The New York Times Just Perfectly Explained Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs Speech Problem - WaPo

[WillyT]

The New York Times just perfectly explained Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech problem
Chris Cillizza - WaPo
February 26 at 10:48 AM

<snip>

In a Thursday op-ed headlined "Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts," the New York Times editorial board gets to the heart of why Hillary Clinton's insistence that she will release her paid speech transcripts when everyone else in the race does makes no sense.

They write:

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries ...

... 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.

Yes, yes yes. Also, yes.

Clinton — as the Times piece helpfully notes — has run through a series of bad answers about why she gave the speeches and why she is now unwilling to authorize the release of the transcripts of them. She has migrated from some sort of convoluted citing of Sept. 11, 2001 and her work as New York's senator to justify her speech-giving on Wall Street to her current position, which amounts to "I won't do it unless everyone else does it."

The problem inherent in that point is that everyone else doesn't do it. No one else in this race has earned millions of dollars from speeches to Wall Street banks and investment firms. No one else was paid $675,000 for a series of speeches to Goldman Sachs. And, no one else in the race is trying to make the case that despite their financial ties to Wall Street that they are best positioned to hold that industry accountable for its practices.

Only Clinton.

Those are the facts. Clinton isn't being held to a different standard on the release of her paid speech transcripts. She's being held to a standard commensurate with her place in the race (the front-runner), her emphasis on her resume during the campaign and her message that she is the best equipped to address the economic inequality rampant in the country today.

Politicians don't get to pick and choose the parts of their biography that are fair game...

<snip>

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/the-new-york-times-just-perfectly-explained-why-hillary-clintons-answers-on-her-paid-speeches-dont-work/

[libtodeath]

1. Anyone that thinks this will go away or will just be brushed off in the GE is fooling themselves.

[Mufaddal]

7. Not only that, it's not an attack that can be turned around on GOP candidates so easily

if you're Hillary, because:

1) If you're taking all that cash, you can't criticize the GOP candidate for it
2) The GOP can criticize you for it, because they've rarely or never claimed not to represent Wall St. They are totally cool with big money.

[anotherproletariat]

26. So you're saying that as soon as Hillary wins the nomination, this becomes a non-issue? n/t

[Rafale]

33. Trump will use it

The idea that the GOP will not use it as a battle axe in the campaign assumes their frontrunner doesn't make it. That's a mighty big gamble. Wow.

[Uncle Joe]

36. It's still an issue, if you want to mobilize the Democratic base to turn out in a G.E.

in regards to the issues of income inequality or campaign finance reform which are the root cause of so much governmental dysfunction in addressing other critical issues whether it be institutional racism, climate change, health care, repairing our nation's crumbling infrastructure, quick trigger regime change abroad, our bloated military industrial complex, tuition free public universities, childhood poverty, bad trade deals etc. etc. etc.

The U.S. has among the lowest voter turnouts in the industrialized world because the people have increasingly come to see both parties as too beholden to the oligarchs and mega-corporations and not representing the middle income class and working poor best interests.

When we have low voter turnout the Republicans win, not just the White House but Congressional and state wide political offices as well.

As a result positive progressive change desperately needed to move our nation forward gets stonewalled by government; federal and state that has become regulated by Wall Street, while becoming more focused on raising mega-bucks for their next election than serving the best interests of the people.

[Beowulf]

43. It certainly remains an issue the GOP can exploit

because it goes to issues of trust and veracity. "She says she's going to rein in Wall Street and the banks, but we can't see what she's been saying to them. They give her lots of money, they've helped her to become a millionaire and she wants you to believe she'll be tough on them? That doesn't pass the smell test. She's lying, we can't trust anything she ways. What else is she lying about?" The GOP would do this to try to depress the vote on the Democratic side.

[TheSocialDem]

103. add it to the list

the GOP has to use against her in the GE..

[Mufaddal]

63. Maybe I misunderstood your question

But I'm saying that it becomes an even bigger issue if and when she wins the nomination.

[fun n serious]

51. I do not see how money she made in her private time is an issue at all..

Grasping straws much?

[libtodeath]

53. Maybe having a President taking hundreds of thousands from financial predators doesnt bother you but

it does me.

[bjobotts]

54. It's not the money it's what she said for that much money and what she's saying now

[fun n serious]

55. You don't know what she said and you're not privy to that unless you paid to hear it. NT

[AtheistCrusader]

59. PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.

[Fairgo]

69. Wow

So, you accept your serf role?

[libdem4life]

81. Not straws, facts. If you take a job from anyone, you are paid commensurate

to your ability to Do the Required Job. Also, future value is factored in.

Why do we need a fainting couch or a river of denial? We are not That Naive...Please.

[elias7]

82. If you'd read the NYT article, you'd understand the issue

Do your due diligence please, rather than blindly following your team.

[elljay]

85. How would you feel

if we were in a Third World country and the leading contender from one party made millions of dollars from the private business that s/he would be regulating as President? I believe I would call that a presumption of corruption. Hillary can rebut this by releasing the transcripts to prove that she did not make any promises that contradict what she has said as a candidate. Simple. Do that and I will gladly drop the issue.

[oasis]

2. Cillizza has written dozens of hit pieces on Hillary. His opinion

has zero value.

[WillyT]

3. Except That He's 100% Correct Here...

Sorry.

[BillZBubb]

4. How about the Times, which has endorsed her? Are they of zero value too?

Or are they only of value if they don't question the anointed one?

You Hillary fans are really in denial. No fact critical of Hillary can be accepted.

[oasis]

14. The same Times that was shamed by their false reporting of her E-mails?

Umhmmm.

[roguevalley]

18. the FBI will take care of the emails. This post is about her

unwillingness to show how she 'gushed' over the bankers like a 'regional manager' and sold us all out. She either shows them or she loses. One way or the other, she has to make this right and if it costs her votes, then so be it. She hides them for a reason.

[rhett o rick]

8. Maybe you don't understand that we are in a class war here.

The more resources that the rich and super-duper-rich amass for their personal greedy selves the less we have to take care of our children, our seniors, our vets, our students and our infrastructure.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out that Goldman-Sachs, Citibank, Wall Street, and the Clintons are not on our side.

[oasis]

9. With a stack of Hillary's transcripts at their disposal, how easy would

it be for the average political hack to fashion something out of nothing?

[Raster]

10. Well, if you have the actual transcripts, accurate records of what was actually said....

...or wan't said, than logic says it would impossible to "fashion something out of nothing." If it ain't there, IT AIN'T THERE.

[oasis]

16. Nothing huge was found while rummaging through Hillary's e-mails but

somehow, a lot was made out of the tidbits. Hillary's not signing up for anymore fishing expeditions.

[roguevalley]

19. the FBI disagrees with you.

[oasis]

23. Hillary disagrees with you. nt

[840high]

29. Haha -

[oasis]

30. Hillary's not sweating it folks. So you can slow your roll. (eom)

[AlbertCat]

40. Hillary's not sweating it folks.

How do you know?
And who cares if she is or isn't?


Anyway, I don't look to Hillary for how to act.

[Fairgo]

72. So. it the queen versus the state...

Let's see who wins.

[0rganism]

17. they're already "fashioning something out of nothing"

quite literally nothing, because there aren't any transcripts to work with.

the speculation and rumor milling about what's in those speeches is, by now, probably at least as problematic as what could be crafted from their actual contents.

difference is, if the transcript is out there, the HRC campaign can respond that the political hackery is out of context and misleading.

she would have looked pretty good releasing them all right after the debate where it came up, and even now it could actually help her in some ways. the more she delays, the more i'm starting to think there's something really shitty in those transcripts.

and don't think HRC not releasing transcripts saves her from what's in them. how much do you want to bet that there wasn't at least one politically motivated Republican in the audience for at least one of those speeches who can remember a thing or two (or at least pretend to remember) about the speeches? do you want that person blabbing to the national media about the speeches, saying whatever s/he likes?

either the contents of the speeches are incredibly reprehensible on their own contextual merits, or the Clinton campaign is making a big mistake. either way, it looks grim from here.

[JDPriestly]

25. She should have thought of that before giving the speeches.

She is short-sighted when it comes to politics.

Bernie is visionary.

That's her problem. If she were up against some other political figure, she might be able to hide the texts of her speeches because the other candidate would be just as two-faced and cheat just as much as she does, but she is up against a very honest opponent. So it is absolutely essential that she release the transcripts of her speeches.

Her big negative in the polls is the fact that people don't trust her. By refusing to release the transcripts of her speeches, she is just making that negative factor worse.

You know what I think?

I think she knows she is going to pick up delegates in the conservative and fearful states of the South and she wants to at least resist the pressure to release the incriminating transcripts until after Stupid Tuesday.

She hopes to pick up delegates by refusing to release the transcripts.

You read it here. I haven't seen anyone else figure out her motivations. But that is it.

[oasis]

27. Hillary has a simple solution to that problem.

No release of transcripts. Period.exclamation point!

[timmymoff]

56. Then...

... Hillary must be willing to own that a large portion of democrats, independents, and liberals see her as being less than trustworthy. this decision is hers and hers alone, unless she must take orders from someone else and doesn't even have the ability to run a campaign, let alone a country. This is a perception people have, doesn't even have to be true to be perceived as wrong. It's hers and all hers from the day she said yes to the speech until she clarifies things. It's fine with me however long she wants to harm her campaign.

[bjobotts]

57. It's the "Why" does she not want to release them. Because republicans will release them.

So better to expose them now than let them do it in the GE

[bread_and_roses]

87. Her sight on anything reaches exactly to the end of her own nose

... and no further.

And how I love the contortions from her supporters - here and elsewhere. Somehow, now, "Wall Street Good! Health Insurance companies good!" ... and so on.

It's truly hilarious - or would be if so much were not at stake.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. If there's nothing damaging in the transcripts, she's ceding the narrative to the opposition anyway.

[passiveporcupine]

21. It's not a hit piece. It is relevant

And it's showing that she is terrified to release those transcripts.

Why would that be?

What is she so afraid of?

[oasis]

49. Political hacks would love to get their hands on Hillary's private

transcripts. They know how easy it is to take a snippet from here, and a snippet from there, and create something, out of nothing.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. you protest too much.

[oasis]

62. You request too much.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. You make a claim on the campaign trail about a private, paid meeting, with THE biggest moneyed

interests in the nation, AND MONEY CHANGES HANDS, you better be able to back up that shit you said about that meeting. There's no excuse not to.

Hillary made this an issue when she claimed she told 'wall street to knock it off'. She made this our purview, she holds the evidence (she says), let's see it.

Bluff called. Show your cards.

[oasis]

67. I would advise her not to release the transcripts, and apparently her

advisers are in agreement with me. We stand in solidarity.

Those who disagree can take a number at the booth marked "kick rocks here".

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Then it speaks to your credibility as well.

[oasis]

70. Scarlet letter "H".

I'll "have to look into" changing my avatar.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I'm glad this is funny for you.

[oasis]

74. I switched smilie to headphones due to to the serious ramifications

of the issue. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll turn my attentions to Super Tuesday so I can put it all to rest on 3/2. adios

[AtheistCrusader]

75. You wish.

[Lazy Daisy]

89. No

Those that disagree can take their vote else where.

I don't cotton to people going behind my back taking care of the very people who were responsible for me losing my house, my job, my 401k. I don't cotton to people making nice with the very people who took (stole more like it) over 60% of my mothers retirement and she now lives close to poverty. And I especially don't cotton to people who think it's OK that those who destroyed our economy are doing just fine now while I and everyone else I know is still struggling to put food on the table. How long will those incremental improvements take? It's been 8 years and I ain't getting any younger.

[AlbertCat]

38. His opinion has zero value.

Why is that?

Just because he's not for Clinton?

[oasis]

44. Cillizzo has written over 50 negative articles about Hillary. Why

would anyone think he would suddenly overcome his bias?

[AlbertCat]

47. overcome his bias

They weren't biased if they stuck to the truth.

I haven't read them... but this one seems pretty sound.

[magical thyme]

83. maybe zero value to you, but to the rest of his readers? nt

[MadDAsHell]

90. Hillary needs to do whatever is most politically expedient for her personally.

These voters demanding accountability are annoying as hell and are totally getting in the way of her making "history."

[TheUndecider]

5. At this point in time I don't care what any Repub said to Wall st

I want to know what the Dems have said. Bernie has said nothing to them behind closed doors so that leaves Hillary. In the General I would at that time like to know what the R nominee said, so as to make an informed decision. Right now I'm trying to make an informed dem primary decision.

[AlbertCat]

41. This^

[BillZBubb]

6. Hillary is following the Clinton game book--the one that mostly blows up in their face.

Releasing the transcripts, even if they don't put her in a good light, gets everything out there now. There is still plenty of time to explain why she said what she said and walk back some of it. Sure it will cost her some votes now, but she's doing well enough in the polls to take a hit.

If she stalls, the republicans will be screaming for the transcripts should she win the Democratic nomination. It will become the predominant issue of the campaign. Like romney's taxes, it will hurt her and feed the image that she is evasive, shifty, and dishonest. If she then succumbs to the pressure anything in the transcripts that conflicts with her campaign rhetoric is going to finish her off. It's lose-lose.

The stonewalling and or cover up is always what destroys people. Get the transcripts out there and deal with it.

[hifiguy]

11. Who'd believe "transcripts" at this point?

If released they'd have been doctored beyond recognition.

[Martin Eden]

12. Hillary Clinton should be PROUD to release those transcripts ...

... if the content of those speeches validate her promises to reign in Wall Street abuses.

[lob1]

52. I want to read the speech where she told Wall Street to cut it out.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. I like it when she tells the truth.

...

[roguevalley]

20. let us know when she does

[NCjack]

15. "Why is their a standard for me and not everyone else?" Because Leaders set standards. If they

didn't there would be no standards.

[passiveporcupine]

22. I've always thought she was so bright.

This question makes me think she's clueless.

[grasswire]

34. playing the victim card again

Poor, poor, Hillary.

[zentrum]

24. But, but, but….

…..9/11!

[George II]

28. Interesting - you used a Washington Post column to discuss a NY Times column?

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[RussBLib]

32. I think it's just another hit job on Hillary...

(and I am a Bernie backer, BTW) ...and there have been so many hit jobs, and so many, if not all, have turned out to be bullshit.

I'm fine with Hillary releasing transcripts, if they even exist. It could make some interesting reading. And why shouldn't the other candidates release their transcripts of every speech they made to donors that might be questionable? Aren't we interested to know exactly what Cruz or Rubio or Trump might have said in some of those "behind-closed-doors" speeches? Not necessarily just Wall Street. Why confine it to that? And why confine it to just Hillary? Everyone should release EVERY transcript of every speech they have ever given. But obviously some people would not want the transcript of a private speech to be released.

[grasswire]

35. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are prevented by law from giving speeches for money.

That leaves Trump.

[dchill]

42. Why ever would there be a law against...

giving a little old speech? Because one is in public office? I guess it's OK if you're "between" public offices. All the more reason for the transparency that transcripts would provide.

[grasswire]

45. paid speeches.

Not allowed to give paid speeches. I think Bernie did early in his career, before becoming a senator, but he donated the $500 to charity.

[RussBLib]

50. more notoriety, more money

Hillary could fetch a lot of money per speech, considering her time in the Governor's residence in Arkansas and the White House with Bill, her time as a Senator from New York, her time as Secretary of State, her obvious potential pathway to going back to the White House as President. Someone with no such history would obviously not be paid as much. There is naturally more interest.

I wonder if Rubio, Cruz or Kasich might have given some compromising speeches on their way to seeking office, or between important jobs. I admit I don't know much about any of their careers prior to now.

Ben Carson, zzzzzzzz, is still hanging around. I wonder if he's given some dicey speeches to ... pharmaceutical firms or biotech, etc etc.?

Only seeking transcripts from Hillary seems prejudicial. Fair for one, fair for all.

Did I mention I was a Bernie backer?

[CdnExtraNational]

95. Yep Cruz and Rubio can't give paid speeches ...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/02/24/press-mostly-accepts-hillary-clintons-bogus-speech-transcript

[6chars]

48. She has stood tall against much worse accusations than this

Do we have to exhume Vince Foster now? lol

[blackspade]

37. This is a big problem for her.

The longer she stonewalls on it the worse it will get.
She should have released them when it first came up.
I can only assume that there are some potentially damning statements that she doesn't want in the public eye.

[MellowDem]

39. If the trancripts are bad optics...

We will never see them, much like Romney's taxes.

If they're ho hum transcripts, Clinton will allow the fervor around them to reach fever pitch before releasing them and saying "see, not so bad, now forget the whole legal bribery thing"

[Duval]

46. K&R! nt

[yurbud]

58. in the internet age, you can't play hide the pea for long. Hillary's time is almost up.

[senz]

66. LOL -- perfect!

[Fairgo]

65. Noblesse Oblige, or maybe not

...she believes that she has has the prerogative to withhold the formal communications of policy that she has with corporations newly minted as citizens themselves. Meanwhile, her corporate masters have access to all of our information. Citizens United actually created an offical aristocracy and this (and her royal emails) proves that Clinton is quite sure (as Carlin would say) "You're not in it."

[cannabis_flower]

73. Politicians don't get to pick and choose the parts of their biography that are fair game...

This^^

[arcane1]

76. I disagree that her refusal is "mystifying". It's fucking obvious.

And only a liar or a damn fool can claim otherwise.

[seafan]

77. 'I did NOT have Sachs with that Gold Man.'

Secretary Clinton's stonewalling on releasing the transcripts of her obscenely lucrative speeches to Wall Street/corporate honchos is one of the major reasons why she is not perceived as honest and trustworthy.

This issue is not going away for her, regardless of how many ways she tries to sidestep or distract attention from it.
Her decisions to accept millions for these exclusive speeches are hers alone, and she cannot pivot away from the entire burden of accountability.


What will you decide to do, Madam Secretary? We the People want to know, since you are asking us for our votes.


(Hat tip to DUer WillyT for the heads up.)

[SammyWinstonJack]

97. ROFL! Perfect!

[islandmkl]

78. the only words that will resonate: $225,000 per speech...

do you have any idea what that really sounds like?

to people striving to make what?, $30 - 50K a year and are having hard times making ends meet, let alone send their kids to college, have full-family health care, maybe have jobs being shipped out of the country?

tone deaf lends itself to not hearing the shots fired...

[NoMoreRepugs]

79. well said - ..."tone deaf lends itself to not hearing the shots fired..."

[Enthusiast]

80. Kicked and recommended for the attention this deserves.

[nikto]

84. It can come out now (and we can all discuss it rationally), or it can come out in Oct, via the GOP

Personally, I prefer now, followed by rational discussion.

[ut oh]

86. but.... but.... but....

She said, "Knock it off" (or whatever it was exactly) to the bankers..

[Rafale]

88. You know

It's only a matter of time before people at the various speaking events step forward or show iPhone videos of the various events.

[SoapBox]

91. K & R!

[scottie55]

92. She's Damned If She Doesn't - And More Damned If She Does

Damn.

And she could have played it safe, and waited to cash in later.....

[gordyfl]

93. It's a Farce

Hillaty takes money from Wall Street by making speeches.

She takes money from Wall Street over the years for her campaign.

Many of her fundraisers are from Wall Street.

She hires Wall Street economic advisors.

And I'm supposed to believe she going to rein in on Wall Street?

"Cut it out."

[Major Hogwash]

94. I doubt that she will ever release her speeches.

So, it's over, as far as I'm concerned.

Time to vote for Bernie.

[RiverLover]

98. She has probably scrubbed the transcripts, like she did 30000 emails.

Yep. Ready for Bernie!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. Only Clinton. Leave Hillary ALOOOOOOONE...says Hillary.

[raouldukelives]

99. K&R The biggest super predator of them all. nt

[Arizona Roadrunner]

100. Can Goldman-Sachs deduct cost of Clinton speeches ($650,000) from their tax obligation?

Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct the $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"? If so, then it means we are subsidizing said "speeches" by having to pay more taxes to offset the taxes lost by said deduction. We could also lose services because they don't have the revenues due to said loss of revenue. Therefore, we have standing in asking for her to release the speeches so we can see what was generated for said tax deduction.

[FreakinDJ]

101. If Clinton appears less the "Genuine" its her own fault

Actually Hillary seems just too arrogant to trust

[Mike Nelson]

102. I think it's fair for the NYT to ask...

...but they may be wrong about how much the voters care and the traction this "transcripts scandal" story will receive. This voter is not stupid; I know she said complementary things to those who paid her, and I do not need to see the comments. As more people vote, we will see... starting today, and then on "Super Tuesday".

If Hillary is nominated, I fail to see how this story matters much in a contest between Hillary and Trump. Also, they don't have a link as Hillary does not seem to change her political views after getting "Wall Street" money - if anything, she works against their financial interests.

[braddy]

104. The article nails it.

[bobthedrummer]

105. ^

[Ferd Berfel]

106. I cannot fathom why anyone (not on the payroll)

would support her?

[tabasco]

107. Why not open the door and let us see what's in the closet, Mrs. Clinton?