Speech Transcripts: The Press Finds A New Hoop That Only Clinton Must Jump Through

[yallerdawg]

Republicans Get A Pass

Source: Media Matters by Eric Boehlert

As journalists continue to press Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts from all the paid speeches she made as a private citizen, including those made to Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, it's helpful to keep in mind how unusual the request is. Reading the coverage you might think the transcript demand is routine for all candidates. (i.e. Why won't she just do it already?) But it's not the norm. In fact, it's the opposite of normal.

Once again separate rules have been created for Clinton, although the coverage and commentary on the transcript story is usually careful to leave that part out.

Clinton recently agreed to release the transcripts if all the other candidates would do the same. But the press has essentially brushed that aside, making plain they're only interested in hers. That, despite the fact some Republicans have given paid speeches while running for office.

There's obviously nothing wrong with asking Clinton about the speeches and the large sums of money she was paid for them. It's a legitimate campaign topic of inquiry and some voters might be turned off by the big paydays. But the idea that Clinton should suddenly be held to a new disclosure standard seems odd.

Read the whole thing at: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/12/speech-transcripts-the-press-finds-a-new-hoop-t/208557

[Thinkingabout]

1. I would like to get the transcripts of conversations between Sanders and lobbyists and

his conversations at fund raisers. I would like to know if his conversations influenced any of his votes. Her transcripts is just another diversion from talking about the true issues and agendas.

[leftofcool]

2. We must hold our women to a different standard

Because since she is a woman she couldn't possibly have given a speech and not have the business she is speaking to want something in return. She is a woman so therefore she must be lying. And what the hell is a woman doing making all that money giving speeches anyway? Did I miss anything?

[yallerdawg]

5. That 'woman' thing...

"But Goldman Sachs regularly brings in a wide array of speakers, including clergy, athletes, researchers, journalists, and entrepreneurs. Is Clinton the only one who received Goldman Sachs speech paychecks and was then expected to deliver favors to the company?

The whole idea that paid corporate speeches are built around the expectation of favors returned doesn't make much sense. "Paying a former secretary of state for giving a speech is what companies and associations do when they want to feel important, not when they want to influence legislation and regulations," noted Paul Waldman at the Washington Post."

[MSMITH33156]

3. She's fine with this stance

this is a narrow Bernie Sanders issue. The vast majority of Americans don't care at all about this issue. It's something Sanders raised to rile up his base of support and paint Hillary as sellout. She shouldn't release anything because it is completely irrelevant, and no one will care about this a few weeks from now when Sanders is conceding.

[yallerdawg]

4. From your clicking fingers...

to God's inbox!

[jmowreader]

7. More importantly...

if she does release the transcripts, both the Sanders team and the GOP will unleash teams to find things to use against her.

[Cha]

6. Hillary can handle!