really truly perfect...

and he's right. If Hillary wants to continue to damage her own campaign she has every right to do so. Make sure you have a lovely day.

Bernie will keep bashing the bilionaire$

Rather alters the definition of "spokesperson."

Clearly we're not talking "The buck stops here." It's more like "The buck stops someplace else, I don't really care where it stops as long as doesn't stop with me."

So contemporary in his attitude to responsibility and accountability.

I assume he's also going to announce he's not going to call for a release of the texts of Clinton's speech to some of the environmental groups, either.

I thought we were all after transparency in an election not obfuscation. She took an awful lot of money for those speeches. Even other SOS's who've taken speaking fees were at a fraction of the amount HRC got. It raises questions about what are her real positions to the public versus her positions to the investment world. Why is this important? Because we almost faced a depression in 2009. it's kind of an important issue to know if there is a difference between her public positions and her private ones.

If she says 'no', then there's innuendo: What is she hiding? It's very HUAC, but that's American politics, even for those who claim to entirely despise HUAC and how it operated.

If she says 'yes,' there's very likely something to be billed as incriminating. Perhaps it really is, in context. Perhaps it's only damaging when taken out of context--and any defense against out-of-context innuendo is pretty much always a losing proposition. Either way, there's fodder for negative campaigning, either by Sanders or those he pays to advance his interests but doesn't have any control over. (And we complain about candidates who seem to connive and conspire with those they really have no control over. Again, that's American politics.)

If she says 'yes' and there's nothing incriminating, then the Sanders campaign has gotten submission out of her campaign and looks like its calling the shots and established precedent. The issue otherwise falls away as meaningless, but showed who really has balls and who doesn't. To use an otherwise innocent if slightly vulgar idiom.

I'm sure that the innuendo in the first two paragraphs will be found to be offensive in principle to one side but acceptable to the other, while the slightly more veiled innuendo in the third will be found to be offensive in principle to the other side but acceptable to the first. (Both sets of innuendo have an identical stench.)

How dare you ask Hillary what she said to the banksters after they gave her money? Don't you know she's special?

Evidently the Bernie supporters think she is special. They want special rules for her in the campaign.

We think it's important in helping us to determine whether she is someone we will vote for.

Is the demand for every candidate to release all the speeches they ever made? That would be fair.
Otherwise, it's the usual, different strokes for different folks. If it's the standard that candidates release all speeches they have made. Fine. But everyone has to do it, not just one, or some.

Asking to make transcripts public? How is that a smear?

It is HER decision to release the transcripts. If she wants our votes, then she needs to be forthcoming about what she told major donors/supporters in exchange for very large speaking fees. Sure, there's lots of speculation about what she said, but she can put an end to that speculation by being forthcoming. Clinton has seriously misread what this election is about. Business as usual isn't going to impress a large portion of the electorate. This large portion doesn't want bought and paid for politicians. Clinton says she isn't that kind of politician, but if she wants to be believed, she needs to back it up with evidence.

Hillary accepted millions of dollars for speeches from the very banks she claims she'll regulate for one reason, she wanted the money. And wanted it bad enough she accepted the money knowing she would be running for president..

This isn't Sander's fault, it's not his staff's fault and it's not his supporters fault.. This is a decision she made and she's 100% responsible.

And to be frank if those speeches weren't a love fest between Clinton and Wall Street she can release the transcripts and prove it!!

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

I am rather perplexed by the defensiveness of the Clinton campaign and some of her supporters.

When in the history of modern American politics did asking about what a candidate said in a speech -- a smear?

And as a corollary, when did pointing out who gave campaign contributions to a candidate become a smear, artful or other wise?

You can really see this entitlement to the nomination idea still very much a part of the whole Clinton campaign psyche; apparently a challenger is just not supposed to be engaging in politics with Hillary.

you would have accused him of joining the smear.

No, Bernie is right, and as a supporter I agree. The fact that she's paid so much to speak to Wall Street Bankers is enough for me, because I'm sure she told them to cut out their shenanigans, and they all had dinner.

That's right. NOTHING!

Hillary has called for the release of speeches by ALL candidates since the very first speech. If this is the new standard, she said, let's all release them at the same time.

Yeah. That would be fair. Every candidate release every speech they ever made.

But it seems that's not the way some against Hillary want the rules to be. They want HER to run under different rules.

It's sh** slinging time, and the better she does, the more sh** her opponents will sling. If they can't make different rules for her they will try something else. I think she's ready for the onslaught. She's quite accustomed to it from those of another party.

Which is what, that a mercenary politician cleaned up in legal de facto bribes from the most corrupt institutions on earth? Next we'll hear that fish swim (which is sort of the excuse given for this behavior: they all do it, "I would do it too," etc. etc.)

If he'd demanded the release, you would say "smear."

He doesn't, you still say "smear."

she isn't being dishonest by telling the bankers one thing and the voters something else, there is no issue.

More importantly, why would anyone characterize a call for disclosure as a smear?

Place it all on her and stay above it

Bernie is keeping an array of blackjacks in his pocket. He seems ever mindful of the need to keep Hillary "politically marketable" even though he could so soil her for his supporters as to ruin her prospects in the general. Ever mindful of the higher purpose-which is one reason he has my vote.

why would he take the shovel away from her when she is so good at using it?

than the known

To Bernites it reinforces their already held opinion. A big, "So what!" They're already voting for Bernie.

To swing voters it looks like a cross between it being her proprietary business model to her words being twisted over and over and over again by zealots for Bernie.

It was making Bernie look anti-business instead of his being pro economy.

Also, what if it is a trap? Then he would look foolish and having poor judgment. Better to let the corporate fees and donations to the Clinton ferment. If she wins the nomination, then the Rethugs can decide if they want this issue. Probably not, as they love corporate money.

Hypocritical mud slinging is one of their favorite things.

What is your apparent certitude that several quarter-million-dollar speeches will buy the vote of a multi-millionaire would not be theirs.

It is a going rate for a good speaker of notable background. Hillary is a drawing card for venues around the world.

To me, the real bribery comes from donations, huge donations, nothing else required donations -- not speeches.

We might agree that our campaign finance system needs a complete change to be by the people, of the people and for the people. However, we might not agree to my idea that Bernie is 100 times better than Hillary and Hillary is 100,000 times better than Trump. If Hillary has a hundred speeches to financiers and will not release her transcripts my opinion of Hillary could go down to her only being 10,000 times better than Trump.

Frankly, my dear JackRiddler, I don't give a damn.

they wouldn't be forming an opinion as you're laying it out at all.

The "swing voter" search is a distraction.

Have a message, stick to it, express it clearly.

It's enough to know that she gave those speeches.

Insisting to see them so every word can be parsed for negative connotations is what Republicans would do, and I'm glad to see it's beneath Bernie.

rescission of Glass-Stiegel?

payment on the day that the bill was passed and became law. That is so much cleaner than making future payments, as misunderstandings and strong-arm attempts to change the terms can unravel the deal and result in exposure.

Why should Bernie twist it?

If she doesn't release them, it looks like she's hiding something.

If she does release them, then

1) The transcripts have damaging information -- in which case she's screwed.

or

2) The transcripts reveal that nothing of importance was said -- in which case the question will be asked, "Why the hell did GS pay so much for that?"

She's boxed in.

want to produce his transcripts from fund raisers he has had with Goldman Sachs and other companies.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

That article is about fundraising for Democrats, not about taking millions in speaking fees from Wall Street.

people.

His campaign strengths have been his socialism, his call for "the truth" and the "consistency" of his performance of his values and priorities.

I don't know what it is that he's getting at, but I don't approve of this latest message.

That's what he's getting at.

As long as she hasn't released the transcript of her speeches, his campaign can hammer her on them. There's always a chance that she gave the speeches, and never said anything particularly noteworthy. The uncertainty of the situation plays into Bernie's hands.

...but I will.

Bernie likes a fair fight. If a Hillary "47%" speech ever came out, it would be game over.

I mean, he gets his vote like everyone else, but if it comes down to the general with Clinton in it, I want to see those speeches.

Her refusal to release them reeks of Ann Romney's “We’ve given all you people need to know”.

medical records and tax reports.

I'd love to see that become a standard requirement for every election.

SOMEBODY will.

the voters are already demanding them.