What am I missing?

[Plucketeer]

The topic of the quarter mil speech transcripts gets almost NO mention of late. Yet, unless I missed some pivotal post one day, I'm still under the impression that Hillary's challenge HAS BEEN met. That challenge being that we'd get to see her speeches "when all the others have released theirs!". So - is there some specific qualifiers I've overlooked? WHO is it that constitutes "all the others"? And what's required to certify that those others have released any pertinent transcripts?
I'm betting - if pressed - she would specify that ALL of the long-departed presidential aspirants will have to cough up speeches as well (Rubio, Christie, Webb, OmMalley et al). It's not been that long ago that Bernie's mentioned her lofty speaking fees, but he's never, to my knowledge, called HRC out on her specifics other than to say that he had nothing to release. So what am I missing here? Why hasn't his campaign held Ms. Phony's feet to her own fire?

[Mira]

1. I think you are correct. The challenge has been met.

Look at this post of mine that got stopped/locked yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027844503

I posted it in the wrong forum, and was gone a few hours and then found it locked.

[BillZBubb]

2. You need to ask? Hillary backers don't want the transcripts released.

They never have. It might harm Ms. Golden Sacks chances of winning. They don't care what's in the transcripts. Nothing that's in them could change their undying devotion to the Anointed One - even if they showed she promised Goldman whatever it wanted.

The Hill fanatics only want her to win the election - they don't care what she has ever said or done. It's a cult.

[Plucketeer]

4. I understand all that.

I wanna know when someone's gonna corner HRC as to exactly what the parameters of her challenge are / were. Sure they don't want them out - I get that. But SHE'S the one that laid out the conditions that would provoke the release of the transcripts. I'm still wondering as to what, exactly, those parameters look like. WHO IS "all the others"???

[tularetom]

3. Maybe what you're missing is that there are no transcripts because there were no speeches

The "speeches" were a fiction, a smokescreen created to camouflage the outright bribery of a prospective candidate for office.

That's my opinion anyway, and I've not yet seen refutation of it.

[Plucketeer]

5. If she conceeded that they exist

and specified conditions for their unveiling, then we ought to see them. Imagine the legacy if time proved that such never existed.

[silvershadow]

6. Bingo. nt

[polly7]

7. I've read: 'You Go Woman!" "Most women don't even get paid for speeches, so she rocks

and it's none of your business!"



Yet these same people were happy as hell when Romney's 47% remark was leaked out.

The danger of pay-to-play seems to only apply to some.

[surrealAmerican]

8. It was never a challenge.

It was an excuse.

She never had any intention of releasing any transcripts. Maybe she will make up some other excuse if she gets asked about them again, or maybe she will change the subject.