Her words are just what we hear from her in public. Very concerned about working families. She is a little frank about how things get done. But it's all in the context of helping working families

Glad you found her! She's been this way all along!

Brilliant at making an effort to understand and brilliant at understanding sides/situations/issues/problems AND equally interested (actually more) in the solutions/possibilities! AND a hard worker to boot!

I think the problem is, most of my exposure was through media, and she's just so damned lawyerly. Makes it hard to figure someone out when you can tell they're not being completely open. (And I can relate -- I have a really hard time letting my guard down in person and really speaking my mind, I've also been burned by that way too many times.)

But of course, we all know how it'll go in the news -- the "Clinton News Network" that's "totally in the tank for her" will just completely run with it as a negative story, as will every other news network (and probably Fox too, zing!). Negative news generates more ratings than positive, go figure. I wonder if she's done a speech on that one, I bet I would love it.

Personally, I enjoy her style and use of language. I like knowing that she has put thought to whatever subject she's discussing. Makes me trust that her words passed the test of her brain.

I feel like half the reason we have such an uninformed electorate is because every politician has talking points, stays on message, etc. If she could actually start a conversation where we got to hear this beautiful intersection of history and modern politics, seriously, I have to believe it would motivate many people to actually do something about it, to be engaged, to get involved.

Seriously, this is just beautiful:

You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we’ve been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn’t touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn’t go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband’s administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama’s legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we’ve done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don’t provide it, or don’t provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We’ve made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn’t have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. And what we’re going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we’re really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn’t, I don’t think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we’re in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I’m hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you’re going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what’s succeeding, fix what isn’t, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]

I'm going to let this clip from my all-time favorite Star Trek, Deep Space 9, speak for me.

I'd imagine they're just covering their asses, since they could be sued if it turns out to not be legit. But, I dunno, it sounds pretty credible and definitely reads as though it's her voice. Plus, too much of it is positive to all be faked, who would go to that much effort?

*shrug* Even if it is fake, it still made me feel better about her as a candidate. So, go figure!

It's a good one for sure

That she wanted open borders and a common market.

Yeah, that's a bit idealistic, but IMO, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where that was a reasonable discussion to have? We've shifted so far to the right that "center" is completely over the line. It's like we're playing volleyball with the net right up against the wall.

I saw someone that acknowledges that she has been far removed from the middle class. That is accurate. And that's why she went on a listening tour and talked to people and crafted her policies around the needs and worries of the public.
I appreciate the candor from her. Don't pretend like you're one of the people bc she you aren't. But you can be far removed from the middle class and still believe that the good of the economy relies on a strong middle class.
The public and private thing. I'm a teacher. There are things that I cannot/ should not say publicly about test scores or school policies. Everyone has to be careful with what they say.
And I believe in trade. I think we need to make trade deals that are fair and I do feel badly for manufacturers that have seen hard times. So I would like to see trade deals that can help rebuild manufacturing. But we have to trade! That's a reality.

Same -- I read through a couple and thought "man, I want to post about this on twitter" but kept waiting, assuming somewhere in there would be this horrible speech about something deplorable. Just never came.

Without a doubt, I definitely disagree with a number of points. But we're talking about a much higher level of debate than anything I'd have expected to find in "leaked transcripts".

And as far as manufacturing goes, on a long enough timeline (like 50 years), everything will be 100% automated, and the only "manufacturing jobs" that will exist are the ones that involve programming the AI that runs the robotics. We're already seeing that in China, with fully automated PCB assembly, and the impressive setup over at Tesla Motors. So, IMO, the "bring manufacturing jobs back" argument is firmly rooted in the mid-20th century, and a relatively useless argument. I have no idea what that means for the future, but it's like, let's just concede that manufacturing jobs are gone, and go from there.

but everything I read sounded good to me. But you have to actually READ them, which is too much work for most people. Much easier to read the little sound bytes the haters clip from them.

I stopped reading the "headlines" and just read the text, because whoever summarized it clearly had their own agenda.

Compare the summary with the reality:

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS*

And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn’t that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.

A Wikileaks team, perhaps? If so, it shows once again that they're on the Trump/Putin team.

So, I feel a little foolish after that. Dur, it's the body of the email.

So, let me back up a bit. That leak is an email from someone's hotmail account, which was their own summary of her speeches, with the titles as a sort of "worst possible attack line" summary above each section. The kind of thing you would imagine a lawyer might prepare for a legal defense.

So, yeah, in a sense those are the negative hit pieces. But, that was the point of the entire email, so, yeah. I got so wrapped up in the trees that I kind of lost track of the forest.

or what the "team" was.

Heh, yeah it's a bit weird to be reading an article about an email about contingencies about transcripts of speeches. Seems pretty easy to get lost somewhere along the way

I've been someone who called for their release since the beginning.

They may have been a bit damaging in the primary (bit too moderate and elitist), but to me this shows someone who thinks the issues through and through, who has done her homework, and who knows how to get things done politically. She accurately predicted the rise of Trump and to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders.

In the sense that I am male, I suppose, I was a "Bernie Bro" -- the minute he announced and focused on campaign finance reform, he had my vote. So I was pretty disappointed when he lost to someone that I perceived as "part of the problem", but after reading through those, I see it's more of the case that she didn't believe (and probably correctly) that she had the political capital to fight against the system and win.

So, knowing that she's rational, sees the problem, and has a solid understanding of what got us to where we are, I now think that maybe, just maybe, she'll do something about it. When she wins the election.

The opinions seem to range from "she sounds good. Why didn't she release these months ago" to "nothing really interesting here" to "did she talk about sexually assaulting people?"

Whatever Trump did today, you can be sure, is going to look and smell a lot like a dumpster fire. If that dumpster was filled with human excrement. From 50 years ago.

Kinda hard to block that out and focus on anything else. I'll be so glad when we're finally done with this election, I think I'll let out like a 5-minute-long sigh of relief. (Or a 5-minute-long scream of terror, though luckily that seems less and less likely now.)

All I can find are out of context statements.

The email summarizes various passages from the transcripts, so not the full speeches, but decent chunks of them.

seemed positive to me too. Of course there are those who want to make a big deal of some of it but that doesn't mean that I think she's wrong about it.

Can't imagine what Fox is talking about tonight.

From what I hear, Hannity's on a tear about sex scandals of the 90s.

Newt and Hyde?

Seriously, who give's a rat's ass. Hillary is a politician. Let us all not forget that. Nor should any of us pretend that she's Mother Teresa. Over her career, she's mis-stepped. She's put her foot in her mouth, etc. BUT, she's also fantastically qualified to lead this country.

Politics is a nasty field. She's a member of it. Let's not glorify her, just support her for the candidate she is after years of doing great good and some questionable, politicky type stuff. We're talking the minor leagues compared to Trump here.

Before anyone thinks I'm maligning HRC, don't. Because, I'm not. I've donated, I'm on Twitter fighting the good fight on her behalf, and looking for ways to volunteer (I live in CA, so not as many options!)

I admire Hillary Clinton tremendously, but I don't expect her to be perfect. I mean, who human is? Thus, the speech text above means very little to me - and yes, I read it, every last word of it. I also believe that the average American isn't going to read it. Wikileaks has dulled, just as "Crooked Hillary" and "33,000 deleted emails" have. It's just no fire, let alone smoke.

We've desperately needed someone to just sit us down and walk us through things from start to finish -- so many people have a very narrow view of history. Most people won't ever choose to be actively engaged in politics, but with the amount of knowledge she has of politics and historical context, it seems like there's an opportunity there for her to put out some info that interested people *could* dig into. Wishful thinking? Yeah, totally, completely. But I can dream, dammit!

she gives the full story, not just tonight's episode. I would love to know the history of things because I think it would clarify for everyone what needs to be done to fix these things.

Rachel Maddow? Abso-freaking-lutely. It's like listening to someone telling you an interesting story. I think it's something she started in her radio days, and I'm glad she stuck with it.

Especially with everything these days being so fast-paced and always-on, sometimes what we really need is to slow down, take a step back, and soak in the big picture.

Some complain because she "goes on" too long, but I love the little history lessons. You're exactly right about the big picture.