It is interesting how the transcripts have become the left's version of Benghazi as an issue.

Frankly, they don't matter a damn in this election. They're just a talking point from her opponents.

If she asked me, I'd advise her to just ignore the whole thing as a transient, unimportant issue in this election.

Of course, she won't ask me, so there it is.

If there was a smoking gun, 47% comment in them, they would have already been released by an attendee.

a smattering of sensible advice inserted between name-dropping and joke-telling. That's what those speeches are about. They're dinner entertainment or a chance to listen to a celebrity of some kind.

And that was income NOT donations.

Her actions are disgusting enough without reading her speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs.

You're opposing her on everything. Why should she give in to such demands from people who already oppose her. No matter what she said in those speeches, her opponents will find crap to whine about.

predictable. So, what do you think the odds are that you'll mark your ballot for her in November? That's the real choice you'll be making.

I'll be voting for one of two choices. I plan to vote for Hillary as the better of the two. I sincerely hope that more people do that than vote for the Republican, whoever the heck that is. But, I have only one vote, so I'll just have to wait and see, although I'll be trying to convince others to do what I do.

Thanks for being amazed, even though you're wrong about my approval. All I approve of is a Democrat winning the presidential election. I always approve of that. I've seen a number of Republican administrations. I don't like those.

I just don't get it. We talk about exposing the 1%, but I guess if it's Hillary, then never mind.

Secondly, if the transcripts came out, or the indictments from the FBI about her server
or the corrupt dealings of the Clinton Foundation come to pass, she is toast and will have to
go live on the Bush estate in Paraguay.

I think that would have made the news.

(they've endorsed Clinton):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?_r=0

Those speeches won't matter in the election, either primary or General.

People will either vote for her or they will not, regardless of this issue.

What if she wins the nomination, or perhaps the presidency and then gets indicted? It could happen.
What would you think should happen then? The Democratic party would be destroyed.

The FBI report on the investigation will come out, there will be remarks from many people. Hearings will be held to propose changes for the future. No Grand Jury will be called. That will be the end of that.

The OP seems interested in portraying disclosure as a partisan axe to grind. It's not.

I'm sure that has been floated, but the purity test/opposition to Hill meme must have tested better.

Why be forthright when we can employ subterfuge?

Why on earth hide behind fly paper?

Why on earth hide behind personality cults?

Why on earth hide the truth?

No doubt she told them exactly what they wanted to hear. And I think we have a right to know what someone who wants to be President had to say to Wall street.

She would release them if she didn't have something to hide. That's a no-brainer.

As for pounding sand, well, when she asks for my vote for President, I will tell her to pound sand if she hasn't released those transcripts.

ballot for Hillary Clinton? Be honest.

I might have to, but maybe I won't.

You don't like Hillary. Whether she releases the speeches or not, you will still not like Hillary. So, where is the possible benefit to her of releasing them. I guarantee you'll find things you don't like in them and will not notice things she said that you should like.

I don't know how you'll vote in the General Election. It's none of my business. I know how I'll vote, too. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, because I know there are zero redeeming qualities of the Republican. It's a binary choice. I'm choosing the better option in November. You will do as you choose.

The transcripts won't change that, either way, I'm sure. So where is the benefit of doing something she's not required to do?

I am first and foremost a DEMOCRAT...I was brought up right, by two FDR-worshipping parents. I am concerned about those speeches because I don't want her baggage to get a Republican elected. Hillary says lots of good things...the problem is believing her, because she changes her story too much. And furthermore, NOT releasing them just adds to the distrust that many people have for her.

You must have noticed that independents are not voting for her in very large numbers, nor are youth voters. Playing games with the transcripts is one of the reasons. That ridiculous statement, "I will release them when everyone else does" is not helpful. I have a real hard time defending stuff like that.

And also, it is HORRIFYING to have a candidate under FBI investigation. Has that ever happened before? It gives me pause, as it should everyone with common sense. This isn't a RW attack, it is the FBI for Pete's sake! I sincerely hope nothing comes of it, because I don't want a Trump or a Cruz or a Kasich in the White House. But I don't know what is going on with it, and neither does anyone else not inside the investigation. God help us if she has staff that get in trouble over that whole server mess.

Wall Street. Her record does not support that. So he is using innuendo and his call to release her transcripts is further innuendo. It allows him to say see she must be hiding something. He is desperate for something to knock her out of contention.

He is just like all the others who have tried and failed to intimidate her.

He did not give speeches because he is a government official and has no experience to warrant $250,000 for a speech.

Demanding the release of those speeches is just another way to attack her. Most who do so have no intention of voting for her, and never have even considered doing so. I'd just sit on them and let them stew in their sour sauce, frankly.

behind closed doors to Wall Street: both knowing full well that she would be running for POTUS?

And the "She's tough on Wall Street" meme is tragically false.

"Cut it out" doesn't count.

Like I said nobody cares but people who think it can hurt her.

It just about sums up the camp and their mental state.

ago held by a big accounting software company. My wife and I both write about those things sometimes. Guess who was the featured speaker. It was Bill Cosby. Now, I don't know how much he got paid, but he was one of the highest paid speakers on the circuit at the time. I found the speech boring and his humor stale. I walked out in the middle of it.

He never mentioned his sexual habits once. He also never mentioned accounting once. He told stale stories and made stale old jokes. The crowd ate it all up, except for people like me who weren't interested.

The whole time, he knew about his sexual transgressions. The audience didn't. People pay a lot of money to have well-known people speak to their organization. Who they are is far more important than what they say. What did Hillary Clinton say in her speeches? I have no idea, and don't much care. Neither did the people who heard her.

I've never tried though. It's an avocation. My paid writing has nothing to do with politics.

in his stump speeches in the midwest. He tossed the kitchen sink at her over and over--and threw in --publicly--the demand for the transcripts at this time. Prior to that it was the media and his supporters demanding the transcripts. Well, Hillary went 5 for 5. He has not learned. I listened to a bit of his speech yesterday--and he is still hitting on her strong.

weak sauce. The NY Times has strongly suggested release of the materials and in her position I would certainly do so because people imagine worse, that's how it is. Might as well put it on the table. The Republican nominee will not let that rest, so it might as well be now. It would be prudent.

Well, Mr. Marx, would you ever vote for her, under any circumstances?

BTW, I really like your relative, Groucho. Funny guy.

if people chose to vote for her.

But if she was also making $$$ at speaking engagements, on pet euthanasia then perhaps it might be a bad fit.

"Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling.

Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.

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 who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit. The Sanders campaign, asked if Mr. Sanders also received fees for closed-door speeches, came up with two from two decades ago that were not transcribed: one to a hospital trade association, and one to a college, each for less than $1,000. Royalties from a book called “The Speech,” Mr. Sanders’s eight-hour Senate floor diatribe against President Obama’s continuation of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, were donated to the nonprofit Addison County Parent/Child Center in Vermont."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?_r=0

They endorsed her, they call for release of the transcripts. This contradicts your theory rather strongly.

Remember how they were recorded in secret and their release was a big reason Romney lost?
That's what this is about. If there's nothing like that in her speeches, she should release them
to end the speculation. But we all know what's in them, pandering and promises to big money,
the opposite of what Bernie wants.

To help inform the voters where she stands rather than obfuscate

To allay voters fears after seeing fiscally unsound corruption and one of the biggest market crashes in 2008

You're framing the wrong question. The correct question is why shouldn't she release them? And the only answer to that is there is something within those transcripts that she perceives may endanger her run for the Presidency.

It really is as simple as that.

interested in them

While I wish it weren't an issue at all, it is controlling their message. It's not changing votes as they think.

their own minds?

Does Hillary not trust the people?

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

to ensure that the facts were exposed to the voting public. Otherwise, everyone can conjure up his or her own idea of what is contained in those transcripts.

And since more that 50% of Americans believe that she is less than honest the interpretations are going to be for the most part, unfavorable to her.

She is confirming her own reputation as a mendacious Nixonian clone by by stonewalling the transcripts. If there's one lesson we all should have learned from Watergate it is that the cover up is worse than the crime.

won't see how she changes her tune to fit the audience, depending on what she wants.

Does party over principle, or common sense for that matter, rule your vote?

She'd be a moron to set a precedent and release said speeches.

she is a flawed candidate who is on the payroll of the big banks. A Clinton Presidency will do great harm to the American middle class. She is not one of us.

only those who oppose his nomination are doing that. The same people oppose him for any number of reasons, along with that. I don't see any of his supporters or even neutral people calling for their release.
_____

I cannot believe you are actually arguing against transparency in elections.

Wait--yes, yes I can believe you are.

Don't YOU want to know how she talks to the rich? I guess you just don't care. WE care. It may turn some of us to vote for her if she were to release those. It won't get me, but some maybe. Should she release her taxes too? I guess you don't care about that either.

are demanding that Hillary release speech transcripts..

I'm asked to make a decision between two Dem candidates - Hillary and Bernie. I want to be able to compare and contrast their positions on Wall St so I can make an informed decision. I want to be voting for someone that will be protecting my interests and not the interests of the Bankster's and 1%er's. The only way I will know that Hillary is not telling us one thing and saying something completely different to the Goldman Sach's of the world is to see her transcripts.

If she has nothing to hide - then there shouldn't be any problem with her releasing her transcripts of these speeches. All I can assume from her stonewalling this is that she has something to hide.

Am I being unreasonable here? I'm sorry - I like to make informed decisions on any product I'm considering buying - be it a new TV, a smart phone or my next President.

I can't accept things on blind faith. I don't like to be made to look foolish after the fact if I didn't gather all the info I could to make and informed decision.

I would really be upset with myself if my candidate was deceiving me in any way and I accepted their word - and when they got elected they went ahead and took advantage of me or turned out to be like their Repug opponents.

That to me is the problem with most Dem primary voters - they just don't care. They don't do good due diligence on their candidates and they wind up shooting themselves in the foot in the process. Actually - I shouldn't just single out Dem primary voters as it is the problem with most Americans that don't gather all the facts before they make an important decision as to who will be running their country. Didn't we learn anything from the BushCo administration? Are we doomed to keep making the same mistakes over and over?

the question and Hillary could of easily defused the situation by releasing the transcripts. But of course it would her 47% moment and perhaps cost her the primary. If you think she is doing this all because of principles I have some ocean front property in Nevada you may be interested in.

writer asks? Really? You care about what Lee Fang wants?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang



For pity's sake. He's a kid. Maybe in 20 years, I'll care what he thinks, except I'll be dead then.

I don't even know who the guy is but if your only argument against him amounts to hey kid, get off my lawn he can't be all bad.

Is that what you got from his statement? He's disrespecting youth? I guess you think 20 year old stoners are something to be admired.

You took the words right out of my mouth... almost. When I saw the title of your thread my first thought was, if it was me, I would tell them to eat shit and pound sand. Other than her and the people she gave the speech to it's nobody's damn business.

where one applicant had a cloud of doubt over their head?

anyone at all. My last job interview was one to get a job greasing cars for the county, a couple of years before that. Their concern was whether they should hire someone with a full beard, since there had never been a county employee with a full beard. They asked me about my beard. I told them that my beard had nothing to do with my skills in working on automobiles and light trucks, which was the job description. I pointed out that I had the highest score on their written test of all the applicants and had a good deal of experience at all aspects of the job description. I added that my job would be working in a bay and would involve no interaction with the public.

I was hired. But, I've never conducted a job interview, since I've never hired anyone. I will say this. I have been hired for every job I've ever applied for, starting at age 16.

"I don't see any of her supporters or even neutral people calling for their release"

Of course her supporters won't be calling for them to be released, and you're incorrect about independents / neutral people calling for the release of those transcripts

"She gave speeches to audiences. No doubt, she was polite and friendly with those audiences"

that's the issue, how 'polite and friendly' was she to those audiences? Doesn't the public have a right to know how she treats special interests behind closed doors? Doesn't that factor in one's charater?

"why on Earth would she release them?"
Transparency for one, another reason is for trust issues, her numbers concerning people's trust in her are horrible and you know it

Doesn't the factor of the public's trust matter to you? if not you're being intellectually dishonest...

I'm fully aware that Clinton has ties in the banking industry. I'd be worried if she did not. Wall Street has much to do with the health of our economy. That's a fact. It's important that a President knows people in that industry and can speak to them from her position. See, the banking and investment industry has a huge influence in our economy. We live in a nation where most people's livelihood is connected to corporations. That's not about to change.

So, I prefer my highest elected officials to be able to pick up the phone and talk to people high in that industry at a moment's notice. It could be a crucial thing one day, I think.

I'm far more concerned with other issues. Do I like banks and investment firms? Not one bit. But I recognize that they have much to do with our livelihoods. I hope any President can get the leaders of those industries on the phone at any time.

So, there it is. Corporations and banks are NOT going to disappear in any of our lifetimes. We'd better be able, in our government, to address them directly when needed.

If they collapse, I guarantee that you'll be out selling pencils on the street.

Whom is picking up the phone and calling whom is the issue, if WS is calling HRC for preferential treatment that's a problem and that's why these transcripts matter since they will clearly show which side of that call HRC is on...

"See, the banking and investment industry has a huge influence in our economy"

You're correct it has too large of an influence that is what we are or should be fighting against, why would you give a pass to WS influence over the public's?

I will no longer be in that crowd you're in, the 'get along, to go along' crowd... either we dream and do big or we follow your path and the path laid out these past 30 years...

"I guarantee that you'll be out selling pencils on the street"
too many are already 'selling pencils on the street', this is why the wealth inequality issue is so critical and should be a larger focus of any primary candidate

Of course not, it's a Mineral Man post.

I hoped to express my opinion in a new thread. I'm quite happy that I did. Beyond that, I had no expectations at all.

but that's been obvious to me for a long time.

I don't come to DU for approbation from other DUers. I come here because it's a place I can state my opinions.

You apparently disagree with this one.

... it's Bernie supporters clinging in desperation to right wing talking points.

It's really kind of pathetic and proof positive that many of his supporters are not really Democrats.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they haven't gone full blown BENGHAZI!!!111!!!1!

Maybe that's next.

There's time for that still.

And INDICTMENT, I'll have you know. There could be an INDICTMENT!!!1!

It's good to see Hill supporters don't care about that.

I for one am sick of seeing that statement here all the time. I am 65 years old, I have always been a democrat and I will remain one. I don't have to apologize for wanting transparency in a candidate. And I don't have to apologize for being concerned about an FBI investigation of a Presidential candidate. The FBI is not the Right Wing. What don't you get about that? Those of us who are concerned hope nothing comes of it, because we don't want a Republican president. Hillary supporters don't have a monopoly on that sentiment.

... the content would be damning, except, of course to the Hillary bashers for whom her very existence is damning. Therefore part of me wishes she'd release them and get it over with. But that's a slippery slope. She's right. Once it becomes de rigeur for all candidates to release all speech transcripts, like medical records, that's the time. She's learned she just can't give responses to the endless, groundless attacks.

I got a decoder ring once for sending in boxtops, but was disappointed with it. And yes, it was a Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. I'm just old enough to have caught the last couple of years of that radio show. So, I never collected them again for some lousy premium. Instead, I shop wisely for products that I like on their own, without boxtops or coupons.

I don't have time for such silly incentives to buy crappy products.

Your experience might vary.

My parents educated me at home, so I never went to school and so never saw the point of the boxtops. Unfortunately (I researched this, what a nerd!), the IRS says you need to be a 501(c)3 educational program which means you need 15 students with a common curriculum. Since I am one of only 5 siblings, this was not a viable path. I don't think my mother was willing to triple the class size, the faculty to student ratio would have been a bit low.

Since I am one to carry a grudge, I never liked Boxtops for Education since, though I am sure they have their purpose.

Her supporters want them under lock and key. What would voters think of her Wall Street love fest? Reportedly, she sympathized with the poor banksters because they were blamed (rightly) for the nightmare that was 2008. Poor, poor banksters. But, what the heck. For a quarter of a million dollars I'd tell them what they want to hear, too.

Do I get my boxtops now?

Condemnation - I'd be satisfied if she didn't make any promises that would go against the 99%.