Nobody who doesn't support Sanders cares about the transcript and they aren't going to by 15 Mar

[hill2016]

Only people who support Sanders care about the transcripts. and they are not going to vote for Hillary regardless of what the transcripts say.

So why release the transcripts?

[reformist2]

1. They sound like True Believers.

[TheBlackAdder]

26. Man! That is one effed up title to read.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Because honesty is better than deception. n/t

[desmiller]

29. ^^^ booyah

[Hekate]

56. Peggy, I just don't like the double standard that has always applied to her

I'd be satisfied with the demand if it applied to everybody who's running for president, starting with the Republicans.

Really, I mean it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

58. I agree. I want honesty from all candidates too.

I am also serious.

Hedging and such like just make me really upset, no matter who's doing it.

[Avalux]

3. Thank you for confirming that Hillary doesn't give a shit about us.

Her risk managers have decided we don't matter, so no transcripts. The "most transparent politician" is laughing her ass of at the silly little people. Great way to win our votes. Maybe she's decided she doesn't need them.

[yourpaljoey]

4. au contraire mon fraire

Hillary supporters are bursting at the seams to get these out... to prove...
once and for all... o-whatever
I wanna see 'em and so do you!!!!

[forest444]

13. Voilà.

And if Shillary's nominated, you can bet that Republicans - and, more importantly, independent voters - will demand to see them too.

Let's face it: she has that effect on people.

[pa28]

5. What happens after 15 Mar?

Will non Sanders supporters be too distracted by our annual production of Julius Caesar to care that she might be saying one thing to the public and another to private Wall-Street donors?

[hill2016]

8. half of all

delegates are awarded by Mar 15.

[morningfog]

19. And? Why is that being treated as some threshold?

[Raster]

34. Because Marikos (in the bag for Hillary) has decreed that on his website...

...the Daily KOS, if the maths predict Her Hiliaryness is the most likely nominee on that date, then his website will go on GE footing, meaning you say anything bad about Her Hillaryness, you will be asked to leave.

In fairness, he does state that if Herness nomination is not in the bag at that time (just as he is) then freedom of discourse will continue... until of course he can find a reason to shut it down.

[HassleCat]

6. Exactly right.

Most people don't give a fart in a hurricane about the transcripts. They realize Clinton is cozy with special interests.. They realize she will sell them out. They figure she's the best we can do. They figure, "Maybe I'll get lucky and she won't sell me down the river because there is no special interest that wants what little I have." The transcripts would only discourage us, make us feel worse about voting for someone we have to support because that's the bet we can do. Most of us probably feel we're better off not knowing, because we already know, and there is no use piling despair on top of disappointment.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Why not release them?

Don't bother reaching into the Magic Bag of Deflection, we know the reason.

[JaneyVee]

10. Same reason Obama shouldnt have released his birth certificate....

Nothing will ever make them happy.

[Gwhittey]

14. But

Obama did and most people stopped asking except for a very vocal small group of nutjobs that keep asking for Long form. Like Trump. Even on GOP forums they called them birthers and made fun of them.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Yeah, that's a nice toss-out excuse

but for a candidate with bad accountability and trust issues the transcripts would go a long way toward neutralizing those issues. If there's nothing there of course.

[Logical]

18. Bullshit! nt

[desmiller]

32. JaneyVee, there's a difference between bigotry and transparency.

[Hekate]

57. Yep, Janey, it will always be something, goal posts moving all over the field. nt

[Marr]

62. It is not unreasonable to want to know the actual positions of a person who wants to be President.

I'm amazed that anyone defends this. She wants to set economic policy for you, too, you know. And your kids, if you have any. I would think at some point, simple self interest would override fan devotion.

[Live and Learn]

9. Because we want to prove to you that the Empress is not wearing any clothes. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Clown shit for real

"Where are the transcripts?"

[Gwhittey]

12. What is funny

is why are you all happy she is not? I mean what is big deal? It is like Romney and his taxes, reason was they made him look bad. So I am really not sure why wanting to prove that she said she told them is true. Sitting there cheering because she doesn't realize them makes it look like you don't want the public to see them because you know they will make her look bad. Hey just come out and admit you don't care if a person is taking "legal" bribes.

[6chars]

31. assuming she is nominee

why should dems want to give repubs fodder for the campaign?

[Raster]

36. Because it's called integrity. Hillary promises to bring Wall Street to heel...

...and to hold them responsible for their actions while taking millions from them for her little "speeches." We want to know what she has said to the people that just about crashed our economy, or because it's Hillary, does that not matter to you?

[6chars]

37. It's called beating Trump

let's say, hypothetically (and which is highly doubtful), that the speeches contain an equivalent of Romney's 47% quip. would you want that to come out and give Trump that tool to present himself as the champion of the 47%? He would. Demanding perfect integrity could leave us with a president with no integrity at all.

[Raster]

54. Let's say it's the equivalent of the 47% or worse, something that truly speaks to...

....character, or serious lack of it. Would you want that person to be the most powerful person on the planet?

And while I see your point, I really do. And trust me, I DO NOT WANT TRUMP ANYWHERE NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE. But just as potentially dangerous is the damage Trump could do, is the damage the banksters could do AGAIN. I don't know how the last little bankster oopsie affected you, but it wreaked DRAMATIC HAVOC on persons near and dear to me. I also work in the financial industry and I have a very good idea of the destruction and carnage another worldwide great depression would bring. AND ALL BECAUSE OF GREED.

And why does it have to be Hillary or Trump? Can't we have someone principled, someone not in it for the power or glory. Someone that just wants a better world for us all?

[dana_b]

43. why would so many want a candidate that has so much baggage and so much to hide

and who cannot be transparent for fear that it will be turned on her? Why not go with the guy who can 1) beat the Repubs and 2) doesn't have the baggage and 3) is honest and has integrity?

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. I don't give a fuck about transcripts but I LOVE twisting noses over it.

Talk about a sore nerve... got YOU to post didn't it.

[Logical]

17. Why??? Are you that silly?? To see if she lied about those speeches. nt

[CBGLuthier]

20. So your argument is that Clinton supporters are not informed, and don't care what she says

How nice for you guys. Devotees can't ever never lose the faith.

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. At this point, couldn't care less about what would likely be edited (or completely fake) transcripts

So since there's unlikely to be video, I really don't give a fuck about the exact details of those speeches. It's not like anyone with two brain cells to rub together doesn't already know what corner she's in.

[Cheese Sandwich]

22. People will care otherwise you wouldn't be on here telling us they won't

[NanceGreggs]

23. The transcripts were Bernie's last hope ...

... of winning the nomination. If they contained a "gotcha" statement, a "47%er comment", a "macaca moment" as the BSers have been counting on, they were convinced it would so negatively impact HRC, the poll numbers in the remaining primary states would flip in his favour.

Other than that, NO ONE CARES what those transcripts say - and those deluding themselves into thinking that Hillary would have let her guard down and made statements that could potentially come back to bite her in the ass are either ignorant or naive. After living in a fishbowl for decades, Hillary is more than acutely aware of what she says and how she says it, and how her own words can be twisted into meaning something she never said.

It's unfortunate that Bernie's entire campaign has come to down to hoping to find something scandalous in Hill's speeches, because the man obviously can't win the nomination strictly on his own merits.

That has been the case all along. A quick perusal of DU posts from "Bernie supporters" proves without doubt that the anti-HRC posts far outweigh the pro-Bernie posts. When the best thing you can say about your candidate is something negative about the OTHER candidate, you've already lost the argument.

[NurseJackie]

28. Thank you!

It's obvious why they want them. It's also obvious they won't be getting them. This verbal ballet is over.

[riversedge]

40. Nicely stated -thanks

[whatchamacallit]

47. Yeah that crafty "Super Predator" lady is way too smart to say anything that could hurt her later

The delusion it burns

[NanceGreggs]

49. Yeah, know what ya mean.

Look at how many primaries HRC has lost since the Bernie folk tried to make that non-issue into an issue.

But thanks for illustrating my point about the need to point out HRC's alleged negatives in hopes of making Bernie look better by default.

[Hekate]

59. + a bajillion Nance

Hillary is so guarded, all the time. On the one hand, I'm sorry it is so -- on the other hand, 25 or 30 years of being lied about and beaten up by the VRWC will do that to any human being.

Chances of her saying one unguarded word in those private settings: slim to none.

[ladjf]

24. I don't think the Hillary supporters care whether or not she's on the "take"

from the big businesses. They might, in fact, admire her for knowing how to rig the game.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. From a lot of the replies I see here on DU...

...they wouldn't care if she bit the head off a kitten on live television.

[ladjf]

27. I've been following politics for a long time. But, this

primary continues to baffle me. I have no idea what's behind some of the highly skewed results.
It's as though there are some secret memo going around and I didn't get one.

[NurseJackie]

30. Ha! :-D

It won't be much longer now. The clock is running out. It's almost over. Tick-tock!

[ladjf]

46. It won't be over until Clinton is no longer

a candidate or the President. I have no confidence in her integrity.
America has already put up with eight years of her husband. I had long dropped him from my list of honest people.I'm aware that he's not the candidate. But, actually, I think he's still calling the shots.



What dos Hal :-D mean?

[DJ13]

33. We really should know if our government leaders are cutting sweetheart deals

in exchange for campaign money.

You would want to know if Republicans have done it, and no one on our side should be excluded either.

Its called an informed electorate.

[cheapdate]

35. Agree. I voted Bernie and I don't particularly care

about the transcripts. Hillary has been in the public spotlight forever. Her political philosophy is crystal clear. Where she stands on foreign and domestic policy, including matters of trade, business, and banking are crystal clear.

[SheenaR]

38. Title was a nightmare

I do not not want to see the transcripts

[RufusTFirefly]

39. So what if she's a tool of Goldman Sachs? Darn it. It's her time!! n/t

[Fairgo]

41. Because...

In a democracy, we would prefer that the "presumptive" president not promise things to the powerful in secret, because we reject the proprietary president, because we do not live in an aristocracy, because we, the people, deserve to know.

[NanceGreggs]

53. Do you think that Hillary ...

... would have made "promises to the powerful" in a speech in front of rooms full of people?

If she were going to "make promises" she didn't want publicly known, wouldn't she do so one-on-one with those "powerful people", rather than in front of a crowd?

If she was going to say anything untoward in her speeches, why would she hire a court reporter to produce a transcript, when she just as easily could have said "no transcripts", along with "no recordings" and "no videos"? Why have a record made that might find its way into the wrong hands, when you could just as easily insist that there BE no record of any kind?

This clamouring for the transcripts is ridiculous on its face, and its purpose is transparent. It is a last-ditch hope that there is something there so scandalous, so devastatingly negative that Bernie would get a boost as a result, while HRC's numbers fell.

Ain't gonna happen. And it was never going to happen.

It's too bad Bernie's campaign is down to hoping a Hillary "gotcha" moment will turn the tide.

[OZi]

42. Why not lead by example instead of leading from behind?

Why should I trust someone who is afraid to be truthful with me?

[myrna minx]

44. How can one claim to be the most vetted candidate and refuse to release them?

Why doesn't she carry the Obama mantle of transparency? Why *not*release them? She could lead by example.

Although I still think it's an issue about the obscene coziness of Wall Street, donations and access to policymakers.

As an aside - speaking about donors and policy decisions, will Secretary Clinton decry predatory loan shark payday lending - lending that is championed by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

[silvershadow]

45. well I can't vote without them, so…

[EndElectoral]

48. Why release them? Because she's states "she tries to be as transparent as possible."

Seems relatively easy here to be transparent, and to help create an informed electorate.

The only reason she wouldn't release the transcripts is if she is reluctant for people to see what they contain, and isn't "trying to be as transparent as possible", and that she is more concerned about her political fallout from what is revealed in the transcripts than she is about creating an informed electorate.

I get it. Why release the transcripts? Because it's the honest thing to do.

I would think Hillary supporters would be supportive of releasing the transcripts so they can prove the transcripts reveal this is just another big brouhaha about nothing.

[dana_b]

51. I hope they ask her about this on Monday

If she's so transparent, why not release them?

[MaggieD]

50. Exactly

Flail on. Whatever. Just looks like desperation.

[Chichiri]

52. No, they'll still care after March 15.

Any conspiracy theory that grabs a lot of peoples' attention for more than a few weeks never completely dies. There are still people today who shout to anyone who will listen that Marion Zioncheck's suicide was faked.

(That's what I said: who?)

[Arizona Roadrunner]

55. A lot of people who vote care and if they can't trust her, they may not vote.

Bernie has pointed out Clinton's statements of support for the companies in India bringing contract H-1b employees to the USA and Michigan. He also should say this is why we need to see what she told Goldman-Sachs for the $675,000. How much support did she give them?

If she doesn't release them, she will probably lose the election. You don't think the Republicans won't play this situation to the greatest climate of distrust in her? Better to have bad news if any, sooner than later..... Also, if they don't trust her, they may not vote at all and there goes the Democrats down ticket candidates into the loser column.

By the way, when is she going to have a legitimate press conference where reporters can challenge her "weasel" worded statements?

[Herman4747]

60. "Why release the transcripts?" you ask:

TO SHOW SHE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE!!

hill2016, does your beloved Hillary have something to hide, something so revealing about her speeches that it would explain why Goldman Sachs would pay her $675,000 for them?

Maybe you prefer not knowing if the person you are voting is corrupt or not. Is that the case?

[Marr]

61. Proudly defending wealthy politicians' right to hide their true motives from you.

I am continually shocked at the utter servility of party loyalists.