"It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director."

That's telling them to "cut it out", folks.

We deserve to see the transcripts.

Better to get it over with. Good luck....

It's already been brought-up at two debates, and she's had to dodge & weave and
obfuscate .. yet Hillary's supporters don't seem to notice, don't seem to care that
"their candidate" is already bought-and-paid-for by Wall St. and other odious
corporate interests, such as Monsanto, Big Pharma, and private prisons.

And as if this weren't preposterous enough, Team Hillary keeps insisting how uber-
progressive she is as a candidate in the Democratic Primary. It is just mind
boggling how otherwise seemingly rational caring people can comport themselves
in this manner -- as if the imperative of cognitive dissonance is somehow magically
suspended, because Hillary is 'so special', or something like that.

Yeah. Liberal media my ass.

any REAL interviewers/reporters who could get an intimate interview with Dame Hillary, it would be a great moment when one of them cornered her as to WHAT it is she's afraid of in those transcripts. Sure, they weren't intended for public consumption - but we're now talking the keys to the Oval Office. I/we have the right to know what sort of wooing/scolding she laid on them for the fees they paid. Of course, we already KNOW what they say generally, but to have her defend that she sounded like a managing director - I could argue it's not such a stretch to have called her speeches a matter of national security. The last banking meltdown could wear the lable: Domestic Terrorism. So if we're kissing Wall Street's ass again, how is that not a conspiracy against the USA?

We just need someone with a big enough brush and a large truth pail of paint who can paint her into a corner!