I have no idea what she said in her speeches, and my guess is most of it is innocuous anecdotes about what it’s like to be SOS and that close to power of the Presidency. But the speech in which she claimed to have told Wall Street to “cut it out” and that if they didn’t they’d wreck the economy didn’t turn out to be quite as she had characterized it, to say the least.
[Yeah, I know, HuffPo. But the AP fact checkers said much the same thing, I just linked to this one because there is more detail – including, actually, some more favorable to Hillary.]
Again, I doubt there is anything shocking in the speeches, but to the extent that she’s made claims about what she said in the speeches, claims that could only be verified by seeing the speeches, she has kind of invited people to ask to see the transcripts.
FYI, the HuffPo piece and the Vox piece are clearly discussing the same speech. So I’d just ask you to check out the longer excerpts in the latter, which quote the full comments the former takes isolated lines from. Yes, it’s HuffPo, cherry-picking to fit the caricature. Shocker. Really, read the Vox piece.
More so called “wall street” contributions: $7 million from Geotge Soros. You know the global financier who made billions taking and shorting world currencies before contributing millions to global liberal causes including helping Eastern Europe transition from communism to capitalism and Planned Parenthood among others.
And I agree, no “shockers” there (and by the way, quite a good speech overall). But, at least to me (and apparently to plenty of others) it doesn’t match up with her claim to have gone down to Wall Street read them the Riot Act. She proposed a “voluntary” solution, and that she would “consider” legislation if that didn’t work. Not exactly the Wall Street crusader she’s trying to portray herself as now. That being said, she did make plenty of good policy suggestions in her speech, and said quite a few things that would probably be pretty unpopular with most Wall Street audiences. So I do give her some credit there. Just not nearly as much as she gives herself.
[Standard Disclaimer: This commenter wishes it to be known that in November he or she plans to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be, and will encourage their fellow primary candidate supporters to do likewise.]
Releasing transcripts of those speeches would go a long way toward solving Clinton’s trust problems – unless, of course, she’s got a 47% line in there somewhere.
Well, I guess that’s the difference between incrementalists and “revolutionaries” [oy, they really need to come up with suitable alternative to the “wink” emoji…] Glad you read the whole speech; so you surely noticed HuffPo’s game with the selective quotes. And proposing voluntary moves, with the suggestion of legislation if those moves aren’t made – said in front of a Wall Street crowd – isn’t exactly friendly. Some might even see it as a veiled threat. (And fwiw, I spent a little time in the purgatory of Wall Street – as a writer/editor, not a banker – and I know first-hand that those words from New York’s junior senator were in fact seen just that way; they weren’t happy.) But that aside, I hope you let that speech, and more of her legitimately progressive history, help you dispel the effect of the decades-long propaganda effort against her, for yourself and your fellow Sanders supporters. Even if she’s not the nominee, and especially if she is, we all need to be aware of media-enabled GOP BS when we hear it, and help immunize others against it.
A leader needs to point to the horizon and say “That’s our goal.”, then point to the path and say “Here’s our first step.” I hope the Democratic platform manages to combine Sander’s aspirations with Clinton’s “pragmatism”.
You actually agree with me. The emails did turn up nothing. Nor did the other Clintongates: Whitewater, cattle futures, the WH travel office firings (there may be others I’m forgetting) turn up anything illegal, appearances aside. But in every case, implausible explanations, denials and stonewalling about requested documents (which later always turned up) are unnecessary self-damage. It’s the Watergate lesson never learned: The coverup is politically worse than the initial event.
I really think it will. And remember, the FDR of “I welcome their hatred” was running for re-election; his first campaign was largely on Hoover’s incompetence and – yes, really – cutting spending… But he was a canny politician, who knew, once he was elected, which way certain winds were blowing in the populace. And his heart was in the right place. And I will forever sing the praises of the criminally unsung Frances Perkins – the true parent of Social Security and basically the entire New Deal – for recognizing all that, and helping him become the guy we all revere today.
Then she should do it and put these charges to rest for her sake and Democratic chances in the general election. But just like the private server that initiated “emailgate”, Team Clinton is obsessed with privacy and controlling all aspects of the message. This is counterproductive, I think, since it causes many Americans to distrust the Clintons’ sincerity, needlessly distracts their time and attention, and hurts their “political viability”, to quote Bill Clinton (re. his draft deferment issue).
Not yet, but I will. And I’m glad that she has started to release the transcripts for her campaign’s sake in the primary election (and probably the general election as well).
If you read what I actually wrote, Hillary would helped by releasing the transcripts of innocuous speeches. Refusing to do so only confirms the widespread perception that she has something to hide and isn’t sincere.
Biased or not, this negative perception is strong and shows up in polls. Dissipating its strength (not feeding the perception) is critical to Democratic election chances in November, as I see it. Perhaps to someone who is confident that HRC will win an easy victory, my opinion just appears gratuitous criticism.
You do realize of course,that its a never ending thread that is constantly being pulled? It really doesn’t matter that she releases stuff…she released her emails, but with each batch that the State opens up, the frenzy starts again that Hillary absolutely has something to hide in THIS batch.
So all that someone has to do to get the anti Hillary crazies going is…demand that she release something. And just like the righties on her emails, the Sanders people were off the races on every board claiming that the fact that she didn’t drop the transcripts right there on the spot its undeniable proof that she is up to no good and can’t be trusted.
Its also why Sanders isn’t requesting she release the speeches…he is making far too much hay out of just saying “she gives speeches that we haven’t heard” to Wall Street. Its helps him push that false meme so much better, and that’s the intent all along, be it her opponents or the media.
Hillary can’t be trusted, she wont release her emails…releases emails, no retraction
Hillary can’t be trusted, she wont release the transcripts to her speeches…speeches released,no retraction
Hillary can’t be trusted, she won’t release her diary from when she was 12 years old.
This particular thread was about the speech transcripts, not the emails. However, the emails are being released and no gun, let alone smoking, has been found. Hillary and staff (after pre-reading them) should have known this to be the case; therefore, nothing positive was to be gained by delaying the inevitable with excuses that never held up. I believe a quick mea culpa when the private server was first reported would have dampened the newsy impact of later “revelations” considerably. Arguing that “others did it too” only prolonged the media huff-puff.
No it won’t. Because even if there’s nothing to latch onto in them, the people who are clamoring for them are fully convinced a priori that Clinton is a pathological liar who is completely bought and paid for by Wall Street. Any actual sign of that is simply confirmation of what they already know in their hearts, while any refutation means they just wait to jump on the next thing.
[oy, they really need to come up with suitable alternative to the “wink” emoji…] Glad you read the whole speech; so you surely noticed HuffPo’s game with the selective quotes. And proposing voluntary moves, with the suggestion of legislation if those moves aren’t made – said in front of a Wall Street crowd – isn’t exactly friendly. Some might even see it as a veiled threat. (And fwiw, I spent a little time in the purgatory of Wall Street – as a writer/editor, not a banker – and I know first-hand that those words from New York’s junior senator were in fact seen just that way; they weren’t happy.) But that aside, I hope you let that speech, and more of her legitimately progressive history, help you dispel the effect of the decades-long propaganda effort against her, for yourself and your fellow Sanders supporters. Even if she’s not the nominee, and especially if she is, we all need to be aware of media-enabled GOP BS when we hear it, and help immunize others against it.