Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumAbout Those Speaking Fees ~HRC GROUP
And thats the short of it. It is neither unusual or untoward that a person who lived a life in public service who was First Lady in Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator, Presidential candidate and Secretary of State would be offered $225K (or even more) to speak.
Despite the innocuousness of these events I can honestly say that were I in Secretary Clintons shoes, I would not release those transcripts unless every candidate released the transcripts for every single speech or public talk they ever gave. And heres why.
First and foremost, transcripts are notoriously monotonous. There are no voice inflections in the written word except what the reader puts there. There is no speakers face to watch, no body language to read. There is no narrative text that would explain the ensuing dialogue. Consequently, what was a joke, or even sarcasm, can come across as dead serious.
Second, and lets be honest, not only would Senator Sanders campaign folks and the GOP pounce on those pages like a pack of starving sharks on a school of minnows, but the media would tear apart every single word. Pundits would have an entire summer of words to read and spin and regurgitate and debate ad nauseum. And its a fairly sure bet that very little of any regurgitation would give Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt.
Third, theres the not insignificant matter of baseless accusations, innuendo and the artful smear. If a professional acquaintance called me a liar, or accused me of being corrupt for no other reason and with no proof or basis than I, as a private citizen, spoke at an event they did not attend is it really, TRULY, up to me to prove that Im not? Should not my accuser be required to present something other than theory to blacken my name? Especially if my accuser and I are competing for the same promotion? Or should my record speak for itself?
Fourth, one would have to suppose that among all those speeches with all those attendees at all those events there would be someone, somewhere, that is not a Clinton supporter. There would be someone, somewhere, who would approach a candidate Cruz, Trump, Sanders or a media outlet, or a newspaper, with a six-inch-headline-worthy scandal about her saying something untoward like the Romney 47% disaster which occurred and was filmed WHILE he was running for President.
More Here: http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/15/1515992/-About-Those-Speaking-Fees
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)After having W trying to give speeches for eight years he has not followed the speaking trail Bill Clinton has enjoyed. Now President Obama is a really good speaker, he will be able to hit the speaking trail. After Hillary is president she will get more money for speaking. Good for them, they deserve it.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)
He is not a curious person. Probably nothing smart, great or interesting to add to any discussion! I agree on HRC, Prez Clinton and Prez Obama to just being a pleasure to listen to their opinions and their take on many (probably any!) subjects.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)You don't have to be smart or interesting,. I'm neither of both. Just bring your mind and your heart.
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)I edited b/c maybe misleading!!!
Thanks for saying I rock!!! You rock too!!
pandr32
(11,548 posts)Thank you for linking and posting!
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Second, and lets be honest, not only would Senator Sanders campaign folks and the GOP pounce on those pages like a pack of starving sharks on a school of minnows, but the media would tear apart every single word.
It explains exactly what we all know would happen. Why on earth would Hillary open herself up for more of the insane attacks? People are obsessed with her! She must really, really threaten them. I'm glad she is holding firm and also glad she was well-paid for her experience and insights!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)lackey, and neither am I a Sanders supporter panicking because he's LOSING. But I am a liberal Democrat and am known to be fair-minded.
If they want Hillary Clinton to release her speech transcripts, fine. But the standard should be applied to ALL candidates, without conditions and without delay. Why pick on her? Why single her out? Because she's a woman and shouldn't be making $225k a speech? Is that what bothers them?
Unless and until they all sign a pledge to release all their speech transcripts - and Sanders has them, too, since he traveled extensively throughout Cuba and other communist countries - then this issue is moot. Sure. The M$M that have given her the least favorable coverage all throughout this primary would LOVE to have something they can latch on to and distort, but she's not stupid, and I am encouraging her NOT to release anything until the others do as well, and at the same time.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2016/04/when-it-comes-to-news-coverage-hillary.html
For chrissakes, Sanders hasn't even released eight years of complete tax filings (which is normal for presidential candidates in the primaries) and now he's demanding to set a new standard? Why? To deflect from that fact that he's hiding something in those tax returns?
#ReleaseTheReturns, Sanders. Then we can talk about creating a new standard for presidential candidates, and not before.
*EDITED to add link
2naSalit
(86,308 posts)I don't think she should release them either.
spooky3
(34,401 posts)A lot of speeches at events like this. They are typically just as the author described them and I totally agree with him.
I also agree with Barbra Streisand, who pointed out that many men get paid a lot more per speech than $225000, so it's time to stop with the innuendo.
LiberalFighter
(50,767 posts)Those conferences don't bring speakers like Hillary because they have to. They do it because they want to.
Some people would not recognize humor if it stared them in the face. And for it to be a transcript would confuse them. Anyone experienced with speeches know that humor is essential.