Nobody actually cares about the transcripts.

[Recursion]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

I'm explicitly calling a large contingent on DU out as liars here, because we all know they are.

Nobody actually cares what Clinton said in her speeches.

No actual person cares which focus-grouped bromides she chose that day as opposed to the one before.

I don't like Clinton. I voted against her. But the "transcripts" bullshit pisses me off to no end. Nobody cares. She gave 45 minutes full of vapid bromides. You know that. I know that. The people dishonestly claiming they care about the transcripts know that.

Everybody knows that.

We've all heard the woman speak. We all know what she said to her various audiences was just as bad as what she's said to everyone else.

What is kind of amusing is that her stonewalling has actually seemed to drive a lot of people to distraction, who could have been doing more useful things to get a different candidate nominated. Funny how that works.

Again: nobody cares.

Anybody who says they care are lying. I'm sick of this. There are plenty of reasons not to like Clinton; this is not one.

[joshcryer]

1. And the funny thing is, she'll probably release them.

[Recursion]

3. Yup, right about the time of the convention (nt)

[joshcryer]

5. Or during the first Trump debate.

lulz

[Ferd Berfel]

126. after it too late for anyone to do anything about it - except

not support her any further

[PoliticAverse]

2. If Clinton thought no one cared she would have released them already. n/t

[Recursion]

4. Nope. She's distracted you incredibly

You've been played. She'll release them around the time of the convention (or conceivably the first Trump debate), and they'll be her stump speech from the campaign.

[joshcryer]

6. Yep, lots of focus on women in business.

Probably some good snark about male CEO pay.

[Recursion]

8. I thought we had that speech entirely already? (nt)

[joshcryer]

10. Yeah, but it won't deviate much.

She ain't going off script at one of these things. Every human in the room has a device that can record.

[Recursion]

15. Ah, yeah

Agreed

[PoliticAverse]

7. How could I have been played if I don't care? n/t

[lagomorph777]

11. Thread won!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

79. Oh really? I've been played by a candidate who wants my vote?

What honesty and integrity on her part.

Had I been interviewing her for a job and she pulled something like this the interview woukd be over with no followup.

[Ferd Berfel]

127. Exactly correct

They probably contain pragmatic Triangulation that is career ending

[lagomorph777]

9. Clinton obviously cares a LOT about them

She's very protective of those transcripts.

And yes, of course a lot of people care about them. I certainly do. I want to know what she said to the people who were looting the global economy so badly that it collapsed. They paid her in money stolen from ordinary Americans, and I want to know what she gave them in return.

So you think I'm lying? How could any actual progressive person NOT care about this? Are you lying about being a Democrat?

[Silver_Witch]

14. Agreed!if not she would have released them!

I am interested as well to see what she says to thieves!

[Hoyt]

12. Remember how Obama stalled and stalled and then stuffed his Birth Certificate in detractors' faces.

The speeches don't say anything condemning, but Clinton's detractors know that with some creative editing they can blame her for all kinds of stuff, say she went off script, transcripts don't matter because she made promises before and after event, and similar BS.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

88. We also remember that it was already known that

PBO was an American citizen due to his mother being an American citizen.

If perhaps there were press at these Eall street events perhaps the comparisons would be more in parity. But as it stands it is just a sad parody of truth not to release the transcripts.

[artislife]

98. I swear they get more podlike at this election goes on.

[Hoyt]

108. There were lots of investors, some Democrats, some Clinton haters, and staff with recorders.

Had there been anything that fits your agenda or could be obscured to fit your agenda, we would have heard about it.

This one won't garner Sanders any votes. It's just something his supporters can join him in yelling at the sky while getting absolutely nothing of value accomplished. Yell/Rant on.

[NCTraveler]

13. I will and have argued that this is a campaign tactic.

It is just one component of taking the Sanders camp off message. As you said, Clinton knows in the end it isn't big with the electorate. That has been proven out. The aspect of taking away from Sanders message online by the incessant calls for her to release them has done more than any negative aspect to her campaign.

[Recursion]

17. Yep, and an effective one

Must agree with you there

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Clinton has outmaneuvered Sanders and his people again and again

It's amateur hour.

[MineralMan]

16. And the ones who do care would not bother to read them

if they were released. They'd wait for some pundit to pull a quote or two and post that incessantly on Reddit and other Internet venues. But, read that boring stuff? Perish the thought.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. I just love how you stand up for truthiness.

One could argue that if there were a 47% remark in her transcripts that the "Club" would ignore it wholesale.

[MineralMan]

103. I'm sorry you're feeling nauseated.

I recommend soda crackers, a little 7-UP and, perhaps, a couple of Gaviscon tablets.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

119. I reccomend a dose of perspective in your life

to see beyound the smoke and mirrors that you conjure up with your concernzzzz.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. The funny part is that the Sandersites think there is some nefarious quid pro quo in there

What stupidity.

You bring in Hillary Clinton to do a glass ceiling talk. Duh. Maybe some tepid foreign policy, with a focus on diversity and global women's economics. Probably lots of nonsense about developing world micro-lending and anecdotes about women in (Africa/India/Eastern Europe) starting little businesses.

I really have to think that if somebody believes there's "incriminating" or even "negative" content in these speeches, that that person has never been to a guest speaker in a company setting. These talks are so fucking anodyne that half the audience is asleep.

[Recursion]

20. Right?

It's absolutely stupid, and she's handling it amazingly.

[whathehell]

91. Oh please...Notjing thst blatant. Such a stupid idea could only stem

from the Hillary camp.

[zipplewrath]

93. Defending the Bankers

The word from people that had heard these speeches was that she tended to suggest that bankers weren't really responsible for the economic collapse and that they were unfairly being demonized. Some suggestion that there was no such thing as "too big to fail" either. Bernie coulda made a fair amount of hay outta that.

[artislife]

100. And yet she gets paid lots of cash and the donations flow in.

Nothing that spikes your curiosity.

That's telling in itself. I remember I didn't want to hear anything even slightly off about Obama. I drank the Kool Aid and didn't want to think there was anything that was less than stellar.

Hell, I still love the man, even after some of the crap he has pulled. But he is likable.

Good luck with that woman.

[nc4bo]

21. Revealing the possible twofacedness of a Presidential candidate

Is a good thing.

Reveals the basic nature of the person.

Will that candidate represent the people or does their allegiance lie elsewhere?

When that candidate states they will work their ass off to help to protect the 99% from abuses of the wealthy or protect the interests of the 1%, at all costs?

Will that candidate put the interests of the American people first or those of their fat cat allies?

Why are we not permitted to make that decision on our own?

Let us judge for ourselves.

[Recursion]

23. No, it doesn't

It really doesn't. You're in for a big let-down if Sanders's tax returns ever come out, if you think that.

Primaries are not forums for self-expression, even if a pol convinces you they are.

[nc4bo]

37. We are perfectly capable of making our own decisions on this. That the request is being denied

Speaks volumes. Those transcripts would be her Romney moment in a GE, ya think? Indies would fall all over themselves getting to the polls because it's everything they're looking for in a presidential candidate?

Sanders released his returns.

Clinton's baggage would smother anything in a Sanders suitcase.

She IS the grand champion in that regard.

[Recursion]

39. The extent to which it's distracted you speaks volumes

She's winning because people fixated on vapid bullshit like this. Campaigning 101; same with Obama and his birth certificate. Deny something small and meaningless, and the lemmings will go for it.

Congratulations: you got played, and got Clinton nominated.

[nc4bo]

47. Not at all. It adds to an already large list of why she should be nowhere near the WH except as a

Visitor.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

96. It would take a denizenh of HRC group 2

to get all giddy by stating applicant Clinton is playing us all.

"It's all just a big joke...and screw you...BTW don't firget to bote for me!"

[gordianot]

22. What has been interesting is how Republican candidates have ignored the transcript episode.

They do not matter to opposition. It appears Hillary is unique on this source of speaking fee and I am curious what said is worth that amount of money. As to judgement based on content that changes daily and is of no value to anyone opponent or supporter.

[Recursion]

24. Wait... you actually think Clinton is "unique" for taking speaking fees?

Seriously?

[gordianot]

38. No to Goldman Sachs maybe.

That she actually had an official transcript is fascinating. You would have to have a recording like Romney's 47% for any of this to be believable. Nothing said to Wall Street or investment firms should be a shock especially when they ask you back.

[Recursion]

42. Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about

Maybe you think most of the country does, but the primary numbers suggest not.

You got played. You saw a shiney and dove for it.

[gordianot]

58. Actually I do not care what she said.

Speaking fees are a scam a way to make a personal contribution or for maybe a little influence someday. That is how the Clinton's make a living. Who she spoke to and was asked back says it all. Content means nothing.

[ViseGrip]

25. That is the cancer of the tone deafness. I hear differently, off DU

[brooklynite]

26. Conversely, if she HAD released them, it wouldn't have made anyone happy...

...they'd just switch to: "well, how do we know what she said AFTER the speech"?

[Recursion]

27. That too (nt)

[TCJ70]

29. If she, at the first mention, had just said yes...

...I would have been extremely surprised and glad to read them (if they actually don't contain anything damning). It would have been a great move for her in terms of dispelling her appearance of secrecy. The whole "I'll look into it", "Double standard", "I'll do it when the Republicans do it" garbage is what I expected from her...and it just confirms every suspicion.

[Recursion]

44. Ah, but her opponents wouldn't have spent five months obsessing over this nothing

And would have campaigned better.

[TCJ70]

51. So...she's just a dick, then?

I'll be ecstatic if you're right (assuming we ever get to see them) and there isn't anything in them. At this point, no one really knows what they contain. You can act smug all you want, but this is the kind of sleazy campaigning that pushes Sanders supporters away. Just be transparent! That's all anyone wanted and she can't deliver.

[Recursion]

55. I know what they contain, because I've heard her speak

And they contain the exact same vapid bromides she's said every time she appears in public.

[riderinthestorm]

89. Now that's an interesting personal tidbit. Why were you @ a Wall St meeting?

That included a $250k speech from Hillary Clinton....

[whathehell]

95. A private speech before a group of bankers isn't "in public'

That's why the speeches aren:t public....Get it now?

[whathehell]

28. You must be joking...

I care and I've absolutely no reason to lie.

[Recursion]

31. I don't believe you

Why do you care which version of her stump speech a bank got?

[whathehell]

76. Oh I see..

You actually think she says the same things to bankers that she does to the general public ?

That is funny.

[Recursion]

77. You don't?

That is what is hilarious.

[Fumesucker]

105. Clinton even tailors her accent to the crowd, of course she tells different people different things

Yeah, lots of vapid bromides but every now and then she lets the real Hillary peek out from behind the mask for a moment. My guess is Hillary identifies more with the Goldman Sachs crown than she does with the median wage earner in the US and would be more likely to ingratiate herself with them. I'd probably say some fairly imprudent things for a near quarter million, hell I do it for free here.

The second string of the regional chumps is playing the champs and has scared the crap out of them, the chumps still have a theoretical shot even if it's unlikely.

Bernie wasn't supposed to break into double digits and everyone knows it, I think he started at about three or four percent, doubling that would have been considered an accomplishment eight years ago.

[rhett o rick]

30. You may be right. The speeches were just excuses to give her cash for

her personal fortune. Why anyone would think that giving her millions of dollars, not for her campaign, but for her personal account would in any way make her beholden. Quid pro quo is a lie and Clinton is honest. That's it, "Quid Pro Quo is a lie and Clinton is honest." Yeah, that's the ticket.

And her heated battles with Sanders is because both want to help the 99%. Yeah that's the ticket. Clinton takes millions from the banksters but really wants to help the poor. And she will end the Prisons For Profits that's supported her candidacy. Of course. And she will tell the oil companies that she was wrong in the past about fracking. Golly, this is good. I don't know why I didn't take the kool-aid before this.

[Recursion]

32. So why not just say that?

I mean, if you actually think that, why the deception about the transcripts?

[rhett o rick]

62. I believe that Clinton told the Bankers the truth. That she believes in supply side

economics. That "growing the economy" (her words) will raise all boats. She is an Alan Greenspan follower.

I don't for a minute believe it will dissuade her loyal followers one bit. They don't care one iota what she has done or will do.

"We need to help the 99% and to do that we need to deregulate Wall Street, the Big Banks, and Monsanto, Walmart, Chevron, etc."

That's what she told them and they rewarded her with gold, lots and lots of gold.

[Kittycat]

80. No, we don't KNOW that.

So you stop with the lies and spin. That is why we want the transcripts. This was essentially her job between SOS and campaigning, so we have the right to judge her on those merits. I don't care if you accept it or not. The speeches could amount to nothing, but every day that passes distrust grows. Simple.

[rhett o rick]

81. Well if you can call be a liar, I should be able say that you live in a bubble of deniability.

"Support the Wealthy and they will take care of us." No they won't. And if you don't recognize Clinton as a liar, remember she told us that Iraq had WMD and harbored al qaeda, then how do you get off judging me. And the audacity of telling me what I know.

I hate to tell you but the Oligarchy that you revere so deeply, don't love you.

I have had quite enough of the ridicule and derision from the Clinton Wing of our Party. Bob-bye

[floppyboo]

73. Or she told them that she was going to be running for Prez

in which case, it could be argued that the fees were campaign fundraising, which opens up a whole other legal can of worms.

[Separation]

122. Wow, locked out of your own little thread

For being a stinker. 🐂💨💩

Here's my opinion on the transcripts as a Sanders supporter. I am, did, and will bet my next disability check that there are recording of some sort of those speaking engagements she did. She is probably one of the most hated politicians, even more so than Obama by Republicans and even amongst some Democrats. If there are recordings, and I am saying there are, there would be zero juice to let them out against Sanders. If there to be released it will be in the general election when there is more to lose.

I am saying this as a Sanders supporter, who will vote for her during the general.

[pdsimdars]

33. Wow, how far will people go in creating their fantasy world? What mental gymnastics!

And by "nobody" you mean that YOU, PERSONALLY don't care about the transcripts. Most thinking people are very interested. She is speaking to the people who give her TONS of MONEY and she does not want we, the commoners, to know what she is saying to them. People who don't have something to hide don't hide their transcripts and don't have noise machines to block "others" from hearing what she is saying.
And if you didn't really care and if she didn't really care, then she wouldn't be tanking her "trustworthiness" with the voters to keep them secret. She knows what happened to Romney when his words got out.

[Recursion]

34. No, I mean nobody does. You don't either

You are lying if you say you do. What you care about is the amount of money she took, and from whom, and you should own up to that.

[reddread]

40. that is ludicrous

something coming?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

111. Your position is beyond foolish posturing.

Have at it.

[Major Nikon]

120. Results...

On Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, I mean nobody does. You don't either
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1863594

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

It is a personal attack to call somebody a liar. This OP stinks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 29, 2016, 12:15 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I don't agree (I definitely want to know what she said) it's certainly not hide worthy IMO
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: a speech for a campaign donation sounds fair to me. The corps could have just donated the money for no return speech.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[Mike Nelson]

35. Spot on...

...what a stupid waste of time issue. Everyone knows approximately what Hillary said... we're not stupid. Lame attempt to portray her as "on the take."

[sufrommich]

36. It's the Benghazi!!!! of the Sanders campaign. nt

[IdaBriggs]

41. I guess I'm nobody. I care. But only a little bit.

I want to know if she was insulting Obama or making inappropriate promises or comforting them by saying they didn't really do anything wrong.

I also want it to be such a ROPE AROUND HER NECK that NO OTHER CANDIDATE WILL EVER BEHAVE IN SUCH A WAY AGAIN where it gives the impression and appearance of money buying and selling access to her for influence.

Caesar's wife must be above reproach - and so must Caesar.

[texstad79]

43. Transcripts(2016) ==Birth Certificate(2008)

and about as relevant.

[ucrdem]

86. Yes.

Welcome to DU!

[Betty Karlson]

45. I'm nobody now.

The transcripts represent her relationship with Wall Street banks. How are we to trust someone who refuses to tell how she will treat one of the largest corrupting forces in the USA?

[Recursion]

48. Yep. You got played.

The transcripts represent her relationship with Wall Street banks.

What on earth makes you think that?

What a weird thing to claim.

You got played.

[Betty Karlson]

50. Oh so now I'm a duped nobody. Why not call me a hell-bound slut while you are at it?

Or complacent?
Or racist?
Or sexist?
Or f*cking retarded?

[Recursion]

63. Or how about just say you got played, which you did?

Clinton pointed, you followed. Just like Obama and his birth certificate.

[Betty Karlson]

85. "Clinton pointed, you followed"?

I think your projection is showing there.

[betsuni]

46. The only reason for the obsession that I can come up with is that they think she's Mitt Romney.

So much stupid, I can't even deal with it.

[aikoaiko]

49. Uhh, no. I care. I want to know what she says to the banksters behind closed doors.

And I want to rub some people's noses in it.

[aikoaiko]

53. Of course you don't believe me. How could you?

[Recursion]

59. Because you aren't an idiot, from my interactions with you

Even if there was some kind of "bribe" or whatever it wouldn't have happened any time near a paid speech.

FFS, think, man! For that matter look at companies she didn't officially speak at, first.

[aikoaiko]

64. I don't think there will be evidence of bribes in the transcripts.

I think there is evidence of a different HRC than the one she is portraying in this campaign.

Not a different Hillary from her Goldwater years, or her super predator years, or her defense of DOMA and opposing gay marriage years. These are recent speeches after the financial meltdown.

She says that she told them to "Cut it out", but let's see.

[tularetom]

54. I don't care if they are released, I just want her to fear they might be

If anything might keep her something close to honest, it would be the nagging fear that all this shit was gonna come out.

She's congenitally unable to tell the truth but worry about release of those transcripts would keep her from going completely off the deep end.

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. Of course there's no reason to care about them... we know what they'll say.

And any transcript from a speech to a Wall Street firm sure as fuck won't say "Cut it out!"

They'll be about pandering to whatever group she speaks to. That's the only real reason they wouldn't be released, and who cares about pandering? No politician is untainted by it.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. You may be correct

The issue is, I think they would care if they knew what was said.

If there was nothing damaging to her campaign within them, they would already be released.

Very likely talk of privatizing social security imo.

FYI, there are a near infinite amount of things I have no knowledge of that I do not concern myself with.

[mushroomhunter]

60. i care

But I want to see the video. Somebody videoed for posterity/legacy. History in the making. Special. There was a camera somewhere.

[Bleacher Creature]

61. I wish I could rec this twice!!

It really is such a stupid issue. Retired politicians have been going on the speaker circuit for years and years. I've been to plenty of these types of events, and they literally say nothing. It's all just platitudes and stump speeches, sprinkled in with a few kind words about the host. I don't even know if they're actually "transcribed" (but they are probably recorded).

This "scandal" really does follow the Republican mode, only with different players and issues.

[Orsino]

66. I'm specifically calling out your inaccuracy.

I'm not nobody.

I want to know what the big secret is. Releasing the transcripts might confirm your belief, but it no longer looks that way.

[Recursion]

68. And I'm outright calling you a liar

I want to know what the big secret is.

No you don't. You know she's a politician who tells people what they want to hear (so is Sanders, ahem).

Ironically, this can only be an issue if people think Clinton is honest...

[Orsino]

99. Incoherent.

The possibility of further dishonesty is part of why I care. I'm also looking for ways to muster some enthusiasm for the likely nominee.

You don't know me, and aren't qualified to question my honesty.

[Octafish]

67. Wrong. They show who she really works for.

So, anyone who cares about Democracy cares about the transcripts.

[Recursion]

69. Why would she be honest that one time?

Seriously, you guys don't seem to think about this...

[Octafish]

101. Good point. By now, there's no telling what she stands for.

She could be spying on the rich, getting ready for the big Putsch.

[KittyWampus]

70. You "voted against Clinton". LOLZ

[Recursion]

71. Yeah. For Sanders, in fact, whom I distrust *almost* as much

Can you at least acknowlwdge that? That "almost" was the deciding factor, but I still don't respect the guy.

[PowerToThePeople]

72. "Can you at least acknowlwdge that?"

No one can acknowledge an unconfirmed statement from an anonymous poster on the internet.

[riderinthestorm]

74. Lots of people care, outside DU

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

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/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/nyc-wall-street-protest-hillary-clinton-release-transcripts-speeches/

Google search turns up hundreds of reputable calls for her to release the transcripts.

Hillary may be "playing" this but then there's a fair few smart people who are dupes out there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

75. I care, and no I am not a liar.

We would care if this were Romney...

or Trump...

or McCain.

"She gave 45 minutes full of vapid bromides."

If you have the transcripts then please share.

You are right that this is a distraction, but it is up to applicant Clinton to come clean and not add precondition bullshit in order to deflect away from her ties to Wall Street and what she told them,

So go ahead and call me a liar. It won't be an honest assessment of me or others who have the same care.

[Recursion]

78. No it's not

it is up to applicant Clinton to come clean

No it's not. Keeping people dostracted with this bullshit is working great for her so far. Again: cingratulations on getting her nominated.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

115. If you believe that a person running for office

should be distracting the voters and blowing smoke up our ass then any candidate that does that has lost my vote.

If I can trust her only to deceive then she's done.

[Baitball Blogger]

82. Wrong. I care.

In those transcripts we will find confirmation of everything we suspect about her.

[ucrdem]

83. K-n-R but I disagree that it's so easily done.

Tax returns are one thing, but a collection of speeches is basically a book that requires editing, and if it's hundreds of speeches that's a job requiring considerable time and attention.

The other thing is that it's not what's in them that will matter; it's what busybodies like Robert Reich and Jules Assange SAY is in them that will become the public perception repeated endlessly by a gazillion new Citizens United outfits and Libertarian pundits and thence to CNN and the "left" blogosphere meaning endless looping here and elsewhere.

----------------

p.s. I don't disagree with you so much as pundits making this assumption, Jill Abramson for example -- great article but it's not as easy as she makes it sound:

This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
Monday 28 March 2016

The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

[whatchamacallit]

87. Wait...so armed with nothing more than your opinion that nobody cares, you call those who do, liars?

OP's credibility dips below zero

[whathehell]

92. The OP just had his insulting post hidden

It's his 6th hide.

[Dem2]

90. Kicked and recommended

I couldn't possibly agree with you more ... vapid is a good word.

[karynnj]

94. I suspect that Clinton might have wished that she had released them back a year ago

when the issue arose.

The fact is that nothing she said is likely surprising or different than what ANY public figure does in a speech, that is not designed to be a major speech, to any audience. I assume that she praised and thanked her hosts for their complementary introduction and then spoke of how they were so important to everything the country stands for. Then as you described she would have woven together various bits and pieces used in many previous public speeches.

I have problems with Clinton, but what I wrote is true of most Obama or Kerry speeches -- and because I have listened to many many speeches of both, I often recognize the familiar pieces. Yet, just listening to an individual speech, it is coherent, insightful and personalized to fit the group. Not to mention, the repeated bits and pieces ARE core beliefs of the speaker. A friend of mine, who saw Kerry give a speech to a MA student group that included comments he made after looking at their program for a few minutes and then pulling from his standard comments on engaging in activism, was amazed at how well it worked and how perfect it seemed for the audience.

I suspect that the problem is that HRC's first reaction was to say "NO!" and then the longer it went, the more attention was given to questions on the speeches themselves and, given HRC's personality, the stronger her reluctance to releasing the speeches has become. Not to mention, if she releases one -- it will be said to not be representative and releasing it will not suffice. Releasing ALL of them, at this point, creates a mess almost as big as the attacks that she has not released them.

[artislife]

97. I care

So that blows that.

I care because it is one more bit of evidence of her megalomania and not seeing that she is to answer to us, not the other way around. This is her pattern.

So evasive.

[Gothmog]

102. The transcripts will not be an issue in the general election

[tonyt53]

104. More ignorance on display

It is quite obvious that there are a lot of Bernie-ites on here, plus Bernie and his wife, that have no idea about speaking fees. Zero. The fact is. groups, companies, and organizations will hire speakers to come speak about their own life experiences. Rarely do they ever speak about the business or whatever the group is doing. The more the life experiences, the more they are paid. The more well known the speaker, the more they are paid. It is very evident that Bernie has no life experiences that matter to most people. What he has done amounts to pretty much the same as most people and nothing sets him apart as anything but ordinary.

To imply that she spoke in support of whoever she spoke to is ignorance on display.

[dchill]

106. The content of the transcripts is just Hillary...

Thanking Wall Street for the down payment on services to be rendered at a later date. Any Romney-esque 47%-like jests will be nothing more than the cherry on top of the multi-layer scandal cake. The hubris-based stonewall stew that is the Clintons' political career can be evidence of nothing else. In that sense, we've all been played, Clinton's supporters more than anyone.

[Lil Missy]

107. Nope. And it's a witch hunt. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. I agree ... the question has been polled and answered ...

I can't believe that anyone, in this post-Romney "47%" world, would believe that the transcripts would reveal anything damaging. If they were the least bit damaging, they would have already been leaked, especially since the Democratic primaries are winding down with the very, very, very likely winner being HRC.

As it is, it just a campaign tool to give hope to the hopeless.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

116. That's a fairly weak and partisan reply.

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. Perhaps, but it reflects reality.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

121. I agree the reality is that your post is weak sauce.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Okay. Have a good day.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

124. You too. I've got a bridge to sell ya when you get back.

[hamsterjill]

110. It's work product in my opinion

I have a different take as to the transcripts. In my thinking, her speeches, which she was paid for, are the "work product" of the companies that paid to hear her give the speech.

She gave the speeches as a private citizen; not as an elected official.

And no, I don't care about the transcripts. I care about her platform now and I care about her electability.

[procon]

112. She shouldn't release anything; it would be like Obama's birth certificate all over again.

No matter what she might make public, it wouldn't change anything. Neither the Bernie fans who hate Hillary or their Republican counterparts will be satisfied. They will find fault with whatever she might release to fuel their bitter animosity. It would be an identical replay of all the crazy conspiracy theories that erupted after Obama made his birth certificate public, and the slobbering nutters from both sides will come out of the woodwork to fan the flames of their malevolent antagonism toward Hillary.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Clinton cares enough about the transcripts to keep them more secret than classified emails

That in itself should give most voters motivation to learn what's in them.

[beedle]

114. You're right I don't care what's in them ...

... the mere fact she made them, and was paid big bucks to make them, is more than enough for me to consider her disqualified.

If you meet up with the Mafia in dark allies every week, and they hand you an envelope full of money, I really don't care if they are paying you off for corruption, or if they are giving you money for you to donate in your name to the local orphanage. What you are doing at the very least has the appearance of being corrupt ... if you are in a position to make laws affecting the Mafia, what difference does it make if you create laws favorable to the Mafia because they helped you donate to an orphanage, or whether you created them because they were padding your personal bank account? ... we can discuss that issue on sentencing day and maybe cut you a break on your prison sentence if you let yourself be bribed because you convinced yourself it was 'for the orphans'.

Hillary's job is to make sure Wall St. obeys the laws and to create laws that don't allow Wall St. to take advantage of the people ... not to ignore the unfair laws and simply redirect the ill-gotten money to causes she believes are 'worthy'.

[SheenaR]

117. I care

I didn't until she acted as though she had something to hide. As was in said in the last debate by Dana Bash, if there's nothing to hide, why not just release them.

At this point releasing them and having them show no selling out would go a long way with a Bernie supporter like myself

[RiverLover]

125. I care.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

128. Only one thing I am looking for in any speech by anyone, whether or not they

talk about privatizing Soc Sec.

THAT is something I wanna know about.

[one_voice]

129. Locking..

disruptive meta is not allowed.