Ken Berwitz
If Hillary Clinton did not say anything problematic in her speeches – her $200,000+ speeches – to companies like Goldman Sachs, why would she make sure the general public cannot find out what she said?
Excerpted from Katharine Q. Seelye\’s article in The New York Times:
In response to a question at Thursday night\’s debate, Hillary Clintonsaid she would “look into” the possibility of releasing transcripts of her paidremarks to banking, corporate and financial services companies like GoldmanSachs.
But by Friday morning, it did not appear that much looking wasunderway.
Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton\’s pollster, gave little indicationat a Wall Street Journal breakfast with reporters that the transcripts would beforthcoming.
“I don\’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of herspeeches,” he said.
Mr. Benenson is right, of course. Why in the world would voters want to know why a company Hillary Clinton claims she will fight tooth and nail, paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for speaking to in private?
Every day I look at what is going on with Hillary Clinton, and every day I see it as an end game if she had serious competition.
Does Joe Biden still regret not jumping into this race? Especially now that Bernie Sanders, who was, and should still be, a laughable afterthought, has pulled almost even with Ms. Clinton in the two latest national polls (Quinnipiac and Reuters/Ipsos)?
Believe me, Hillary Clinton will regret it a lot more if he decides to make a belated run.
