Hillary 'Transcript' Hounds Are In Good Company

[bigtree]

Dan Merica ‏@danmericaCNN 3h3 hours ago

First on CNN: Conservative super PAC to air ad hitting Clinton on paid speech transcripts - My story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/hillary-clinton-pac-ad-speech-transcripts/index.html …

[morningfog]

1. Wah wah. We hear ad nauseum that the repubs will attack Bernie on the same points HIllary's folks

rely on.

Non point here.

[bigtree]

3. remarkably similar points of attack

...often spending money during of our primaries attacking Hillary Clinton using the exact same rhetoric.

Not crying, making an observation. Draw your own conclusions.

[morningfog]

11. The wah wah was the sad trombone sound in response to your comment and eye rolling.

And, as I said, Hillary's attacks on Bernie are from the right and sound just like the repubs. And this is during the primary. No difference.

[Hortensis]

20. Face it, Bernie supporters who haul water for the Kochtopus

against Hlllary betray what they claim are their principles EVERY TIME.

They could have been attacking her moderately on the honest questions of legitimate issues without forking in months of that stinking right-wing mud, but indulgence has always been far more tempting. It's sensible to assume there are also some here whose agendas are not actually Bernie's or Hillary's. Or ours.



Experts speculate that the Kochs' coalition of over 700 plutocrats is now as powerful as the GOP, but given that the GOP gets a great deal of funding from these people, I think we'd better play it safe and assume the worst.

[morningfog]

22. Face this. Hilary's 21 million from bankers is part and parcel

of the problem identified by Bernie. The kochs carrying out water in this fight is of no moment.

[Hortensis]

51. Problem identified for decades by many thousands.

Actually believing that Bernie is the first or the biggest would indicate incredible ignorance. Inexcusable ignorance in any citizen as this problem has become more and more dangerous to our very democracy.

[morningfog]

59. Did I say Bernie was the first? Good to see you agree, though,

and recognize Hillary is representative of the dangerous problem to our democracy.

[SwampG8r]

33. The same kocks who funded tbe dlc

[CorporatistNation]

36. Touche'

[BillZBubb]

2. That's the best you've got? Geez.

If Hillary has nothing to hide, release the damn transcripts. How hard is that?

[bigtree]

4. no

...that was easy.

[BillZBubb]

12. Were you interested in seeing romney's tax returns in 2012? Did you think they were relevant?

Or did you think romney shouldn't be questioned about them?

[bigtree]

43. yes, they were Romney's tax returns

...this isn't about republican tax returns.

[Matt_in_STL]

54. Ah, so we shouldn't hold ourselves to the high standards we ask of everyone else?

[BillZBubb]

56. I'm sure you don't realize how foolish your answer makes you look.

[bigtree]

60. what's amazing is that you think people are defined by the bullshit thrown around here

...'foolish' is realizing that your campaign against your Democratic rival is a mirror of the right-wing conservative campaign against Hillary.

All that stuff about progressive values goes right out the window. This is just petty campaign politics and your are arm-in-arm with republicans, not just making some speech, but actually working hand-in-hand with them in this effort.

[Avalux]

5. I know you want the transcripts to go away, sorry.

I don't give a fuck if others are joining in on the demand.

As a Democrat, I have every right to question her and demand transparency. She wants my vote doesn't she?

[bigtree]

14. I don't really care about transcripts. They're just cynical campaign fodder.

...I do think it's interesting to watch the demands made of her campaign by opponents and expect she's going to jump through all of the hoops Bernie and the conservatives are holding out.

[CorporatistNation]

38. Seriously Relevant POINT!

[Skwmom]

6. It will help her it's a right wing conspiracy meme and I'm a victim, they don't want me......

[TCJ70]

7. Yeah, I mean...

...we're only choosing someone who will set a policy agenda for our country. Who cares about transparency anyway, right? Never mind that she has huge perception issues when it comes to trust and honesty with the general public. They're just being big meanies!

If there's nothing in those transcripts, she has everything to gain by shutting this whole thing down by releasing them. I know it would make me more comfortable with her potential candidacy.

[bigtree]

18. If you care about Clinton policy, there are reams of speeches for you to read

......this is just a low-rate political tactic which is currently on fail.

Now that conservatives are joining in, that question has lost any credibility it might have had for Democrats.

[TCJ70]

28. So...if a Democrat asks for information from their potential candidate...

...but after that a conservative organization asks the same question it becomes irrelevant? That's convenient. These speeches are part of her record, whether she likes it or not, and she's asked people to examine her record. Given her history of saying one thing, then another, then another on any given topic, I'd be curious to know what she said behind closed doors to these folks.

HRC supporters have claimed Sanders isn't vetted. Well, on this issue, she's not allowing herself to be vetted. Doesn't that raise some questions in your mind?

[bigtree]

46. no,she's under zero obligation to respond to this petty political stunt

...especially not now that it's clearly a right-wing conservative pursuit.

[TCJ70]

55. You really turned a corner somewhere...

...after O'Malley dropped out. To not want to know about who your candidate is both publicly and with donors behind closed doors is astounding to me. As someone who may be forced to vote for her in November, I have a real problem with her shadiness about this whole thing. Coming from a pro-Sanders perspective, it just reinforces how she's the epitome of his message on campaign finance reform and corruption.

If you can ignore it, good for you...but ignoring it doesn't mean it's not there.

[bigtree]

63. well, in this case, Bernie is clearly benefiting from the right-wing campaign against Hillary

...often using identical rhetoric and claims to attack his Democratic rival.

I know where Hillary actually stands on the issues. I'm more interested in holding republicans accountable than I am working to smear our Democratic candidates with gotcha politics.

[Bjornsdotter]

85. And....

....Hillary benefits when Bernie is attacked.

Interesting that you know where Hillary stands on the issues as she changes her stance so often.

[leftofcool]

34. Exactly!

This has been a fail from the Bernie campaign from the beginning and he knows it.

[think]

8. The Vampire Squid appreciates your service...

[NCTraveler]

9. Conservatives have been floating it for a while.

They have decades of experience at ratfucking. They do this knowing their is a group of LIV's out there who will latch on. It is a dirty game they play and they know their audience well.

[BillZBubb]

17. What utter bullshit.

This has nothing to do with what the conservatives are doing. This has everything to do about whether the Democratic party wants to nominate a candidate who is in the pocket of the big money interests.

If she's got nothing to hide, she can easily remove this issue by releasing her transcripts. What's so difficult about that?

[leftofcool]

37. If Bernie wants her transcripts he can ask those businesses for them.

He is the one questioning her integrity.

[think]

44. Goldman Sachs isn't just some business....

[Luminous Animal]

45. Her contract stipulates that she and she only retains the transcripts.

[SwampG8r]

39. So today you admit the gop ratfucks us?

Quite a turnaround in a day.

[azurnoir]

10. .........

[artislife]

13. Just because some of her supporters

don't want to know what she was saying to the people who were paying her shitloads of money, the rest of us would rather make an informed choice.

Maybe there was harsh words and she really did tell them to "Cut it out". That would be evidence of her doing what she says she would do.

[yourpaljoey]

16. She did not say 'cut it out' -- she said 'cut me "IN!!!!!!!!!"

[bigtree]

19. there isn't anything Hillary could say that Bernie supporters or conservatives will validate

...it's cheap bait, and now it's part and parcel of the right-wing campaign.

Nice company.

[artislife]

25. I don't understand how

someone as informed as you were with Martin would be willing to settle for so little with Hillary.

I do applaud your dedication once you give it, though.

[virtualobserver]

32. If Hillary can't survive this line of attack, we need to find out now, before it is too late.

[bigtree]

48. against republicans?

...she should stonewall them until they wet themselves crying over them.

There's nothing dirtier than a corporate republican. I know the Sanders camp lost sight of that.

[virtualobserver]

50. stonewalling builds mistrust..There is a reason why people mistrust her..this is why..evasiveness

[yourpaljoey]

15. Trump is perusing his copy over coffee

Every time he discovers a talking point he can use as
ammo in Trump/Hill debates he cries out "Smackdown!"
This is the Hillary plan: his voice will be so hoarse by the General
he won't be able to speak at all. She is turning the fruit on her industrial-sized lemon farm
into enough lemonade to supply walmart for fifty years.
Bravo Hillary, well played!

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Nixon didn't want to release the tapes

Hillary doesn't want to release the transcripts.

Well guess what? Nixon didn't want to release the tapes because they were incriminating. Hillary doesn't want to release the transcripts because.....????

[Nonhlanhla]

23. And Obama did not want to release his college transcripts

So by your logic it must mean that there is something incriminating in them.

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. His transcripts were not from banks

You do realize that Goldman Sachs took a tax write off on her speeches at the public's expense. Are you defending Goldman Sachs?



My logic is fine yours is dismal.........

[bigtree]

52. are you defending right-wing conservatives?

[Ichingcarpenter]

62. Nixon agrees with hillary

Don't release the tapes or the transcripts.

[Nonhlanhla]

66. No, I'm defending the right of our most likely

Democratic nominee not to release even more of her personal information for the GOP to peruse and twist to serve their purposes in the GE.

Are you trying to help the Republicans?

[Ichingcarpenter]

77. Ha.............. what a joke

she said she will look into it not hide them.

[Bad Thoughts]

47. We didn't need his transcripts to extrapolate

... what kind of student he was.

[bigtree]

29. well, this is why your claims aren't going to be taken seriously

...they've morphed into a ridiculous conspiracy where the speeches were, according to you, part of some criminality.

That smear's worthy of anything the right-wing could conjure.

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. Goldman Sachs has been convicted of crimes

You are defending Goldman Sachs.

[bigtree]

57. bullshit

...this is what you do?

Petty accusations with zero basis in fact? Maybe you need to back the fuck off of smearing me and focus on your own candidate's bull.

In this, you clearly agree with right-wing republicans. I know that hurts, but projecting the shame onto me with bullshit claims doesn't change the fact that your campaign is in bed with conservatives looking to score the exact same cheap shots Sanders is taking at his Democratic rival. Shameful.

[PonyUp]

24. And Hillary's in good company with the repugs when it comes to war. n/t

[UglyGreed]

26. If the shoe was on the

other foot you would be barking up the Bernie or the GOP tree............please

[bigtree]

35. I think the Clinton campaign against Sanders has shown amazing restraint

....here and elsewhere.

There are so many avenues for cheap attacks (like this one) on Sander's character and record that have been left for republican demagogues to promote. It's amazing to me just how much the Sanders campaign and others supporting him are willing to adopt republican attacks to smear our Democratic candidates.

Anything is fair game against the GOP. What you folks are playing though is lower than anything you've accused Hillary of. Think about it. Who is really giving aid and comfort to the right-wing here? Hillary in an old speech, or the Sanders campaign partnered with conservatives in their petty political attacks?

[UglyGreed]

49. Cheap attacks

lol like misrepresenting the single payer plan or the vote on deregulation which a member of Hillary's campaign help change before the bill was finalized. Or implying Bernie is a sexist because he used the phrase "As a nation, we can't continue screaming at each other; we've got to find common ground" There are plenty more I can dig up.......

[UglyGreed]

61. Oh and one more

thing. It was reporter Lee Fang from the Intercept who brought up the transcripts and she laughed in his face. Then at the Town Hall Hillary dragged Bernie into with her deflection saying he needs to release his transcripts. When that failed she now wants everyone to release their transcripts. Cheap tricks please.......

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/23/clinton-goldman-sachs-laugh/

https://vimeo.com/152786370

It's not the first time she has laughed in people's faces........and probably won't be the last

[bigtree]

71. I laugh in Intercept's face, as well

...they're invested in defeating Hillary. If she wins the nom, you won't be able to discern their reporting from the right-wing campaign.

[UglyGreed]

76. Of course you would

but you did not address your accusation of dirty tricks by the Bernie Sanders Campaign when it was just proven to be incorrect......

[JonLeibowitz]

81. They're invested in transparent and open government. They only look anti-Hillary

because Hillary is against transparency and public accountability in government.

[Kittycat]

27. So she's going to be held to democratic standards?

To fucking bad! I want to know how bad it is. I already don't like what I see in her emails.

[leftofcool]

40. Don't read them

[Kittycat]

58. Just be ignorant then

Fall in line an be a good little Hilary soldier. Don't question, don't worry, mommy has it taken care of right? Isn't this how the rise of all the bad leaders came to power?

Sounds like GWB to me.

[LuvLoogie]

41. The Revolution is highly invested in its serendipitous proxy war.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. Compared to what the republicans are going to do to Hillary should she win the nomination...

This is a hand grenade. What's to come before it's all over? Thermonuclear war.

No presidential candidate will have ever withstood the attacks Hillary's going to need to endure. Hillary supporters like to talk about the attacks Bernie Sanders will be subject to... and in their hearts they know the republicans will go after Hillary with the intensity of a thousand white-hot suns.

[JTFrog]

53. Not hard to believe. "RNC chair Reince Priebus offered unsolicited support to Bernie"

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-offer-unsolicited-support-bernie-sanders

RNC chair Reince Priebus offered unsolicited support to Bernie

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was asked last week which Democratic presidential candidate he’d prefer to face in a general election. The RNC chief said Bernie Sanders is probably the tougher candidate.

It’s obviously difficult to take Priebus’ assessment at face value – even if he has a firm opinion, the Republican has no incentive to tell the truth – and his comments are all the more curious given what his party has been up to lately.

During Sunday’s Democratic debate, for example, reporters received emails from the candidates’ campaigns and their allies, but in a remarkable twist, the Republican National Committee also issued statements – two during the event, two after – defending Sanders against criticisms from Hillary Clinton and endorsing Sanders’ arguments.

Bloomberg Politics’ Sahil Kapur reported that Republican operatives have “a strange crush on Bernie Sanders,” and it goes beyond the RNC’s pro-Sanders rapid-response during Sunday night’s debates. After the debate, the Republican political action committee America Rising promoted the narrative that Sanders won the debate…. Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders’ case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can’t be trusted to crack down on big banks.

“Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire,” a narrator in the ad says. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”
Yep, Karl Rove’s operation is not only complaining about the bailout his former boss signed into law, Team Rove is also suddenly worried about Wall Street’s influence in DC – just like Bernie Sanders.

[bigtree]

64. +100

[Jefferson23]

65. Thus far the most cynical OP to deflect on a question that was asked by a US citizen

at a Sanders/Clinton town hall.

That you try and disparage the valid request for transparency b/c Republicans
are using it is beyond pathetic on your part. If anything this attack by the
cons will make it easier for her to play victim, as the REPUBLICANS NOT
Sanders are the recipients of WS money, she is now well placed to say, you
first.

A deplorable OP designed to invalidate the need for transparency in candidates.

[bigtree]

67. that questioner is now in good company, as well.

...any other conservative PAC attacks you agree with?

[Jefferson23]

70. Your OP is transparent as hell, protect Clinton, do not ask for transparency.

I suppose you have evidence the initial request at the town hall meeting
was from a right wing operative, b/c what rational informed Democrat
would ever make such a request. Pathetic pretzel you're trying to bake.

[bigtree]

73. as opposed to the defeat Clinton effort

...which is clearly and openly co-opted in these primaries by the right wing.

[Jefferson23]

74. Keep digging that hole, you have made yourself abundantly clear, protect Clinton...NO

transparency allowed. A new low for DU.

[bigtree]

84. I would like to see Bernie's emails

...now that we've raked Hillary over the coals for hers in response to another republican witch hunt co-opted in this campaign by supporters.

[Jefferson23]

87. I feel sorry for you, I really do. Ask him for whatever you want, he'll likely oblige. n/t

[bigtree]

89. save it

...Hillary's got all of that covered.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Is this another "poor Hillary" OP?

[bigtree]

75. no, it's a 'shame the demagogues' post

...an attempt to determine where the political boundaries are in our Democratic campaign.

Why do you believe conservatives are interested in highlighting Sanders' demand for the transcripts?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. Why do you believe progressive are? And, why the secrecy?

Most performers don't mind advertising their abilities with reruns.

[bigtree]

82. why some progressives believe this is a legitimate line of attack?

...because they believe anything to designed to advance Bernie represents progressiveness, much like the premise of his campaign.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. I'm all for advancing progressivism, aren't you?

Do you think Hillary is going to "advance progressivism? I don't.

[bigtree]

86. we don't advance anything 'progressive' by cynical demagoguery

...designed to advantage political candidates in our Democratic primary.

I do think a Clinton presidency will advance and defend a great deal of our progressive agenda, as I do most Democratic candidacies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. Does putting a neolib in office help progressivism?

[bigtree]

91. your label doesn't define Hillary

...it just labels her.

Progressiveness has made advances without an overtly progressive presidency for decades. Besides, there's absolutely no guarantee that more of a progressive agenda would necessarily be advanced by a Bernie Sanders presidency than a Clinton presidency.

For me, virtue lies more in results, than merely in aspirations.

In a '92 convention speech entitled, 'Change: From What, To What?', Barbara Jordan spoke of our need, as Democrats, to convince Americans that we can govern. She also spoke of the need for our efforts to be led and advocated by the people, as Sen. Sanders is counseling. A little for both campaigns...

"We must leave this convention with a determination to convince the American people to trust us, the Democrats, to govern again; it is not an easy task, but it is a doable one.

Public apprehension and fears about the future have provided fertile ground for a chorus of cynics. Their refrain is that it makes no difference who is elected President. Advocates of that point of view perpetuate a fraud. It does make a difference who is President. A Democratic President would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would protect liberty not burden it. A Democratic President would promote those policies and programs which help us help ourselves: such as . . . health care and job training.

Character has become an agenda item this political season. A well-reasoned examination of the question of character reveals more emotionalism than fact. James Madison warned us of the perils of acting out of passion rather than reason. When reason prevails, we prevail. As William Allen White, the late editor of the Emporia, Kansas Gazette, said, “Reason never has failed man. Only fear and oppression have made the wrecks in the world.”

It is reason and not passion which should guide our decisions. The question persists: Who can best lead this country at this moment in our history?

I believe that person is Hillary Clinton, but I don't preclude Bernie Sanders from that same potential for greatness.

[nichomachus]

69. Transcript hounds?

Wow, Mrs. Clinton's attack gang will stop at nothing to smear and belittle people who ask legitimate questions. No wonder people want to keep that woman out of the White House. It would be a nasty, dangerous presidency.

[bigtree]

78. legitimate?

...the demands are little more than an attempt at a political smear of Hillary.

I'm left to wonder what's so appealing about a question that conservative republicans are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue?

[Orsino]

72. It's okay. Far as I can tell, she enjoys teasing us all.

http://iwilllookintoit.com

Perhaps she's just dithering over fonts, but many of us suspect the content is the sticking point.

[Dems to Win]

80. I don't need to see the transcripts. $20million in speeches, cashing in on her public service

Greedy, sleazy, just like her husband. The Clintons have cashed in on their public service to the tune of $200million+. Including with such predators as a for-profit chain of colleges that paid Bill $16million.

I don't need to see the transcripts to know that I don't want the Clintons to return to the White House. My vetting is DONE, I've concluded she won't get my primary vote.

I trust Bernie Sanders and his campaign funded by $27 donations. He will work for the 99%.

Go Bernie Go!

[karynnj]

90. I like chocolate, if conservative Republicans like chocolate, am I with them?

Anything controversial about either Bernie or HRC will be raised by the other. They are opponents. Hillary getting huge speaking fees from Goldman Sacks is an issue Bernie has. There is nothing illegal that HRC did in speaking to them or accepting that kind of money.

However, just as it is ok to bring up a vote, even if only 4 libertarians voted against it, it is legitimate to ask what HRC said to GS. She was never required to give up the transcripts, but she KNEW saying no would be a political liability. However saying essentially maybe was really worse as it as kept this a story.

I suspect the problem is really simple. Think of any speech you ever heard, given to a company, a union, a college or a government, EVERYONE starts by speaking of the good done by the audience, then transitions to the topic. I believe HRC that she spoke of her experiences, notably those as SOS. There is no reason to doubt that or think anything nefarious was said. First of all, it would have not been in her interest. Her main goal, more than that fee, might have been to impress the people there. Most are likely important people in their communities. Having them speak about how impressive she was helps her.


The hatred of WS in a large part of the Democratic base means she would have explain away the pleasantries. This is surprisingly tricky. Though everyone does this - even the most sincere, honest politician one could find- how do you actually say that you were essentially ducking up to the crowd? This is hardest if you do not have the reputation of being a straight shooter.

What this comes down to is that question may have been a poison with downsides to every answer.

[ismnotwasm]

92. Yes, I noticed that

In fact, I notice a lot of things like this

[Bluenorthwest]

93. What is the deal with Straight Moderates' focus on the flaws they see in other people? Good God, the

basic issue I have with Hillary is that she spent years and years harping about the flaws she and her faith find in LGBT persons while telling us that she herself is superior to us according to her Goddy God. It is the constant and unrelenting finger pointing that is such a turn off.

And let's talk about that Goddy God, the faith he dictates and how Hillary's transcript issues would be handled if one had that faith's teachings in mind. What did Jesus say about communications? He commanded a very active clarity in all speech, no spin, no hidden meanings, 'let your yes mean yes, your no mean no, anything more comes from evil' he said. So the Christ who did not condemn LGBT did in fact urge total and complete transparency, honesty and clarity in all speech.

I have a hard time with folks who beat me up with a Bible they don't even make a gesture of following themselves.

Matthew 23:1-39 ESV

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger."