down on Wall Street, she is completely in their pocket.
She thinks this issue is about her and her rights. It's not. It's about us and our right to make reasonable, informed judgments. If she won't tell, that's the information I have.
10
I have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton's speeches were mostly innocuous. But their very insignificance would only point up the fact the the payments were essentially bribes.
9
No matter what the NY Times editors do to try to breathe life into the Clinton campaign, it is beyond redemption. She may end up with the nomination. It appears that the process is as crooked as a three-dollar bill. However, she is horribly flawed. And she's got the FBI looking over her shoulders. In fact, any other person would already be indicted, which is only further proof of the corruption.
When Donald J. Trump is being sworn in, I hope that we all will remember the valuable service of the NY Times to make that glorious day possible.
When Donald J. Trump is being sworn in, I hope that we all will remember the valuable service of the NY Times to make that glorious day possible.
7
Excellent question, New York Times!
My bet is she can't do it, but never underestimate the Clintons.
Has any couple so wiggled and parsed? And don't they have the the best brain trust that money can buy?
They've survived so many near fatal bullets: Gennifer with a G, Whitewater, Papa Bush, Monica, Impeachment ... to emerge as the heavy favorites to be our next president.
They've built a magic bridge called the Clinton Foundation from one presidency to another and it has marketed them as Oracles with Power.
Dr. Kissinger is their friend and role model.
For big bucks they tell people with money how to expand and protect their even bigger bucks.
As per usual, no twinges of guilt inhibit the Clintons so long as what they do is behind closed doors.
They walk a a tightrope between the many without much and the 1% with most.
Now my hunch is that what Hillary said to Goldman Sachs would contradict what she's promising to be as president.
But all I know for sure is that she's a pro.
Pass the popcorn.
The clock is ticking.
It's her move.
My bet is she can't do it, but never underestimate the Clintons.
Has any couple so wiggled and parsed? And don't they have the the best brain trust that money can buy?
They've survived so many near fatal bullets: Gennifer with a G, Whitewater, Papa Bush, Monica, Impeachment ... to emerge as the heavy favorites to be our next president.
They've built a magic bridge called the Clinton Foundation from one presidency to another and it has marketed them as Oracles with Power.
Dr. Kissinger is their friend and role model.
For big bucks they tell people with money how to expand and protect their even bigger bucks.
As per usual, no twinges of guilt inhibit the Clintons so long as what they do is behind closed doors.
They walk a a tightrope between the many without much and the 1% with most.
Now my hunch is that what Hillary said to Goldman Sachs would contradict what she's promising to be as president.
But all I know for sure is that she's a pro.
Pass the popcorn.
The clock is ticking.
It's her move.
9
Yes, Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and to any other banks. This editorial chooses, however, to overlook that Mrs. Clinton finds herself between a rock and a hard place.
The Republicans will use the transcripts as a distraction from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, parsing and distorting every word to suggest that she has somehow been dishonest.
We have seen the Republicans try to frame Mrs. Clinton on the phony email re-classification and private server issues, and the speech transcript issue will be more of the same, thanks to the efforts of Bernie Sanders and to the receptiveness of newspapers like the New York Times.
The push by Bernie Sanders for these transcripts demonstrates the selfishness of the populist candidate and his supporters. They would rather damage the Clinton candidacy by this distraction and propel a conservative Republican into the White House, than fairly conduct an honest campaign on the real issues for the Democratic nomination.
The New York Times characterizes Mrs. Clinton as a “mischievous child” for asking that Republican candidates make similar releases of speech transcripts. It is the editorial board which is acting like children and which is full of mischief.
Yes, let Hillary Clinton go first with a release, do not display the outrageous gall of insulting her for wanting some reciprocity. Most fair-minded Americans feel she is owed equal treatment.
The Republicans will use the transcripts as a distraction from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, parsing and distorting every word to suggest that she has somehow been dishonest.
We have seen the Republicans try to frame Mrs. Clinton on the phony email re-classification and private server issues, and the speech transcript issue will be more of the same, thanks to the efforts of Bernie Sanders and to the receptiveness of newspapers like the New York Times.
The push by Bernie Sanders for these transcripts demonstrates the selfishness of the populist candidate and his supporters. They would rather damage the Clinton candidacy by this distraction and propel a conservative Republican into the White House, than fairly conduct an honest campaign on the real issues for the Democratic nomination.
The New York Times characterizes Mrs. Clinton as a “mischievous child” for asking that Republican candidates make similar releases of speech transcripts. It is the editorial board which is acting like children and which is full of mischief.
Yes, let Hillary Clinton go first with a release, do not display the outrageous gall of insulting her for wanting some reciprocity. Most fair-minded Americans feel she is owed equal treatment.
I couldn't care less what she said in those speeches. I think if there had been anything controversial or dramatic, we would have heard about it by now. This story is just one more journalistic stunt by the media to veer things away from important issues.
I believe that Hillary Clinton will make decisions based on what's best for our country. She's been a public servant for many years and has proven herself.
Also, Hillary Clinton is a growing person. That means she learns from personal experiences and thus is able to make increasingly more clear minded decisions. As Maya Angelou stated "When we know better; we do better." How many of us do today what we might have done yesterday. Raised awareness won't let that happen.
One thing we know for sure without having to read transcripts of speeches given by anyone on the other side, is they are in the pockets of the hard right and guided by a rigid judgmental interpretation of Christianity.
Therefore, we also know how that will affect what they would do in the Oval Office. And that includes: Repeal the ACA; Continue to restrict and reduce legal abortions; No attempt to manage Climate Change because it doesn't exist; No LGBT rights; Undocumented immigrants (that balance out our economy) and their children threatened with explusion; No gun reform; Catering to the wealthy including tax cuts; Cutting back social programs; Reduced Wall Street regulation; Loss of separation of church and state and so on.
Now compare that to Hillary Clinton's potential policies. Compare that to whatever is possibly the topic of her speeches. And with a heavy dose of critical thinking, we must decide for ourselves.
Also, Hillary Clinton is a growing person. That means she learns from personal experiences and thus is able to make increasingly more clear minded decisions. As Maya Angelou stated "When we know better; we do better." How many of us do today what we might have done yesterday. Raised awareness won't let that happen.
One thing we know for sure without having to read transcripts of speeches given by anyone on the other side, is they are in the pockets of the hard right and guided by a rigid judgmental interpretation of Christianity.
Therefore, we also know how that will affect what they would do in the Oval Office. And that includes: Repeal the ACA; Continue to restrict and reduce legal abortions; No attempt to manage Climate Change because it doesn't exist; No LGBT rights; Undocumented immigrants (that balance out our economy) and their children threatened with explusion; No gun reform; Catering to the wealthy including tax cuts; Cutting back social programs; Reduced Wall Street regulation; Loss of separation of church and state and so on.
Now compare that to Hillary Clinton's potential policies. Compare that to whatever is possibly the topic of her speeches. And with a heavy dose of critical thinking, we must decide for ourselves.
1
Leaders lead by example, not by waiting to see what the other guy will do. But that has been Hillary's modus operandi for her entire career. Wait to see which way the wind is blowing, then shift her position to what is selling, and then lie through her teeth without even flinching that she ever said anything to the contrary.
2
Who in the world is advising Hillary Clinton? She needs to get advisers who will tell her the truth, not stonewall or be afraid to confront her. Yes, she needs to release the transcripts from talks made to private donors. She is running for the Presidency of the United States, not for chief negotiator (in which privacy is important). She is harming herself with this stonewalling and with her e-mail fiasco.
For heaven's sake, Hillary. Please be much more forthright during campaign. Most Democrats want you to win but you won't if you create obstacles in which the press then digs into and which creates an atmosphere of conspiracy around you. You are a terrific candidate and will make a great President. But, stop this political self-destruction on your part!
For heaven's sake, Hillary. Please be much more forthright during campaign. Most Democrats want you to win but you won't if you create obstacles in which the press then digs into and which creates an atmosphere of conspiracy around you. You are a terrific candidate and will make a great President. But, stop this political self-destruction on your part!
1
So which other candidate got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by organizations that they now claim they totally oppose? There are none. She is the only candidate obligated to release transcripts.
Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate. She was totally intimidated by a non-electable 74-year-old socialist from Vermont, who transformed her from a centrist into a left-wing progressive virtually overnight. There was no reason for her to go to war with Wall Street. She brought this on herself.
Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate. She was totally intimidated by a non-electable 74-year-old socialist from Vermont, who transformed her from a centrist into a left-wing progressive virtually overnight. There was no reason for her to go to war with Wall Street. She brought this on herself.
3
Not a fan of Mrs. Clinton but honestly, who cares what she said in these speeches. Words are worthless. Words from politicians are especially wordless. Words from politicians named Clinton - well, you know. A speech is the last place you're going to find any truths.
So, first you endorse Hillary Clinton, and NOW you are asking for the transcripts?! Seems a tad disingenuous as that ship has sailed, in part thanks to MSM bias like yours.
8
Where is Senator Eliz Warren when we really need her?
3
I know why Hillary won't release those transcripts - she wants to be paid for releasing them!
She doesn't smile without expecting something in return.
She doesn't smile without expecting something in return.
7
This editorial is phony baloney through and through.
First of all, most Democrats could not care less what Mrs. Clinton said at these presentations.
Second, she was paid less than the average for male speakers.
Third, it is unworthy of the Times to make this sort of scurrilous tarring-by-insinuation.
Could we please get back to the real issues?
First of all, most Democrats could not care less what Mrs. Clinton said at these presentations.
Second, she was paid less than the average for male speakers.
Third, it is unworthy of the Times to make this sort of scurrilous tarring-by-insinuation.
Could we please get back to the real issues?
1
Well, one thing the Sanders campaign is good at is generating online comments and "likes".
Nobody on the face of the earth has been investigated as thoroughly as Hillary Clinton, and the rightwing and the Bernie people and the media will keep it going as long as possible. Nothing sells like a new scandal, and there's no end of material to be taken out of context when someone has been in the public eye for decades.
Hillary no doubt tailored her speeches to her audience, as public speakers do. This is not a plan for what she would do as President. No doubt she knew that she might need the fees to run an expensive presidential campaign. The real question is why "politics as usual" is not OK for Hillary, but "scandals" associated with every other candidate are virtually ignored.
I'm sorry to see the NY Times contributing to the harassment of Secretary Clinton.
Nobody on the face of the earth has been investigated as thoroughly as Hillary Clinton, and the rightwing and the Bernie people and the media will keep it going as long as possible. Nothing sells like a new scandal, and there's no end of material to be taken out of context when someone has been in the public eye for decades.
Hillary no doubt tailored her speeches to her audience, as public speakers do. This is not a plan for what she would do as President. No doubt she knew that she might need the fees to run an expensive presidential campaign. The real question is why "politics as usual" is not OK for Hillary, but "scandals" associated with every other candidate are virtually ignored.
I'm sorry to see the NY Times contributing to the harassment of Secretary Clinton.
1
I just have to wonder why the Clintons are forced time after time to levels of scrutiny that no one else is required to meet. Bill Clinton had to testify in a civil case while President, which was a precedent that no one else has ever been required to meet before or since. His sex life became an intense issue of interest for a special prosecutor, who spent millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing Bill Clinton's sex life based upon a mandate to study a land deal in Arkansas.
All of Hillary's emails as Secretary of State are being released, and some have been deemed classified after the fact. No other Secretary of State or anyone in government has had to follow a similar order. Now they want transcripts of all private speeches paid for. Ronald Reagan and the Bushes never were asked to provide such transcripts, nor have any of the current Republican candidates been asked. Speeches not given for pay can be just as revealing as those given for pay. Should we now ask all candidates for public office to maintain transcripts and release all transcripts of speeches or meetings with supporters and donors? Maybe there should be cameras present for all to see anytime a candidate speaks with anyone, or maybe we should just ask the Clintons to where cameras like the police, but just the Clintons. They are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and I am sick and tired of the lack of fairness and the belief that we need to know everything about the Clintons, and no other public figures.
All of Hillary's emails as Secretary of State are being released, and some have been deemed classified after the fact. No other Secretary of State or anyone in government has had to follow a similar order. Now they want transcripts of all private speeches paid for. Ronald Reagan and the Bushes never were asked to provide such transcripts, nor have any of the current Republican candidates been asked. Speeches not given for pay can be just as revealing as those given for pay. Should we now ask all candidates for public office to maintain transcripts and release all transcripts of speeches or meetings with supporters and donors? Maybe there should be cameras present for all to see anytime a candidate speaks with anyone, or maybe we should just ask the Clintons to where cameras like the police, but just the Clintons. They are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and I am sick and tired of the lack of fairness and the belief that we need to know everything about the Clintons, and no other public figures.
2
It is gross to see bias and misogyny in a NYT editorial.
It is 100% right for Hilary to say she will release hers when the Republican candidates have released theirs. Asking for an asymmetric disclosure is ugly.
It is 100% right for Hilary to say she will release hers when the Republican candidates have released theirs. Asking for an asymmetric disclosure is ugly.
She must release the transcripts. It is a prerequisite. And we should take her up on the fairness issue and insist the Republicans do so as well. But she gets to go first.
3
Tonight in a CNN debate in Texas Donald Trump said he was not ready to release his recent tax returns. Because Trump made that choice a reasonable person might conclude that Trump thinks he will get or keep more votes by keeping that information from the public than by releasing that information to the public. Regardless of what other candidates do vis-a-vis releasing their tax returns, a voter is still in a position to make a judgement about the individual choice Donald Trump has made about releasing his returns.
The same logic applies to Hillary and her speech transcripts. Potential voters do not have to see other candidate’s speech transcripts to conclude that any individual candidate who refuses to release them thinks they will get fewer votes if they are made public.
The same logic applies to Hillary and her speech transcripts. Potential voters do not have to see other candidate’s speech transcripts to conclude that any individual candidate who refuses to release them thinks they will get fewer votes if they are made public.
It is a false equivalence to compare a speech made by former Secretary. Clinton to Goldman Sachs and other private concerns willing to pay her large sums to give a talk for 90 minutes to the talk made by Mitt Romney to raise funds to his Presidential campaign. Secretary Clinton gave the talk as a private citizen who was not running for office at that point. Her speech along with the question and answer session is the business service provided by her as one of these"inspirational" speakers frequently brought in by large corporations to motivate their employees. There are numerous individuals, including many former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Fed Chairmen, Senators that are participants in the speaker circuit, and they all charge a fee because their time is valuable.
Making her talk public would only reduce the value of such a presentation, provide talking points for the Press and the candidates running against her, but it is unlikely to provide any genuinely new "discoveries" just as the six months long review of her emails have yield nothing of significance.
Making her talk public would only reduce the value of such a presentation, provide talking points for the Press and the candidates running against her, but it is unlikely to provide any genuinely new "discoveries" just as the six months long review of her emails have yield nothing of significance.
2
This is one of the most ridiculous editorials in NY Times history.
Has the Editorial Board ever called for any politician to release transcripts of speeches? I don't think so. What does the Board expect any paid speaker to say to a group of Wall Street executives and investment bankers? That we should vote for Bernie Sanders and have super-high tax rates so that spoiled, lazy millennials are given everything for free for the remainder of their lives?
If the Editorial Board thinks Hillary may have said or done something improper here, what about putting a few of your crack reporters on the story to find out what she said. She has zero obligation to release the transcripts and should not do so.
Has the Editorial Board ever called for any politician to release transcripts of speeches? I don't think so. What does the Board expect any paid speaker to say to a group of Wall Street executives and investment bankers? That we should vote for Bernie Sanders and have super-high tax rates so that spoiled, lazy millennials are given everything for free for the remainder of their lives?
If the Editorial Board thinks Hillary may have said or done something improper here, what about putting a few of your crack reporters on the story to find out what she said. She has zero obligation to release the transcripts and should not do so.
1
The response Hillary Clinton gave was a legitimate one. What about the other Presidential candidates? What about the members of Congress who have given paid speeches and accepted paid junkets from lobbyists and other interested parties? What about the Supreme Court justices who have taken money and other favors from organizations with potential business before the Court? Singling Hillary Clinton out is disingenuous.
She's in bed with the banks. No matter what was in those speeches, their money is in her pocket. Banks don't give away millions without expecting something in return, right?
8
Totally agree, that the Clinton message to the Wall St crowd should be made public. But let us not stop at Clinton. All of these political wannabes have made it part of their political pilgrimage to genuflect before the bankers and brokers on Wall St. No candidate for national office should be able to wink and nod at Wall St. benefactors while they portray themselves otherwise to Main St.
Hillary however, should keep her paid commentary private until all of the candidates release all transcripts with all patrons. The Goose vs. the Gander rule should apply until further notice. We don't want to pull the curtain back on just half the stage. Let's see what Cruz and Rubio are hiding from the Tea Party crowd.
Hillary however, should keep her paid commentary private until all of the candidates release all transcripts with all patrons. The Goose vs. the Gander rule should apply until further notice. We don't want to pull the curtain back on just half the stage. Let's see what Cruz and Rubio are hiding from the Tea Party crowd.
2
Hogwash. The NYT ranted in the late 90's that Bill and Hillary absolutely MUST tell the truth or else, and then, when he heat was on and he was in danger of being impeached, rushed to his defense and folded like a deck of cards.
So what do you propose to do if she DOESN'T release those transcripts? You already endorsed her.
So what do you propose to do if she DOESN'T release those transcripts? You already endorsed her.
1
While your at it she should also release all donations from foreign governments while Clinton was Secretary of State.
4
Know at least one person that was in the audience at one of the GS speeches. Yes it was pretty "chummy"...but for the most part that's the paid speech circuit. Client don't pay to be lectured to. But those transcripts won't do her any favors...
4
Why just Hillary Clinton? If this is a serious campaign issue [it isn't] then all candidates should meet the same request. Otherwise, NYT, just go back to plumping Trump for prez.
Why would Mrs. Clinton not release transcripts of her speeches to banking groups?
5
birds do it bees do it even hillary should do it lets do it lets see those transcripts now
3
She should not since were private speeches. Who cares, besides Bernie Sanders and pupils, what she said in those speeches?!?!
1
I'm a Sanders fan but see absolutely no reason why she should release these transcripts.
1
If she refuses to show the transcripts then she better get out of the race now. We are sick and tired of this nonsense.
If you said to wall street what you now say to us, what do you have to be afraid of? Why aren't you anxious to release the transcripts when you know they will exonerate you, or will they?
If you said to wall street what you now say to us, what do you have to be afraid of? Why aren't you anxious to release the transcripts when you know they will exonerate you, or will they?
6
Ms. Clinton has provided so much investigative swill [e.g., questionable Clinton foundation operations, the multiple employments of her staffer Huma Abedin-Weiner] for the “ruling” congressional parties that if elected she will be subject to perpetual investigations/hearings [like President Bill with his adulterous transgressions, etc.], thus hampering her capability to serve effectively as President. Her presidency and ensuing government stalemate will unfortunately be detrimental to this nation’s people coalescing and working towards solutions to our failing economy, infrastructure, etc.
There may be more questionable dealings of Ms. Clinton that have yet to surface, some of which may be forthcoming “IF/WHEN” she releases ALL of the transcripts of her speeches to the Wall Street banksters.
There may be more questionable dealings of Ms. Clinton that have yet to surface, some of which may be forthcoming “IF/WHEN” she releases ALL of the transcripts of her speeches to the Wall Street banksters.
1
I agree on principle that if Hillary Clinton must release transcripts then everybody must. But she has released transcripts before so her own argument doesn't hold. And if she's got nothing to hide, nothing to lose and everything to gain then why is she stonewalling?
I support her and I don't buy 90% of the negative stuff about that is spread around so liberally but it does seem to me that she's cutting her nose off to spite her face here. And it makes me suspicious even though I don't want to be.
I support her and I don't buy 90% of the negative stuff about that is spread around so liberally but it does seem to me that she's cutting her nose off to spite her face here. And it makes me suspicious even though I don't want to be.
1
Why would anyone vote for a candidate who wants to be held to the same standards of every other candidate? I'd vote for the one who expects to be held to a higher standard, because they know they can meet it.
"Doing What Everyone Else Does" Hillary 2016. Not exactly inspirational.
"Doing What Everyone Else Does" Hillary 2016. Not exactly inspirational.
6
Delay - Deflect - Obfuscate - Ignore - Triangulate
This is what you get with the Clintons. Mrs Clinton has an opportunity here to put concerns to bed that she is a Wall St. puppet, but she won't. Somehow I can't see her saying, "Cut it out", to a crowd that just paid her $225K to show up for a coupe hours. I'd love to be proven wrong. Release the transcripts Mrs Clinton. It looks like you're hiding something.
This is what you get with the Clintons. Mrs Clinton has an opportunity here to put concerns to bed that she is a Wall St. puppet, but she won't. Somehow I can't see her saying, "Cut it out", to a crowd that just paid her $225K to show up for a coupe hours. I'd love to be proven wrong. Release the transcripts Mrs Clinton. It looks like you're hiding something.
7
I disagree. Clinton gave an excellent answer. Why should she be singled out? She was paid to give speeches in private forums. If the NYT and the public want to see their contents, fine, but let every candidate be required to open up their private speech transcripts. The press and the public love to try to make the Clintons follow different rules and insinuate without evidence (and if there were any evidence it would have been found given all the digging for Clinton dirt over the last 25 years) that the Clintons are financially corrupt and bought. It's childish and irrational. This "demand" from the NYT Editorial Board that Clinton be held to different standards than everyone else is ridiculous.
2
Wow. Hillary marches to the beat of "everybody's" drummer.
1
Bernie is definitely a beneficiary of saying nothing and not revealing himself a fool in this area.
1
It does seem a little bizarre to expect that Hillary Clinton -- this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about here! -- will run "an accountable and transparent White House" should she be elected. She has never said she would do that, and absolutely nothing we know about her from past and present experience should lead us to believe she will. What we know is that she will hold those cards close to the chest, as she ever has, and only reveal what she thinks we all need to know. She's no different than Trump in that respect.
7
The Times is correct that Secretary Clinton should release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms. Until she does, Bernie Sanders is the sole honest and transparent candidate in the Democratic race. Failure to release the transcripts only lens credence to the suspicion that Secretary Clinton is beholden to Wall Street.
On a related matter: according to fee schedules released in the media, Secretary Clinton received $225,000 per Wall Street speech, with one exception. In that instance, Secretary Clinton earned $275,000. This suggests that
On a related matter: according to fee schedules released in the media, Secretary Clinton received $225,000 per Wall Street speech, with one exception. In that instance, Secretary Clinton earned $275,000. This suggests that
1
As a lawyer, Hillary must know the value of exculpatory evidence. If these transcripts are that, then release them and solidify your lead. Case over.
I, too, am baffled by her continuing to justify her actions based on the behavior patterns of Republicans. First she did so by comparing her secret server emails to those of Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Now she wants to see the paid speeches of Republicans whose point of view is pro-Wall St and well known. I'm sure if they complied, she'd say all the candidates from previous years have to turn in their paid speeches, too. I think there's a message there.
I, too, am baffled by her continuing to justify her actions based on the behavior patterns of Republicans. First she did so by comparing her secret server emails to those of Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Now she wants to see the paid speeches of Republicans whose point of view is pro-Wall St and well known. I'm sure if they complied, she'd say all the candidates from previous years have to turn in their paid speeches, too. I think there's a message there.
3
Oh here we go with the extreme left and wholely dishonest negative drumbeat from the NYT editirial board. Its nothing new but very, very sad. Hardly a peep out of the NYT when Bernie Sanders and his people were caught stealing data or lying to gain entrance to union meetings , etc. No, during all of this the Times just kept extolling the honesty and integrity of Sanders and demonizing Sec. Clinton. The truth of the matter is that the editorial board are nothing but a bunch of unaccomplished blow hards, much like their hero, Bernie Sanders.
1
She could release them secure in the knowledge that not one word let along a phrase would be taken out of context and used as a weapon against her.
It seems to me there are only a few reasons industry groups would pay more than $200,000 per speech: (1) to get information they would be unable to get publicly; (2) to gain access for lobbying for their interests; or possibly (3) to increase revenue from audience members willing to pay more cumulatively than the speaker is charging.
The first two possibilities are worrisome. Revealing the transcripts might at least dispel the first possibility.
The first two possibilities are worrisome. Revealing the transcripts might at least dispel the first possibility.
2
The Clintons have always been proud of their Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) roots. Bill Clinton famously opposed Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition of Progressive Democrats (Bernie Sanders, as a mayor, was one of a few political figures to endorse Jackson in 88). And so it is no surprise that the Clintons are soft on financial regulations, favor slashing of social programs, slow to and even regressive on civil rights, and trigger happy with military spending.
6
The difference between this candidate and those on the other side continue to diminish.
7
If the NYT are serious about their demand that Hillary release to the public the transcripts of her speeches to the banks, they should be prepared to act before Super Tuesday if she does not.
The issue is sufficiently weighty that it should put into jeopardy the NYT's endorsement of Clinton over Sanders. The NYT's editorial board should inform the Clinton campaign and the public of its readiness to withdraw that endorsement. If not, its toothless demands are no less hypocritical than Hillary's threat to banks to "cut it out."
The issue is sufficiently weighty that it should put into jeopardy the NYT's endorsement of Clinton over Sanders. The NYT's editorial board should inform the Clinton campaign and the public of its readiness to withdraw that endorsement. If not, its toothless demands are no less hypocritical than Hillary's threat to banks to "cut it out."
6
She should release them before someone in one or more of the audiences is paid enough to release a recording that was surely made at a speech. That release won't take place at 5PM on a Friday but at a time maximally destructive to Clinton. She is once again calculating rather than, for once, being candid in a way that would disarm all but her most irrational critics. Should she lose her game of chicken, she will pay for it as dearly as Romney did when his 47 percent remark, recorded on a cell phone, was played to the press.
2
"Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are..."
What credibility?
What credibility?
6
The refusal to release the transcripts, while damaging, is only one of a series of major problems with the whole idea of a Presidential candidate, who swings like a windvane, to quickly point to her latest and greatest change in strategic thinking.
The recent report in the Washington Post, regarding her belief that young black men are "Super-Predators", who must "be brought to heel", as if they are dogs, is, on its own, a glaring indicator of this candidates deeply seeded racism.
Post excerpts and link -
"They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' " Clinton said in 1996, at the height of anxiety during her husband's administration about high rates of crime and violence. "No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
"The Clinton campaign submitted a written response to The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart on the issue Thursday, Clinton said: “Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/25/clinton-...
The recent report in the Washington Post, regarding her belief that young black men are "Super-Predators", who must "be brought to heel", as if they are dogs, is, on its own, a glaring indicator of this candidates deeply seeded racism.
Post excerpts and link -
"They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' " Clinton said in 1996, at the height of anxiety during her husband's administration about high rates of crime and violence. "No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
"The Clinton campaign submitted a written response to The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart on the issue Thursday, Clinton said: “Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/25/clinton-...
3
Thank you for finally raising some of the concerns that even democrats have as to whether Mrs. Clinton has been 'bought' or not. Now please address some of the activities that are possible quid pro quo, conflict of interest at the least, while she was Secretary of State. There are numerous concerning donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries and corporations with business before the State Department. Let's put that out in the light -- yes there are some articles about this in other publications, but not much is being said about this now during the election process, and not in such prominent publications as the NYT. These concerns are going to be brought out by the republicans if she gets the nomination. Let's deal with it now. Let's see some reporting on the #whichhillary tweets that dominated twitter today also.
2
I trust HRC to be a capable caretaker for the people of this country. I have not heard of any credible evidence of malfeasance while she has been in public life. I have heard innuendo, slander, allusion but no evidence that she has been indicted or convicted of any crimes other than being very visible and vocal leader of this country. The ultimate silliness would be to disarm while she is ahead of Senator Sanders. If the Republican candidate decides to request the disclosure then both parties would need to disclose speeches to lobby groups.
1
P"In the Summer of 1982, Bob Dole, telling Albert R Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, the truth about the influence of PACs, "When those political action committees give money, they "expect something in return other than good government." - "So Damn Much Money"Robert G. Kaiser p148
1
I don't really care - she will protect social security - medicare - Obamacare - and has better foreign policy credentials than any republican - CASE CLOSED.
"She is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House."
I think its more appropriate to say she damaged her credibility and has shown that she would not run an accountable and transparent White House. It's not just what she may have said to banks that paid her millions of dollars. We now know that she did an end-run around FOIA by creating a private server for government business; that while secretary of state she used that private server to send confidential data that could have compromised national security; that while secretary of state, she had her foundation accept donations from governments who had business with her as Secretary of State. This behavior speaks volumes about and young voters have already weighed in.
I think its more appropriate to say she damaged her credibility and has shown that she would not run an accountable and transparent White House. It's not just what she may have said to banks that paid her millions of dollars. We now know that she did an end-run around FOIA by creating a private server for government business; that while secretary of state she used that private server to send confidential data that could have compromised national security; that while secretary of state, she had her foundation accept donations from governments who had business with her as Secretary of State. This behavior speaks volumes about and young voters have already weighed in.
2
The Clintons earned $150 million and produced no product, hired no vast number of employees and had only one thing to sell, their influence.
While it may not be a smoking gun, one would have to be a fool to believe they are not corrupt.
Add to that the fact she purposely did 100% of her email, including classified information of a private server, and the State Department knew about it and lied when asked for emails in FOIA requests, it is clear the government is corrupt as well.
That includes Obama who said he had just learned about the email server, which we know was a lie because we now know he used her private email address.
If hundreds of complicit bureaucrats and the Clintons don't go to prison, we will know our government is lost.
That doesn't even get into the fact the left has used the IRS against conservatives for years.
You people are begging for a revolution. Clear out your trash or the country will do it for you.
While it may not be a smoking gun, one would have to be a fool to believe they are not corrupt.
Add to that the fact she purposely did 100% of her email, including classified information of a private server, and the State Department knew about it and lied when asked for emails in FOIA requests, it is clear the government is corrupt as well.
That includes Obama who said he had just learned about the email server, which we know was a lie because we now know he used her private email address.
If hundreds of complicit bureaucrats and the Clintons don't go to prison, we will know our government is lost.
That doesn't even get into the fact the left has used the IRS against conservatives for years.
You people are begging for a revolution. Clear out your trash or the country will do it for you.
3
A variant of "Everybody does it" is also the current rationale offered for setting up a private email server to conduct official State Department business.
I'm glad the Times is calling for transparency regarding speeches to Wall Street execs, but it has taken an FBI and State Department investigation, as well as a Judicial Watch court filing, to begin to pry open a far more significant failure of disclosure.
I'm glad the Times is calling for transparency regarding speeches to Wall Street execs, but it has taken an FBI and State Department investigation, as well as a Judicial Watch court filing, to begin to pry open a far more significant failure of disclosure.
2
What Secretary Clinton should do is to state straightforwardly what she probably believes: Wall Street and the financial industry need reform and tough regulations, but the business of Wall Street is not and need not be fundamentally "fraud," as Senator Sanders insists. Further, one will have to work with the financial industry to reform it, and it's in the interest of millions and millions of Americans who have pensions and investments that Wall Street does well but plays by the rules. Her plan, she could continue, will achieve this more effectively than Senator Sanders. That's a reasonable stance that Democrats and the general electorate would listen to. Instead, Secretary Clinton only feeds the public's mistrust by claiming to be "tougher" on Wall Street than Senator Sanders, while having plans (perfectly defensible) that are more "moderate" than his. No one believes that, and she needs to change the debate: it's not about who is "toughest", it's about who will regulate the financial industry in ways that protect everyone. But, Secretary Clinton's contortions on this (the outrageous answer about 9/11 for example) just end up making her look dishonest, and the huge haul from the speeches doesn't help. She accuses Sanders of being unrealistic, but she's simply not honest about what she'll do or what needs to be done. She always wants to have it both ways.
1
So does this mean the NYTimes has revised their endorsement to go over to "Feel the Bern", if their original chosen one, "I'll Look Into It Clinton" does not comply?
2
I cannot believe it!!!
A New York Times editorial critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton!
Next thing you know, Tim Cook will help the FBI read the content of one terrorist's cell phone.
It's half past to midnight here. I'm watching . . . the sun will rise any minute.
I doubt this critique will be accepted. New York Times, prove me wrong.
A New York Times editorial critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton!
Next thing you know, Tim Cook will help the FBI read the content of one terrorist's cell phone.
It's half past to midnight here. I'm watching . . . the sun will rise any minute.
I doubt this critique will be accepted. New York Times, prove me wrong.
1
Hillary's current position is that campaign finance rules need to be changed (starting with overturning Citizens United) because big money corrupts politics except when she gets it personally.
Bernie's position is that big money corrupts our system so he doesn't take any.
Some voters seem to scare about the distinction. Hillary could reassure them by releasing the transcripts.
It's sort of a "put your money where your mouth is" thing - we know where her mouth is and where know where her money came from, so let's check the overlap.
Bernie's position is that big money corrupts our system so he doesn't take any.
Some voters seem to scare about the distinction. Hillary could reassure them by releasing the transcripts.
It's sort of a "put your money where your mouth is" thing - we know where her mouth is and where know where her money came from, so let's check the overlap.
2
Has anyone who is not a Republican considered that her speeches are owned by the people that paid for them and more importantly, that she may have said things behind closed doors that would hurt her in a larger audience? If the banks and other groups were happy to spend $500 k on a speech aimed at their industries and then to give the content of the speeches away for free and if she had nothing to hide, then of course she should dump a few thousand more pages on the american public under the assumption that not a paragraph will be read by anyone who is not an opponent or an investigative reporter.
I do not believe it is possible to reach the heights she has attained without a lot of white lies and maybe a few "Whitewater" lies. It's like being sexy without sex. We do not have a governmental structure that allows totally honest people to get into positions of high office. REALLY. And don't pretend otherwise. Just sit in on some campaign staff meetings with Cruz staff to really here some good stuff.
I do not believe it is possible to reach the heights she has attained without a lot of white lies and maybe a few "Whitewater" lies. It's like being sexy without sex. We do not have a governmental structure that allows totally honest people to get into positions of high office. REALLY. And don't pretend otherwise. Just sit in on some campaign staff meetings with Cruz staff to really here some good stuff.
Thank you for a well written and well reasoned editorial. I am in total agreement with the article. This chronic type of behavior on the part of Mrs. Clinton by refusing to release transcripts of her speeches has in large part led to the characterization of her as being untrustworthy and underhanded among many voters. She seems to be her own worse enemy.
2
This is such a phony issue. Does anyone really believe Hillary would sell her soul to Wall Street, then "hide" those bribes in payments for public speaking? No, she'd keep those bribes completely hidden and nobody know. If the transcripts are released, none of her critics will be satisfied. They will either leap on some small out-of-context turn of phrase, or they will attack them as being so insipid that the overpayment was an obvious bribe.
The Article is good. It pretty much nail the fact that Hillary is her own worst enemy. Perhaps it forget to mention the fact that Hillary do not only have the Speeches to worry about. In a situation where she is pressed by the Server / e-mail issue her credibility is fading fast.
It is true that Hillary is under enormous scrutiny from the Republican party and always will be. The Clinton legacy whit her husband lying the American people straight can not be forgotten and unfortunately that is unfairly mixed into the voters perception of Hillarys honesty.
It is really strange and hard to understand how a smart career politician put herself in so much trouble.
I do not know how the Democratic party shall be able to handle the problem because of course the party is also guilty by association as well as many other elected officials on their ticket.
The reason behind that the Democratic party has lost so many seats in Congress and the Senate the last 7 years is a real issue. I personally think that the party is loosing ground due to the fact that average American people do not view the party as their anymore. The Party´s connection with Wall St is for sure a big deal and it feels like the Party is loosing the connection with its voter base.
To put all bets on Hillary is high stake gambling. It is also a very big democracy problem that the Party have the super delegates. Even a child can see the problem and my teenage daughter call it the Undemocratic party at the dinner table.
It is true that Hillary is under enormous scrutiny from the Republican party and always will be. The Clinton legacy whit her husband lying the American people straight can not be forgotten and unfortunately that is unfairly mixed into the voters perception of Hillarys honesty.
It is really strange and hard to understand how a smart career politician put herself in so much trouble.
I do not know how the Democratic party shall be able to handle the problem because of course the party is also guilty by association as well as many other elected officials on their ticket.
The reason behind that the Democratic party has lost so many seats in Congress and the Senate the last 7 years is a real issue. I personally think that the party is loosing ground due to the fact that average American people do not view the party as their anymore. The Party´s connection with Wall St is for sure a big deal and it feels like the Party is loosing the connection with its voter base.
To put all bets on Hillary is high stake gambling. It is also a very big democracy problem that the Party have the super delegates. Even a child can see the problem and my teenage daughter call it the Undemocratic party at the dinner table.
3
I agree that her refusal and dancing around the issue implies that there is definitely something to hide, however I also think that pressing the issue is pointless. Had she agreed immediately and followed up by the next day it might have proven what she said in them one way or the other, but the more time that's passed since the initial request the less relevant the actual release has become. There's been plenty of time now for those transcripts to have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and for anything in them that she & her people think might be at all incriminating to have been deleted or rewritten. She can pull the "Oh, fine. Here they are." bit now if she wants, but after all this time it would prove nothing because there's no way to tell whether anything was changed.
It's also completely ludicrous for her to complain about being held to a different standard than the Republicans. As stated in the article, the Republicans are quite open about their support for big business and Wall St. and their calls for deregulation and cutting corporate taxes in any way possible. It's one of their core policies. If they made speeches saying they would eliminate every rule, regulation & tax on Wall St. no one would be shocked. She's trying to convince voters that she'll rein in Wall St. & corporate excess, so the ball was in her court to try & make them believe that she meant it and, if the transcripts had provided any opportunity to do so, she's already missed the window.
It's also completely ludicrous for her to complain about being held to a different standard than the Republicans. As stated in the article, the Republicans are quite open about their support for big business and Wall St. and their calls for deregulation and cutting corporate taxes in any way possible. It's one of their core policies. If they made speeches saying they would eliminate every rule, regulation & tax on Wall St. no one would be shocked. She's trying to convince voters that she'll rein in Wall St. & corporate excess, so the ball was in her court to try & make them believe that she meant it and, if the transcripts had provided any opportunity to do so, she's already missed the window.
4
Hilary Clinton is running to be the president of the United States, not the handful of Wall Street executive and special interest groups. We don't live in a cognitive dissonant society (or do we?). When someone says one thing and does does the opposite of what he/she says, it behooves the public to question the integrity of this person. Hilary's full and transparent record (including her transcript) is the only way anybody can vouch for what she really believes in at the core. Bernie Sanders has been consistent all his life, and that is why I can trust him with my vote, my time, and my support.
3
Many people ask here why she should release them when she gave those speeches as a private citizen.
Well simply because it is a conflict of interest.
She knew, Wall Street knew that she'll be running for president.
She is claiming now she will be tougher regulating Wall Street than Sanders, and that she talked tough already to them.
No other candidate accepted 11m just in 2014 for speeches.
The burden is on her to prove that she is credible as simple logic suggests otherwise. Btw my guess is that her speeches are 90% boring stuff may be a few "Romney like" paragraphs in them. But the sad fact that she has just done this the year before the start of the elections tells more than the content of the speeches.
Well simply because it is a conflict of interest.
She knew, Wall Street knew that she'll be running for president.
She is claiming now she will be tougher regulating Wall Street than Sanders, and that she talked tough already to them.
No other candidate accepted 11m just in 2014 for speeches.
The burden is on her to prove that she is credible as simple logic suggests otherwise. Btw my guess is that her speeches are 90% boring stuff may be a few "Romney like" paragraphs in them. But the sad fact that she has just done this the year before the start of the elections tells more than the content of the speeches.
3
I suspect that she made a speech that made them happy.
1
Wait for everyone to go first and then she'll follow? Let the men blaze the trail and then the little lady will step through? Not much of a leader, is she? Not much of a feminist role model either.
2
I agree with the NYT's quest to have Hillary disclose her speeches to Wall Street.
However, there seems to be a bizarre and unfair asymmetry in how the press treats the democratic and republican candidates. Democratic candidates are required to answer specific, issue oriented policy questions. GOP candidates are allow to spout empty platitudes and evade and real discussion of issues.
For balance, why doesn't the NYTeditorial board loudly and relentlessly highlight Trump's evasions, bigotry, and lies. Where are his financial disclosures ?
However, there seems to be a bizarre and unfair asymmetry in how the press treats the democratic and republican candidates. Democratic candidates are required to answer specific, issue oriented policy questions. GOP candidates are allow to spout empty platitudes and evade and real discussion of issues.
For balance, why doesn't the NYTeditorial board loudly and relentlessly highlight Trump's evasions, bigotry, and lies. Where are his financial disclosures ?
1
I've attended these kinds of speeches. I'm sure they were all just boilerplate speeches. $675,000 for 3 hours of boilerplate speeches is a nice gig if you can get it. Hillary is foolish for not releasing the transcripts.
I don't care one bit what she said in her speeches and their content is really besides the point. What matters is that she doesn't understand the inherit corruption that goes with accepting any money for speeches by former public officials, especially ones who are contemplating a run for public office.
2
Remember the video of Mitt Romney making a speech that surfaced just before the election? I'll bet that, prior to Hillary's speeches, the venue was searched with a fine tooth comb to prevent this from happening again. Frankly I wouldn't trust her with my lunch money.
2
Waiting for everyone else to go first? Not much of a leader, is she? Let the men blaze the trail and then the little lady will go. Not much of a feminist role model either.
1
There always comes a time when you show your cards or you walk away from the table. It's well past time to do the former before you're forced by circumstance to do the latter.
1
Could we please separate the public from the private. Government is supposed to operate in the open air. The private sector operates behind closed doors. One represents the people, the other represents money. One should represent workers and the other represent capital (management). It's bad enough that one of our two political parties represents money, management, and private interests. Should it be this difficult to tell the Democrats from the GOP? No - government should belong to the people. Private property (where the money is) is not ours.
Not showing the transcripts will indeed damage Mrs. Clinton, but I suspect that showing them will damage her even more.
1
I find it interesting that Mrs. Clinton seems to operate under a shroud of secrecy. Her emails were on a private server "for convenience" and then earns millions of dollars in speaking fees and won't release the transcripts. She's like the reincarnation of Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.
2
Until the Republican candidates tell who all their donors are, Hillary is correct in declining to divulge her funding sources and in saying there is a double standard. Bernie made the choice to limit his funding sources. This will severely curtail his ability to conduct a successful campaign in the general election. Hillary knows how elections are won. Look what happened to John Kerry when he got "swift boated" but didn't have enough money to conduct a vigorous defense.
1
Mrs. Clinton should make public the whole texts of her highly paid speeches to the Big Banks and to the CEOs of giant corporations. But how will we know if what she shows us is what she actually said? and all of it?
2
Hillary Clinton is in a primary race with Bernie Sanders and she's being asked legitimate questions regarding HER intentions with regards to Wall Street. The answers matter deeply to the voters in this particular race These speeches will shed light on her true feelings regarding this subject. To claim she's suffering from some sort of double standard is utter nonsense.
Who genuinely believes that the people who pay her millions are afraid of her?
Or that her campaign backers - who pay so much - have no ulterior motive.
This paper has made a serious error in working so hard on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, and so hard against Senator Sanders. Sanders has shown tremendous courage, character, wisdom, judgement and poise. He is a great candidate and stands the better chance of victory in the fall. I have watched The New York Times trample on him often and for what? Because you think a candidate with character is a bad thing? Because his ideas are bad? If Sanders' ideas are so bad, why does Hillary keep claiming a weakened version of them as her own? What were her ideas otherwise? Finally, if her character is so good, why this editorial?
Who genuinely believes that the people who pay her millions are afraid of her?
Or that her campaign backers - who pay so much - have no ulterior motive.
This paper has made a serious error in working so hard on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, and so hard against Senator Sanders. Sanders has shown tremendous courage, character, wisdom, judgement and poise. He is a great candidate and stands the better chance of victory in the fall. I have watched The New York Times trample on him often and for what? Because you think a candidate with character is a bad thing? Because his ideas are bad? If Sanders' ideas are so bad, why does Hillary keep claiming a weakened version of them as her own? What were her ideas otherwise? Finally, if her character is so good, why this editorial?
3
The Clintons grifted their way to riches as money-hungry climbers their whole lives - from taking tax deductions of $6 for a donation of a pair of Bill's USED socks - to the REFCO cattle futures bribes - to the Whitewater deal - to Madison Guaranty - all the way, sucking money first from the Arkansas version of Wall Street (REFCO) to the real Wall Street banks.
1
The Clintoons are funny:
"The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.
He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!"
"The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.
He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!"
1
Seriously. There are so many other, right now anguishingly important human issues in our country, and indeed The World (writ large) of concern, to just say shut up Donald. Bernie get real. And Madame Secretary, please supervise your truly important campaign with elan and forwardness. Strait as you go.
The more she stalls the more it's likely that she really does have something to hide.
2
Just for the record, can we all agree that no one - ABSOLUTELY NO ONE - has ever been treated like Hillary Clinton? Tens of thousands of her emails have been released. Where are the emails of ANY other candidate including Bernie Sanders? And now Sanders wants to see transcripts of her speeches? What about the bizarre articles Bernie wrote for wacko left-wing tabloids in Vermont? Shouldn't the NYT republish them? You know, so the people can decide before it's too late?
1
HRC is very consistent in not releasing her transcript this has been her M O whenever any of her actions are challenged as she did re Whitewater and then with other questionable decisions she took. and lately with email fiasco.
Her poor judgement in various issues doesn't give me a lot of confidence and that is the reason I support the true progressive Bernie Sanders.
She is just not trust worthy. Clinton's would say anything to anyone to get what thy want. And she wants the nomination.
Her poor judgement in various issues doesn't give me a lot of confidence and that is the reason I support the true progressive Bernie Sanders.
She is just not trust worthy. Clinton's would say anything to anyone to get what thy want. And she wants the nomination.
3
Wasserman-Schultz should resign.
3
The calculus is clear: Mrs. Clinton believes the damage to her from releasing those transcripts is greater than the damage she is sustaining by not being forthcoming with the information.
1
I'm sorry but stating that it is absurd that Clinton should release her transcripts, I just don't know how that could be said. We're not buying are new car here we are selecting the next potential president. This is what's wrong with candidates. If you are running for office you should have the integrity to answer any question presented to you by the people. In my line of work when someone will not answer the question they're hiding something they know is wrong.
5
Can we just take a moment and read the part about Senator Sanders? It's sad the focus remains on Mrs. Clinton and her untrustworthy and irrevocable personality that shines over years of history when there's a direct foil of motive in the Democratic race.
1
I submitted this comment last night, but is appears that some comments from last night were lost. So I'll try again: Well done, NYT Editorial Board. After Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill disappointingly gave Clinton an obvious pass on this issue at the PBS debate, I very much appreciate the NYT Editorial Board and the other debate/town hall moderators and participants keeping this very vital issue alive.
3
Occupy Wall Street movement may have died but the idea that politicians and Wall Street are too cozy and that there is nothing the people can do to stop politicians from giving billions of dollars to Wall Street when next round of bailout is due. Why vote when both party are in bed with the Wall Street. Democrats can not win if the voter turnout is low. Hillary is not helping.
4
Forget principles, precedents, slippery slopes and quid pro quo. At some point, Hillary just needs to do the right thing.
3
I will vote and it will be for a Democrat or independent, and unless you hate your nation, you will too! However, should Mrs Clinton be my only choice, I will be holding my nose.
1
Her point is this: when you hold other [read: male] candidates to the same standard as you are holding me, I'll happily play along and release every word I've ever spoken anywhere (including when I was a private citizen not holding office, which is exactly what she was during the GS speeches). Until then, you can go to h-ll.
It's not petulant. She is making an implicit statement about equality. And I couldn't agree with her more.
Is anyone demanding transcripts of Sander's private speeches be made public? Trump's? Rubio's? Cruz's?
The double standard witch hunts put forth by both right and left against HRC are vomit worthy. And yes, women notice, and vote.
It's not petulant. She is making an implicit statement about equality. And I couldn't agree with her more.
Is anyone demanding transcripts of Sander's private speeches be made public? Trump's? Rubio's? Cruz's?
The double standard witch hunts put forth by both right and left against HRC are vomit worthy. And yes, women notice, and vote.
Sounds like the NYT is hedging it's bet. First its, asking Hillary to support $15 hr min wage, now its please release your transcripts. Don't want to look to foolish when Bernie wins the nomination?
3
So, okay, Mrs. Clinton feels it is 'unfair' for her to exercise transparency and show the transcripts of speeches for which she received over half a million dollars--from an industry that she claims an eagerness to regulate.
How about if she shows her tax returns in the meantime, which would be fair since the Republican candidates are pledging to reveal theirs?
It might be instructive to know if she owns any stocks in Goldman Sachs and how many multi-million- dollar houses she owns, since she is an advocate of the poor and powerless.
How about if she shows her tax returns in the meantime, which would be fair since the Republican candidates are pledging to reveal theirs?
It might be instructive to know if she owns any stocks in Goldman Sachs and how many multi-million- dollar houses she owns, since she is an advocate of the poor and powerless.
6
I worked on Wall Street for close to 25 years as a fairly senior professional. Over the entire span of my career, I frequently I worked 60 to 80 hours a week. And in none of those years did I make as much as Secretary Clinton made from three speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Nothing is given away on Wall Street. When people pay someone $675,000 for three hours of their time, trust me: they are buying the person not the speech. More to the point, Clinton is way too sophisticated not to know how the game is played. Way, way too sophisticated.
Reading the comments that defend her, I can only conclude that a great many Democrats have no problem with their presidential candidate being bought and paid for by big business.
So we have another difference between the Bill Clinton New Democrats and the old Democrats of FDR, LBJ and RFK:
The New Democrats don't believe the concept of conflict of interest exits; the old Democrats know that rampant conflict of interest is the core reason our democracy is in trouble.
Nothing is given away on Wall Street. When people pay someone $675,000 for three hours of their time, trust me: they are buying the person not the speech. More to the point, Clinton is way too sophisticated not to know how the game is played. Way, way too sophisticated.
Reading the comments that defend her, I can only conclude that a great many Democrats have no problem with their presidential candidate being bought and paid for by big business.
So we have another difference between the Bill Clinton New Democrats and the old Democrats of FDR, LBJ and RFK:
The New Democrats don't believe the concept of conflict of interest exits; the old Democrats know that rampant conflict of interest is the core reason our democracy is in trouble.
11
Releasing the transcripts can only harm her in the short run. Either she said things that will make her look weak on Wall Street regulation, or the speeches were banal vanilla, raising the question of why she was paid millions for them. Better she get the short run hit over with in time for the media to forget about it by election time.
1
The more she stalls the more I want to read the transcripts and shine a light on the $$ wealthy institutions have paid her.
4
Hillary Clinton cannot release her paid-speech transcripts as they'd show both to what and to whom she's committed.
5
Did she actually make a speech? I have my doubts... How do you tell if Hillary is lying? Her lips are moving.
2
“Everything I did was perfectly legal” isn't a very good campaign slogan….
5
This editorial just restored my faith in the NYTIMES as a credible and trustworthy paper of record. Nice save there, I was about to cancel my subscription.
6
The neoliberals - Republicans pretending to be democrats.
2
If we are worried about Clinton's speeches, then how about we get the transcripts of what Rubio said that made Norman Braman hand over millions in campaign funding along with paying Rubio's personal bills. Let's hear what the GOP candidates have said to the people who gave them millions -- Adelson, the Koch clan, etc. Steve Cohen - Wall Street crook nailed on insider trading -- gave Christie $6 million in campaign contributions for a failed campaign -- what promises did Christie - the self-styled crime fighting ex-prosecutor give to the criminal Cohen?
I think the NYT Editorial Board is being ridiculous in this demand unless they want to demand it of every candidate from both parties and of every member of Congress since they all give speeches, take free trips, etc. on the tab of their "supporters" and on the tab of the companies that have them speak at their events.
I think the NYT Editorial Board is being ridiculous in this demand unless they want to demand it of every candidate from both parties and of every member of Congress since they all give speeches, take free trips, etc. on the tab of their "supporters" and on the tab of the companies that have them speak at their events.
As I've told others, I don't care if she carjacks me. Have you seen what's on the other side of the aisle?? C'mon folks, do you really want to give Trump, Rubio, or (shudder) Cruz the keys to the car? You will regret it.
I support Bernie Sanders. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee I will not vote for her unless she shows us those transcripts.
7
Democrats calling for HRC's "transparency" on the issue of her paid speeches are as bad as the Republicans who wasted millions on a House committee investigating her role in the unfortunate Benghazi debacle. The tone of those demanding that she show-and-tell in the comments to this article provide clear indications that they support Senator Sanders for the nomination-- and they are using this attack as a convenient way to show their affiliation. As such, it is a pro-Sanders partisan issue and nothing more. I say stand your ground Hilary; you will be the candidate come November when this issue is long forgotten.
Will the media be asking for her diary next? After all, don't the voters deserve to know what's going on in every aspect of her life? What she REALLY thinks? Tax returns, emails, speeches, just add her diary to the list. Maybe her browser history, too. Privacy be damned.
From Hillary's perspective, this call for transparency in the content of her big-bucks speeches to the financial elite is clearly just another facet of a vast left-wing conspiracy.
5
The Times needs to do an investigation of the relationship between Secretary Clinton and the groups that paid her so much money. This more than what are likely boiler plate talks is the real story. Recently the DailyKos reported that her last paid speech was to a national non profit camping group. They paid her $260.000 which was 10% of their entire yearly budget and coincidently had been able to employ tens of thousands of foreign workers as "cultural exchange" and not pay any Social Security taxes. I doubt this is the only instance of such a connection. Surely the Times could do some research on the groups that paid Mrs. Clinton all those millions.
5
Forget about releasing the transcripts that's meaningless. Clinton needs to return the money or better yet donate it to the US treasury. While she's at it donate any speaking fees from schools (or their alumni associations) to the schools. What kind of public servant when asked to speak to college kids puts her palm out and demands hundred of thousands of dollars????
6
Shred the transcripts, Hillary.
The Times will still endorse you, and like minded voters will hold their noses, and vote for you.
The Times will still endorse you, and like minded voters will hold their noses, and vote for you.
Somewhat off the subject of the current editorial, but it needs to be said I think. HRC is running to be the first woman president of the US. She is soliciting whatever votes she can with that argument.
But she has her husband campaigning for her, shilling for her. Is she really saying that a woman can be president if her husband was president first?
But she has her husband campaigning for her, shilling for her. Is she really saying that a woman can be president if her husband was president first?
2
Really? You're asking your endorsee to reveal something that might invalidate your choice?
More likely, we're being set up for the release of a transcript or two, carefully chosen and edited to reassure us that Hillary's speeches were consistent with her campaign.
Who needs the transcripts? The money says it all.
More likely, we're being set up for the release of a transcript or two, carefully chosen and edited to reassure us that Hillary's speeches were consistent with her campaign.
Who needs the transcripts? The money says it all.
5
Let me see - another mass shooting in Kansas. A few days ago there was another one - 6 more people died. I don't need to remind anyone here of all the tragic mass shootings.
Bernie, an economic populist and an avowed activist for the people, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owner and manufacturers. In 1993, he voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. He has switched his stance on gun control but has said in the past that gun control would not help prevent gun violence. In an interview after Sandy Hook he said that ‘if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen."
Stop the darn anointing and bestowing a halo on Bernie. If he could change his stance, expediently, on gun control, Hillary can do the same with any other darn topic.
And oh you know that Welfare Bill that Bill Clinton passed that he is slapping Hillary with? He voted for it.
ENOUGH!
Bernie, an economic populist and an avowed activist for the people, doesn’t talk much about guns on the campaign trail. But his voting record paints the picture of a legislator who is both skeptical of gun control and invested in the interests of gun owner and manufacturers. In 1993, he voted against the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms. As a senator, Sanders supported bills to allow firearms in checked bags on Amtrak trains and block funding to any foreign aid organization that registered or taxed Americans’ guns. He has switched his stance on gun control but has said in the past that gun control would not help prevent gun violence. In an interview after Sandy Hook he said that ‘if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen."
Stop the darn anointing and bestowing a halo on Bernie. If he could change his stance, expediently, on gun control, Hillary can do the same with any other darn topic.
And oh you know that Welfare Bill that Bill Clinton passed that he is slapping Hillary with? He voted for it.
ENOUGH!
2
It's not the unknown text of transcripts that's unsettling. It's her insistence that the text remain unknown that's odd.
3
The amounts Mrs. Clinton earned for very little work were obscene. That alone should tell us something about the character and values of Mrs. Clinton. Aside from that, we also should know if Mrs. Clinton takes different positions on issues when she receives outrageously large payments for her views than when she is campaigning for the highest office in the country. There seems to be a common thread here when you combine using a personal email server for all emails sent or received as Secretary of State and the reluctance to disclose what she tells people for compensation. Mrs. Clinton does what she can to prevent the public from knowing what she does and thinks. This leads to the conclusion that a Hillary Clinton presidency would do as much as possible out of public view. That is not a good for accountability.
8
Name another candidate whose name is invoked as an adjective: "Clinton-esque". I still have Clinton fatigue from the last go-around. We deserve so much better.
9
I think we can assume Hillary made statements that were pro-business and pro-investment to these groups. The question to me is: why is that so bad? Why are we so polarized in this country that people cannot understand that relentless bashing of Wall Street, without some understanding that Wall Street is the engine that fuels the entire American economy, is pointless? I like Hillary precisely because she represents the right balance on this issue. I wish she would own it, and I think she will after she beats Bernie.
1
Do we really need to see the transcripts? The financial institutions didn't pay Ms. Clinton to give a speech criticizing their behavior and calling on them to be better citizens!
2
give her a break. do you want any of the repubs running or waiting for a 'brokered convention' in the white house? politicis is a dirty business. and no, i do not think sanders can be elected.
They probably contain some shaky stuff, all which would be a feast for out-of-context sound-biters, etc. She should release them I guess, but calm down. It's a hard job. She'll do it well. Life is messy. I like Bernie a lot, but A) I can't afford him (read the tax plan), and B) the vision is a little dreamy. Really. Also bear in mind that, five years from now, having had the living daylights kicked out of him every minute of every day, he's gonna be a fragile old man. I really, really like Bernie, but I just can't get there -- a little sad, but true. It's a really hard job that she is up for. She will do the work. Just like she did as senator for NY, including bright-red upstate, where they wouldn't pee on her if she was on fire. And besides, it is cool that she's a woman, which it seems is more significant to me than to the women in my life. I mean, it's cool that they're not all knee-jerk about it, but...
1
How about "Secretary Clinton"? Isn't that the correct way to address her?
But I do agree.
But I do agree.
1
This is a false comparison.
As a public servant, one must not simply avoid conflicts of interest, but one must avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Any lawyer knows this, and Ms. Clinton is indeed an accomplished lawyer, so this concept should have been drilled into her head during law school.
Telling the voters you will fight to regulate Wall Street while taking large sums of money to give closed-door speeches to Wall Street is - at the very, very least - the appearance of a conflict of interest. Releasing the transcripts would relieve her of the appearance of conflict.
As a public servant, one must not simply avoid conflicts of interest, but one must avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Any lawyer knows this, and Ms. Clinton is indeed an accomplished lawyer, so this concept should have been drilled into her head during law school.
Telling the voters you will fight to regulate Wall Street while taking large sums of money to give closed-door speeches to Wall Street is - at the very, very least - the appearance of a conflict of interest. Releasing the transcripts would relieve her of the appearance of conflict.
9
We just want to do a little fact checking this time election. Mrs. Clinton is positioning herself to the left of Warren on Wall Street and the banks and something is not adding. Why would they keep inviting her speak if they didn't like what she had to say?
Anyway, we have a real opportunity for a clean slate. I just don't want to throw away my vote on the wrong candidate.
Anyway, we have a real opportunity for a clean slate. I just don't want to throw away my vote on the wrong candidate.
8
Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street. ThiS is known. Her transcripts of speeches made to Goldman Sachs will confirm that, I'm sure.
Think of it- Bill Clinton was making $40 a year as governor of Arkansas. After 30 or so years in office or the public eye, the Clintons are worth Millions if not billions., They know how to use their positions to draw money from supporters. Even Chelsea is worth a fortune as is her husband. Public office for them is a chance to corruptly grab money.
Think of it- Bill Clinton was making $40 a year as governor of Arkansas. After 30 or so years in office or the public eye, the Clintons are worth Millions if not billions., They know how to use their positions to draw money from supporters. Even Chelsea is worth a fortune as is her husband. Public office for them is a chance to corruptly grab money.
7
I suppose that many think the Clinton Family Foundation is private business as well - even if it includes a former US President, former US First Lady, former Senator and former Secretary of State actively soliciting donations and fundraising for elections at the same time? It is interesting that with the Clintons everything is "private" but if the opposition sneezes there's an outcry. They hire people to whom they are beholden, hide their "take" in tax free schemes while raising everyone else's taxes, live off hidden wealth and then claim whatever they want. There has, indeed, for decades, been a standard for them and one for everyone else. This is precisely why Hillary is insulted when she is cornered, required to actually account for something, anything, and esplains her remote, cold dismissive attitude of the masses. After all, she is Hillary. Don't you get that?
8
I cannot understand how Hillary can claim she will "go after Wall Street" for the little people when her hand his heavy with their money. Seeing the transcripts might ease my disbelief, but for now I hold Hillary in contempt. The fact that she can take two such opposing stances, and believe that Americans won't notice, is further proof that she holds us in contempt.
Where is Biden when we need him?
Where is Biden when we need him?
6
Agree, but also wish the media and Republicans would push for the release of information on Trump University, Trump's hiring practices, and whatever other shenanigans he has been involved with.
1
The private companies that paid for the speeches own them. If they want to release them it is their choice.
It's not just these transcripts. We all know that Oklahoma state is being richer by man made earthquakes never seen before. These are not natural geological shifts of nature. They are caused by fracking. In our greed for energy we are foolishly causing fracking. So what does Mrs Clinton do on the eve of Iowa caucuses? "Hillary Clinton left the campaign trail for a high-dollar fundraiser at a hedge fund. That same hedge fund is a major investor in fracking."
11
Of course she should release those transcripts. Continued failure to do so inflames those of us who are deeply suspicious of her character to begin with. The Republicans are in a civil war and appeal to the right on both foreign and domestic policy. It appears the only honest, authentic person running is Mr. Sanders.
9
Shortly after the Watergate break-in, Nixon could have saved his presidency by saying "I take full responsibility for this." Americans are a forgiving lot when they feel a person owns up to bad deeds. Nixon lost his way by not coming clean immediately. The longer Hillary puts up a roadblock to those transcripts, the greater the speculation that she said things that would support Sanders' criticism of her has a Wall Street crony. It may not stop her from the nomination but it would be damning in the general election.
8
The obvious truth: If Hillary had nothing to hide she would've have released the transcripts already. She can't be trusted.
11
That's a great move, NYT! Yes, let's hear what Hillary says in those speeches. Let's learn where she really stands.
8
Let's stand back and look at this. If this candidate displays such unreasonable peevishness and refusal to behave like an adult over something so easy to comply with, what kind of a horror show of bad humor and worse judgment can we look forward to if this candidate is elected?
I have no desire to relive '90s but without the opportunity, with entrenched institutions having tightened their chokehold on our lives, and the prospect of an unlivable planet looming on the horizon. The last thing we need is a president who's dedicated to maintaining the status quo.
I have no desire to relive '90s but without the opportunity, with entrenched institutions having tightened their chokehold on our lives, and the prospect of an unlivable planet looming on the horizon. The last thing we need is a president who's dedicated to maintaining the status quo.
10
Okay. She asked, I'll answer.
"Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”
Because, Mrs. Clinton, you are one of two Democrats we have to choose between for our presidential candidate. The other one ("everybody else") has released his speech transcripts (zero). You have not. If you do not, we can only conclude, and quite rightfully, that you are hiding things. That if you revealed them you would not win the Democratic nomination. We the voters do not want a candidate who goes and gives implicit promises to Wall Street, to banks who commit fraud on the people and then get bailed out. If you did not do that, you have nothing to fear, and afraid you are.
So, no, Mrs. Clinton, this is not a double standard. It is just a standard for a Democratic candidate.
"Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”
Because, Mrs. Clinton, you are one of two Democrats we have to choose between for our presidential candidate. The other one ("everybody else") has released his speech transcripts (zero). You have not. If you do not, we can only conclude, and quite rightfully, that you are hiding things. That if you revealed them you would not win the Democratic nomination. We the voters do not want a candidate who goes and gives implicit promises to Wall Street, to banks who commit fraud on the people and then get bailed out. If you did not do that, you have nothing to fear, and afraid you are.
So, no, Mrs. Clinton, this is not a double standard. It is just a standard for a Democratic candidate.
11
And she wonders why she has an honesty problem.
10
By this standard, why doesn't Donald Trump have to release his boardroom notes -- if he has any. Why didn't Mitt Romney have to release the board room conversations that made him $200 million? I would have been interested in hearing how vulture capitalists gut a company.
And since Heidi Cruz is a bigwig at Goldman-Sachs, shouldn't you be demanding that Ted Cruz hand over her closed door conversations or better yet, let's get all the specifics on Marco Rubio's financial deals with Norman Braman.
And since Heidi Cruz is a bigwig at Goldman-Sachs, shouldn't you be demanding that Ted Cruz hand over her closed door conversations or better yet, let's get all the specifics on Marco Rubio's financial deals with Norman Braman.
1
Hillary Clinton has been held to a higher standard than any other public figure, since she was the First Lady of Arkansas. I'm getting tired of the Crusade. She has my vote.
5
Disappointing editorial. If you take issue with the fact that she gave speeches of unknown content to Wall Street, fine. But, NYT, please tell me your issue isn't with the dollar amount she was paid. Apparently a few more editors are needed to notice such a thinly veiled sexist trope
2
The reports that have surfaced about Clinton's remarks in these ten or so speeches indicate that they were fairly innocuous -- light in tone, general, and noncommittal. Sorry Sandersistas, you won't find statements by Clinton thanking Big Bad Banks for their money and promising to do their bidding just as soon as she wins the presidency.You will no doubt find plenty to misrepresent and to slander her with, but then, you do that anyway. Clinton has made it exceedingly clear that she understands the causes of the 2007/08 great recession (Sanders doesn't), and that she will work to improve Dodd-Frank to address regulatory problems re the risks inherent in the practices of shadow banking firms. By all means, release the transcripts, just as soon after Super Tuesday as possible. In the long line of anti-Clinton campaigns by the rapid right and the left (e.g., Foster, Whitewater, Benghazi!, Emails!), this one seems the flimsiest. Thanks, Editorial Board, great job.
1
All public figures and those seeking public office ought to be required to make know all prior positions made publicly, made privately
2
Clinton is either hiding something that is inconsistent with the image she wants to promote in the campaign, or this is just another instance of bad judgment on her part consistent with her vote in favor of the war in Iraq, personal email server, etc. Either way, it reflects badly on her as presidential material. Why, or why, can't we have better candidates on both sides? This is disheartening.
11
I find it so discouraging that Mrs Clinton feels she can not be forthright and transparent on this issue. It immediately brings to mind her stance and recalcitrance regarding her private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State. The New York Times editorial board is correct in saying that she must release these transcripts immediately. Otherwise, she gives the impression she is hiding something. It is not appropriate to behave in this manner if you wish to be President. Not only must you be truthful but you must be seen to be truthful. Actions speak louder than words...
11
Hillary has to dress correctly for the show. The men don't. She cannot cry, or show too much emotion. She can't show too little. The men can. (Boehner is still crying). She has to disclose her speeches, emails and every word she utters. Trump goes bankrupt, violates labor laws and lies on tape. Nobody cares enough to call him on it.
That being said, release the transcripts Hillary. You are much bigger and better than they are, and you've got my vote.
That being said, release the transcripts Hillary. You are much bigger and better than they are, and you've got my vote.
3
Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules.
I say Hillary is not trustworthy and she plays by her own rules. She forgot that she was an employee of the United States Federal Government when she installed her private server, serving only her own paranoia.
I say Hillary is not trustworthy and she plays by her own rules. She forgot that she was an employee of the United States Federal Government when she installed her private server, serving only her own paranoia.
14
Maybe Hillary will release the speeches when Trump releases his tax returns. It seem like they both have something to hide.
5
I'm glad to see the editorial board has apparently done a bit of re-thinking about their earlier ill-advised endorsement of Mrs. Clinton. It has become obvious to me that she is a weak candidate. If Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton become the standard bearers for their parties, the American voters will have a choice. On the one hand, they can choose a candidate running a misogynistic, xenophobic, racist campaign. Or, on the other, they can choose a candidate whose "experience" reveals mediocre judgment (the Iraq invasion) and who habitually lives in a river of sludge (the bribery [excuse me, excessive speaking fees] from the likes of Goldman Sachs). No wonder she is hiding her speeches and, no doubt, other material. Under these circumstances, I don't see how you enhance what is left of our democracy by voting for either candidate. (Mrs. Clinton will be a very easy mark for Mr; Trump in any debate. There is only one candidate who can forcibly take him on and, I think, defeat him. His name is Bernie Sanders, whom you have consistently underestimated. He can defeat Trump for three reasons that come immediately to mind: he is clean and possessed of authenticity and good character -- qualities all too rare in the political scene. Second, he is bright, articulate, and feisty Third, his judgment is sound, resulting in enlightened positions -- voted against the Iraq invasion and our other recent wars: Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria; etc.
14
If she does win the presidency, she must release these NOW to ensure she clears the air on this, so that she will have the majority of the country supporting her presidency and goals, whether they voted for her or not.
It's weird that she can't see the distinction - sure, many in government then go on and make a fortune in giving speeches. But they don't turnaround and run for presidency on a platform of looking out for the less fortunate.
Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, et al ... they did not run for Presidency. Hillary's contention of some "double standard" has even her diehard supporters seriously scratching their head.
It's weird that she can't see the distinction - sure, many in government then go on and make a fortune in giving speeches. But they don't turnaround and run for presidency on a platform of looking out for the less fortunate.
Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, et al ... they did not run for Presidency. Hillary's contention of some "double standard" has even her diehard supporters seriously scratching their head.
8
I'm a Democrat and a Liberal, but I think Hillary should release all the transcripts, unedited to a couple of reliable news sources - NOT to the Republicans. In my opinion, I believe that she will, but she will not do it until we get closer to the actual election. She's a shrewd politician, and she will not do anything that is not worthwhile to gaining part of the 10% of the vote that is neither liberal or conservative. By the way...when will Mr Trump release his tax records??? Most candidates have done that in January of the election year.
1
“Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?” is a reflection of the bogus victimhood culture promoted by Clinton's fifty years of feminist dogma. No male candidate could use a "why only me?" excuse and get away with it.
12
In your own editorial words, "Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have pretty innocuous." There is no there there, but it gives Bernie another conspiracy theory to harp on, and of course hyping controversy is the way of journalism these days. Well known politicians are routinely paid to give speeches so as to give industry meetings and conferences more prestige than they would otherwise have. If any of these kinds of speeches offered some little known key or even "secret" insight, they would have been leaked by someone long ago. It is long past time to debunk industry speeches by politicians as merely corporate window dressing.
2
I could care less about transcripts. Hillary Clinton needs to come out and publicly apologize for her twitter comment concerning the "event" at the University of Albany. President Robert Jones needs to submit his resignation immediately. You want to talk about transcripts New York Times editorial board? Let's first resolve the basket full of lies in front of us and then we can address whatever you seek about Hillary's speeches.
2
I think she should release the recordings as well. There is much distrust afoot because of her stonewalling this issue ao that transcripts at this point will not be enough. Releasing the recordings as well would remove all doubt instantly and pave the way for her immediately.
8
I'm a less than enthusiastic potential voter for Secretary Clinton.
If she declines to be transparent about this or any other issue, I will definitely reconsider my position.
Her bewildering responses imply she fears transparency will harm her candidacy.
If she has something to hide, she should have enough respect for American voters to simply retire from the campaign. Otherwise, show us everything and let us decide.
If she declines to be transparent about this or any other issue, I will definitely reconsider my position.
Her bewildering responses imply she fears transparency will harm her candidacy.
If she has something to hide, she should have enough respect for American voters to simply retire from the campaign. Otherwise, show us everything and let us decide.
10
Golly. To read the comments, it's as though nobody ever noticed before that in a society built around money, money matters. I myself am amazed.
The Secretary ought to release the stupid transcripts, and donate the money either to Flint, Michigan--or to Bernie Sanders' campaign.
But that's not because she did something particularly wrong or even hypocritical, as opposed to Holy Saint Bernie. It's the politics, stupid.
It simply looks bad, and is partly fixable. Not that the devotees (as opposed to the supporters) of HSB as well as the loons in the GOP won't grab every syllable, wave it in the air, and shriek.
It's a sideshow, guys. Stop with the sideshow.
The Secretary ought to release the stupid transcripts, and donate the money either to Flint, Michigan--or to Bernie Sanders' campaign.
But that's not because she did something particularly wrong or even hypocritical, as opposed to Holy Saint Bernie. It's the politics, stupid.
It simply looks bad, and is partly fixable. Not that the devotees (as opposed to the supporters) of HSB as well as the loons in the GOP won't grab every syllable, wave it in the air, and shriek.
It's a sideshow, guys. Stop with the sideshow.
1
Better prepare yourself: there'll be years of Clinton's stonewalling and governmental paralysis as a consequence if she's elected. She demonstrates the paranoid style of government and has for years. Her style is untruthful, nepotistic, dynastic and secretive: the opposites of true democratic virtues. We have put up with this for years from Bill-Hill. Do you really want more ? How can anyone ? How can we waste more time on the Clintons' self-created problems when we have so much to do for country ?
9
A perfectly stated critique. I had almost come around to the idea that Hillary may be the better option compared to the strong likelihood of either a Trump, Cruz or Rubio nomination. But hearing her petulant, unconvincing and, yes, mystifying evasions on this issue reminded me of everything I can not stand about her.
So Democratic primary voters are supposed to vote for her based on the promise that she will release the speeches once she's been nominated? What an arrogant and entitled attitude.
So Democratic primary voters are supposed to vote for her based on the promise that she will release the speeches once she's been nominated? What an arrogant and entitled attitude.
7
What's next? A demand for a transcript of what Hilary and Bill discuss at bedtime? There are plenty of waiters and others who would report what she said at one of these private gatherings if she said something flaming like half of us are on the dole.
3
I am surprised by this editorial as well. Clinton's enemies love to create the "straw man" a false situation where you can knock it down easily but it is false to begin with. The need to release private speech transcripts is invalid on its face. If you want to find out what she said then pay her her speaking fee and you would be entitled to it. What can people possibly imagine that she is saying? She is relating her wealth of experience and knowledge to people who are paying for that insight. If you get the insight for free by releasing the transcripts, then I can imagine that the companies that paid her those fees will feel cheated. It is much like what Cruz was saying about Trump not releasing his tax returns more quickly...well there "could be" fraudulent things going on and that is the reason. Total speculation meant to poison public opinion without a thread of evidence of wrongdoing. Well, this is what the Times is doing. There is nothing to suggest that Clinton is doing anything other than what I have noted above and no one is entitled to see it unless you pay her what that valuable insight is worth in the marketplace. Not everyone should get it for free when she is a private citizen and entitled to sell her knowledge and experience. Private advice to a private audience, paid for, doesn't suddenly become public advice for the masses merely because you are running for office.
2
Given this level of obfuscation, the only rational conclusion for primary voters is that she is hiding something that she and/or her handlers believe will be damaging if released. Failing to come clean only opens her up to continual attack from both sides and completely undermines her recent campaign promise—thanks to Bernie—that she will be tough on Wall Street.
7
Based on HRC's own description of her going after the banks, her own self portrayal as the real one the banks are pummeling, I'm assuming that the gist of her comments to these groups in exchange for a big "honorarium" would be a akin to Colbert's address to the White House Correspondents dinner. If I were an HRC supporter, I'd welcome a viewing of the lambasting she gave them. Wouldn't you?
7
I do NOT know what is in the Clinton emails that have not been disclosed, nor do I know what she said in her speeches to Wall Street, but the former are being released and I have strong suspicions about the latter
I DO know that Hillary Clinton's probably over-used a home server for much the same reasons many persons in the Bush Administration used the Republican National Committee's servers, which is ----
|||| The HATCH ACT,
|||| which forbids any use of government resources and time,
|||| including government email servers,
|||| for partisan political activities.
AND, I also know that Hillary Clinton increasingly appears to be as secretive and and contumacious as Richard Nixon when he was withholding the Watergate Tapes:
-- If Clinton discloses the content of her speeches, she probably will alienate many progressives who do not approve of catering to Wall Street, but
-- If Clinton does not disclose the content of her speeches, she will continue to increase suspicion and distrust of her among low-information, low-engagement "centrist" voters.
I DO know that Hillary Clinton's probably over-used a home server for much the same reasons many persons in the Bush Administration used the Republican National Committee's servers, which is ----
|||| The HATCH ACT,
|||| which forbids any use of government resources and time,
|||| including government email servers,
|||| for partisan political activities.
AND, I also know that Hillary Clinton increasingly appears to be as secretive and and contumacious as Richard Nixon when he was withholding the Watergate Tapes:
-- If Clinton discloses the content of her speeches, she probably will alienate many progressives who do not approve of catering to Wall Street, but
-- If Clinton does not disclose the content of her speeches, she will continue to increase suspicion and distrust of her among low-information, low-engagement "centrist" voters.
5
TRUMP will annihilate Hillary on these bribery speeches.
Really, “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”
Name one ever that got paid as much as $675,000 for a lame speech.
You can't, because none exist.
Hillary's a liar and a deceitful one at that.
Really, “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”
Name one ever that got paid as much as $675,000 for a lame speech.
You can't, because none exist.
Hillary's a liar and a deceitful one at that.
7
I am an independent write-in candidate for president. Mika and Joe interviewed Hillary and inquired about the bank transcripts along with the under-lying "quest yin": Why is she, multi millionaire grandmother, running for president?.
As she spoke her brows went up up up. The tree of no ledge is above your brows. Skids on the ledge are lines of worry. Hillary said she was "in it to make everyone's life better." The line used to be a catchy, "I'm in it to win it."
She will not reveal the transcripts of her bank speeches because she made clear to the bank people she was on their side! For $675,000 for an hour wouldn't she have to be?
I am getting ready to challenge the broadcast license of the network refusing to sell me air time for a couple extensive speeches with which I am going to set the stage for World Peace, my Vehicle thereof, with my Television Scripture lettered in prophetic double columns to perform dusk until dawn as old blind Homer every line a delicate sensible rhyme.
I expect, with an inspired work of art that stems from the heart, I am going to play a major role in the course change of human history all the worlds' peoples yearn for.
That's the good news. The bad news is our politics and our constitution are a charade. I could put ten million dollars on the table and these networks will not sell me the air time I am entitled to purchase, or even allow a human interest interview. Too bad. Sad.
We live in an interesting time.
http://michaelslevinson.com
As she spoke her brows went up up up. The tree of no ledge is above your brows. Skids on the ledge are lines of worry. Hillary said she was "in it to make everyone's life better." The line used to be a catchy, "I'm in it to win it."
She will not reveal the transcripts of her bank speeches because she made clear to the bank people she was on their side! For $675,000 for an hour wouldn't she have to be?
I am getting ready to challenge the broadcast license of the network refusing to sell me air time for a couple extensive speeches with which I am going to set the stage for World Peace, my Vehicle thereof, with my Television Scripture lettered in prophetic double columns to perform dusk until dawn as old blind Homer every line a delicate sensible rhyme.
I expect, with an inspired work of art that stems from the heart, I am going to play a major role in the course change of human history all the worlds' peoples yearn for.
That's the good news. The bad news is our politics and our constitution are a charade. I could put ten million dollars on the table and these networks will not sell me the air time I am entitled to purchase, or even allow a human interest interview. Too bad. Sad.
We live in an interesting time.
http://michaelslevinson.com
2
It stinks, and the longer this goes the more it stinks. No, not the email scandal, no not the Bill scandals, no not the Rose law firm billing scandal - the transcript scandal. Hmm, there is a pattern here? Maybe delay and weasel words will let he skate by this one too?
2
Let me disabuse the curious from the notion that there's going to be some "47%" type of statement in the transcripts. We already know, from attendees at Goldman-Sachs, that the speeches were innocuous 'pep talks,' doubtless with some hyperbole about her fantastic results at State.
Ho hum stuff, to be sure. But that's not her problem. It will be no "artful smear" when the unremarkable words and phrases spill out from the bag and onto the table. The stunning revelation will be how quickly the bag was refilled to the brim with serious Goldman-Sachs cash for her to haul out the door for having said not much about anything.
Transcript readers will be left wondering, "What the heck was that?"
So, whether we can or we can't follow the speeches, the heart of the matter lies in the old saw, "Follow the money."
Ho hum stuff, to be sure. But that's not her problem. It will be no "artful smear" when the unremarkable words and phrases spill out from the bag and onto the table. The stunning revelation will be how quickly the bag was refilled to the brim with serious Goldman-Sachs cash for her to haul out the door for having said not much about anything.
Transcript readers will be left wondering, "What the heck was that?"
So, whether we can or we can't follow the speeches, the heart of the matter lies in the old saw, "Follow the money."
3
Classic case of the left pretending to be the moral party when they are rolling in the same mud as the GOP.
3
I voted for President Obama in both elections. A vote for Hillary would be business as usual. A little "tinkering" with the system but nothing radical.
We need structural change as the state we are in today started with the Reagan era. We need a candidate with integrity who hasn't gotten used to "big money." Bernie has my vote.
We need structural change as the state we are in today started with the Reagan era. We need a candidate with integrity who hasn't gotten used to "big money." Bernie has my vote.
6
Whether she realizes it or not, if she is the nominee, she runs the risk of so alienating young voters that they will simply stay home in the general election. Heck I support her and I am beginning to think about staying home myself.
3
If she had quietly refused the money, or even, given it to the Chicken Growers of Arkansas, that would be a strong talking point, in favor of her character. Here would be someone who refused even the appearance of impropriety. Cheers for that! But no, she took the money, and yes, it certainly has the appearance of being improper.
Even to a low information, back woods, hanging on by their fingernails, rural, democrat voter, knows that 250K for twenty minutes work is not what it appears. This is a bribe, pure and simple. And, we're to expect some sort of regulatory enhancement toward the banks benefiting the U.S public? Never.