Ken Berwitz
There\’s the possibility – though I think it\’s very remote – that Clinton simply wasn\’t expecting the question and didn\’t want to commit toanything in the moment. I say I think that\’s unlikely…. Just unlikely? That\’s it? The issue has been swirling all over the media for a week and this is a “maybe” to you? Holy you-know-what.
Assuming Clinton wasn\’t simply surprised by Todd\’s question,then she and her team had, at some point in the not-too-distant past, made theconscious choice not to release the speeches. D\’ya think?
There will be a tendency, particularly among Republicans, toassume that Clinton\’s unwillingness to release her speech transcripts isevidence that she was up to no good in those addresses, conveying some sort ofsecret information that she shouldn\’t have been. Some people – particularly Republicans – might think she is not releasing the transcripts because she said things that might present a problem among Democrat voters? Another astoundingly insightful comment. Wow.
I struggle to imagine that someone as savvy and political – and politically savvy – as Clinton would do anything even close to that. She\’sjust too smart – and too cautious. Nah, Queen Hillary would never take $225,000 a speech from Goldman Sachs and say something they would be happy to hear. How could anyone think such a thing?
I generally take Clinton at her word when she describes whather speeches were about: Recounting high-profile events and her role in them….This is too much. This is the over-the-line comment. So far I\’ve just been sarcastic. But to take Hillary Clinton at her word that there really wasn\’t anything problematic about speeches she got almost a quarter of a million dollars each for, that were made to people most Democrat voters hate; she just regaled them with a few anecdotes about her past? That tears it. You would have to be a human potato to believe this. A complete spud. Sorry, Chris, you may be, but I\’m not. And, I hope most people join me in that assessment.
Why not release them, then? Wouldn\’t they reaffirm Clinton\’sargument during the nomination race that she has been there and done that atthe highest level of national and international diplomacy? Because the speeches contain stuff that will damage her, Chris. Because the speeches contain stuff that will damage her. Got it?
My guess is that in the speeches, Clinton acknowledges hervarious friends and acquaintances at Goldman Sachs (and other Wall Streetfirms) and praises them for the work they are doing. “You guys get a bad rapbut…” Ahhhh, that\’s it. That\’s the ticket. Just some innocuous blather that those rascally Republicans will turn into something it isn\’t. Lanny Davis could not have said it any better.
Yes, it\’s standard-issue small talk. But it could lookreally, really bad in the context of the campaign…. By golly, you just might be onto something.
In the hands of Sanders and his campaign team andsupporters, that sort of thing could wind up being problematic for Clinton…
The key for Clinton to win – or, truthfully, fight to a draw – in this dispute over her alleged closeness to Wall Street is to preserve theidea that while she took the financiers\’ money, she also told them hard truthsabout their business and why it needs to change. Finally you say something that makes sense.
Anything that suggests she didn\’t do that – or didn\’t onlydo that – presents a major issue for her. You can add your own sarcasm here. I\’m exhausted.
