2016 Postmortem

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)

41. This^

Reply to TheUndecider (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:45 PM

Feb 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The New York Times Just Perfectly Explained Hillary Clinton�s Goldman Sachs Speech Problem - WaPo [View all] WillyT Feb 2016 OP

Anyone that thinks this will go away or will just be brushed off in the GE is fooling themselves. libtodeath Feb 2016 #1

Not only that, it's not an attack that can be turned around on GOP candidates so easily Mufaddal Feb 2016 #7

So you're saying that as soon as Hillary wins the nomination, this becomes a non-issue? n/t anotherproletariat Feb 2016 #26

Trump will use it Rafale Feb 2016 #33

It's still an issue, if you want to mobilize the Democratic base to turn out in a G.E. Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #36

It certainly remains an issue the GOP can exploit Beowulf Feb 2016 #43

add it to the list TheSocialDem Feb 2016 #103

Maybe I misunderstood your question Mufaddal Feb 2016 #63

I do not see how money she made in her private time is an issue at all.. fun n serious Feb 2016 #51

Maybe having a President taking hundreds of thousands from financial predators doesnt bother you but libtodeath Feb 2016 #53

It's not the money it's what she said for that much money and what she's saying now bjobotts Feb 2016 #54

You don't know what she said and you're not privy to that unless you paid to hear it. NT fun n serious Feb 2016 #55

PRECISELY THE PROBLEM. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #59

Wow Fairgo Feb 2016 #69

Not straws, facts. If you take a job from anyone, you are paid commensurate libdem4life Feb 2016 #81

If you'd read the NYT article, you'd understand the issue elias7 Feb 2016 #82

How would you feel elljay Feb 2016 #85

Cillizza has written dozens of hit pieces on Hillary. His opinion oasis Feb 2016 #2

Except That He's 100% Correct Here... WillyT Feb 2016 #3

How about the Times, which has endorsed her? Are they of zero value too? BillZBubb Feb 2016 #4

The same Times that was shamed by their false reporting of her E-mails? oasis Feb 2016 #14

the FBI will take care of the emails. This post is about her roguevalley Feb 2016 #18

Maybe you don't understand that we are in a class war here. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #8

With a stack of Hillary's transcripts at their disposal, how easy would oasis Feb 2016 #9

Well, if you have the actual transcripts, accurate records of what was actually said.... Raster Feb 2016 #10

Nothing huge was found while rummaging through Hillary's e-mails but oasis Feb 2016 #16

the FBI disagrees with you. roguevalley Feb 2016 #19

Hillary disagrees with you. nt oasis Feb 2016 #23

Haha - 840high Feb 2016 #29

Hillary's not sweating it folks. So you can slow your roll. (eom) oasis Feb 2016 #30

Hillary's not sweating it folks. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #40

So. it the queen versus the state... Fairgo Feb 2016 #72

they're already "fashioning something out of nothing" 0rganism Feb 2016 #17

She should have thought of that before giving the speeches. JDPriestly Feb 2016 #25

Hillary has a simple solution to that problem. oasis Feb 2016 #27

Then... timmymoff Feb 2016 #56

It's the "Why" does she not want to release them. Because republicans will release them. bjobotts Feb 2016 #57

Her sight on anything reaches exactly to the end of her own nose bread_and_roses Feb 2016 #87

If there's nothing damaging in the transcripts, she's ceding the narrative to the opposition anyway. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #60

It's not a hit piece. It is relevant passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #21

Political hacks would love to get their hands on Hillary's private oasis Feb 2016 #49

you protest too much. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #61

You request too much. oasis Feb 2016 #62

You make a claim on the campaign trail about a private, paid meeting, with THE biggest moneyed AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #64

I would advise her not to release the transcripts, and apparently her oasis Feb 2016 #67

Then it speaks to your credibility as well. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #68

Scarlet letter "H". oasis Feb 2016 #70

I'm glad this is funny for you. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #71

I switched smilie to headphones due to to the serious ramifications oasis Feb 2016 #74

You wish. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #75

No Lazy Daisy Feb 2016 #89

His opinion has zero value. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #38

Cillizzo has written over 50 negative articles about Hillary. Why oasis Feb 2016 #44

overcome his bias AlbertCat Feb 2016 #47

maybe zero value to you, but to the rest of his readers? nt magical thyme Feb 2016 #83

Hillary needs to do whatever is most politically expedient for her personally. MadDAsHell Feb 2016 #90

At this point in time I don't care what any Repub said to Wall st TheUndecider Feb 2016 #5

This^ AlbertCat Feb 2016 #41

Hillary is following the Clinton game book--the one that mostly blows up in their face. BillZBubb Feb 2016 #6

Who'd believe "transcripts" at this point? hifiguy Feb 2016 #11

Hillary Clinton should be PROUD to release those transcripts ... Martin Eden Feb 2016 #12

I want to read the speech where she told Wall Street to cut it out. lob1 Feb 2016 #52

I like it when she tells the truth. SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #13

let us know when she does roguevalley Feb 2016 #20

"Why is their a standard for me and not everyone else?" Because Leaders set standards. If they NCjack Feb 2016 #15

I've always thought she was so bright. passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #22

playing the victim card again grasswire Feb 2016 #34

But, but, but�. zentrum Feb 2016 #24

Interesting - you used a Washington Post column to discuss a NY Times column? George II Feb 2016 #28

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #31

I think it's just another hit job on Hillary... RussBLib Feb 2016 #32

Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are prevented by law from giving speeches for money. grasswire Feb 2016 #35

Why ever would there be a law against... dchill Feb 2016 #42

paid speeches. grasswire Feb 2016 #45

more notoriety, more money RussBLib Feb 2016 #50

Yep Cruz and Rubio can't give paid speeches ... CdnExtraNational Feb 2016 #95

She has stood tall against much worse accusations than this 6chars Feb 2016 #48

This is a big problem for her. blackspade Feb 2016 #37

If the trancripts are bad optics... MellowDem Feb 2016 #39

K&R! nt Duval Feb 2016 #46

in the internet age, you can't play hide the pea for long. Hillary's time is almost up. yurbud Feb 2016 #58

LOL -- perfect! senz Feb 2016 #66

Noblesse Oblige, or maybe not Fairgo Feb 2016 #65

Politicians don't get to pick and choose the parts of their biography that are fair game... cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #73

I disagree that her refusal is "mystifying". It's fucking obvious. arcane1 Feb 2016 #76

'I did NOT have Sachs with that Gold Man.' seafan Feb 2016 #77

ROFL! Perfect! SammyWinstonJack Feb 2016 #97

the only words that will resonate: $225,000 per speech... islandmkl Feb 2016 #78

well said - ..."tone deaf lends itself to not hearing the shots fired..." NoMoreRepugs Feb 2016 #79

Kicked and recommended for the attention this deserves. Enthusiast Feb 2016 #80

It can come out now (and we can all discuss it rationally), or it can come out in Oct, via the GOP nikto Feb 2016 #84

but.... but.... but.... ut oh Feb 2016 #86

You know Rafale Feb 2016 #88

K & R! SoapBox Feb 2016 #91

She's Damned If She Doesn't - And More Damned If She Does scottie55 Feb 2016 #92

It's a Farce gordyfl Feb 2016 #93

I doubt that she will ever release her speeches. Major Hogwash Feb 2016 #94

She has probably scrubbed the transcripts, like she did 30000 emails. RiverLover Feb 2016 #98

Only Clinton. Leave Hillary ALOOOOOOONE...says Hillary. SammyWinstonJack Feb 2016 #96

K&R The biggest super predator of them all. nt raouldukelives Feb 2016 #99

Can Goldman-Sachs deduct cost of Clinton speeches ($650,000) from their tax obligation? Arizona Roadrunner Feb 2016 #100

If Clinton appears less the "Genuine" its her own fault FreakinDJ Feb 2016 #101

I think it's fair for the NYT to ask... Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #102

The article nails it. braddy Feb 2016 #104

^ bobthedrummer Feb 2016 #105

I cannot fathom why anyone (not on the payroll) Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #106

Why not open the door and let us see what's in the closet, Mrs. Clinton? tabasco Feb 2016 #107