Maureen Dowd noted a million years ago that Hillary, with her paranoia and penchant for secrecy, has an unmatched ability to turn Not Much into Something Huge. And now Hillarity! is doing it again.
As a private citizen Hillary gave three speeches to Goldman Sachs at $225,000 a throw. She has given other similarly compensated speeches to financial industry gatherings and continues to raise huge sums from Wall Street financiers.
MSNBC and Bernie Sanders supporters think she ought to release transcripts of those speeches. According to the McClatchy News Service description of her standard speech contract, she has speech transcripts (sensible self-protection, so no one can misquote her later) and they are under her control to release.
So the hold-up is... who knows? But Hillary's position, as described to former lackey George Stephanopolous, is that the voters don't care, this is just a partisan smear, and anyway, everyone else should follow the same rules.
Even NY Times reporters are likely to get a whiff of cover-up with this absurd defense. For starters, Democratic voters obviously do care about the influence of Wall Street on our political process. MSNBC, which asked about the transcripts during the Thursday debate, is not Fox News.
As to the "everyone" who should also release their speeches, I think it is fair to say that her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has already released every speech he gave to Goldman Sachs for a $225,000 fee. Or any fee at all - as a Senator, the ethics rules don't let him make these big buck appearances. That rule applies to Senators Cruz and Rubio and similar rules probably cover Governors Kasich and Christie. Do we want to see transcripts from private citizens Bush, Carson and Fiorina? If they were running for the Democratic nomination that might make sense, and maybe it will become an issue in the general election but right now, Republicans don't seem too concerned about this ethical question regarding these prospective nominees.
Once again, Hillary's above-the-law attitude and contempt for the press (not to mention her Democratic voting base) is taking her down an unattractive and unnecessary road. And how this helps with her 'trustworthiness' problem is beyond me.
FOUR MORE YEARS: The only upside to the Clinton effort is that with Hillary as president we can look forward to four more years of this sort of Hillary bashing; over to VDH:
In ironic fashion, Hillary’s own vocabulary best describes her conduct. A “willing suspension of disbelief” most aptly sums up Hillary Clinton’s disastrous 2016 primary campaign, which so far seems more disastrous than her 2008 disastrous campaign.
This time around, she is again blowing a huge lead in the polls, but not to an inexperienced, charismatic young African-American trailblazer. Instead she is neck and neck with a white 74-year-old socialist from Vermont who wants to make college free and up taxes to a 90% rate.
"Willing suspension of disbelief"? Actually, her supporters are probably more in touch with the X-Files and "I want to believe".