What's the political advantage in releasing the transcripts?

[Chichiri]

To get the story out of the news cycle? That's going to happen anyway, just as it did with Romney's tax returns.

To gain voters? Based on what the polls are telling her, she doesn't need them -- she has enough voters to carry the nomination even with the transcripts in a black box.

To shut up the Bernie supporters? They have plenty of other reasons to hate her, and it's not like they're going to stop when the transcripts are released.

To prove to the world that she's not in Wall Street's pocket? Again, look at the polls -- most voters either don't believe she is, or are prepared to accept the possibility in exchange for a well-qualified candidate.

There are probably several sentences, or sentence fragments, in the transcripts that, when taken out of context, can make her look like the Wall Street shill that Bernie fans are going to think she is no matter what. And even if she does release them now, the narrative will switch from "why hasn't she released them" to "why did she wait so long to release them." And all that in exchange for no political advantage?

Not gonna happen. Hillary is smart.

[DemonGoddess]

1. There isn't one

not only that, by releasing those transcripts, she caves to the double standard expected of her.

[BlueMTexpat]

3. +1!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Most demanding Hillary to release her transcripts are the same ones who

would not change their opinion if she did. Just like Sanders releasing his transcripts of his conversations with lobbyists would not increase his positions on other issues. It would show the influence of meeting with the lobbyists on his votes.

[revbones]

4. It's interesting to see people defend non-transparency

Obviously there is something seen by the campaign as damaging there, or she would have released them already. So the campaign is faced with a slow steady drip and hope something bigger takes people's minds away or release and bear the brunt of those statements.

My assumption is that some would probably contradict positions she's currently taken. Or at least seem to.

[jmowreader]

8. It's interesting to see obvious Sanders shills in the Hillary Clinton group

My assumption is Hillary has played this game before. When her husband was running for president, and even afterward, the one thing the Republicans couldn't WAIT to get their hands on was the billing records from the Rose Law Firm, which employed Hillary as a litigator. When the records were finally revealed - AFTER federal investigators had literally ransacked Hillary's underwear drawer looking for them - the GOP then started twisting them to suit their narrative that the Clintons were America's worst crime family.

Y'know something? If the Sanders campaign is so fired up about Hillary's speech transcripts, I want to see Bernie's passport from the 1960s. You prove to me Sanders never entered the Soviet Union before 1988.

[revbones]

17. Name calling doesn't promote Democrats or dialog

If you're really against transparency, just say so. I just happen to think that a Democratic presidential candidate should be held to a higher standard than Republicans.

Throwing out fictitious arguments like that red-bating one doesn't help the dialog either.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Please respect the Hillary Group, this is not a forum, it is not to have disparaging

Post about Hillary.

[George II]

31. Please go to another group. Thanks.

[charlyvi]

34. Please take this passive aggressive BS to another forum. This is Hillary's group

[Chichiri]

25. How do you issue a SOP alert? nt

[Chichiri]

28. I couldn't care less what Hillary had for breakfast this morning.

Or how often her parents went to church. Or whether she drinks 64 ounces of water a day. Transparency is not universal, and one does not demand details on everything and anything that comes to mind, just because it might make your opponent look bad.

No one here is calling, for instance, for transcripts of the interviews and speeches that Bernie gave during his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union.

[yallerdawg]

5. Just another "gin up the spin."

Next thing they'll want is to have a crew follow her around and record everything she says and does - 24 hours a day.

We could have the 24 hour a day "Hillary Show" - when she sleeps pundits could debate what her words meant today!

And, of course, this will only apply to Hillary - everyone else on the planet has a right to privacy and to be free from surveillance.

We want her emails, her servers, her Blackberry, her speeches, her transcripts - but gawdamm the government for trying to get into a murdering terrorist's cell phone!

[revbones]

6. I agree she's faced a lot of unreasonable stuff from the right wing

But as a Democrat I'm not sure how we can argue against releasing those transcripts.

Here's my thought on that. She is currently taking the positions that:

1. She has always been tough on Wall St and told them to "Cut it out!"
2. She is the best suited to regulate Wall St

The opposition implies that:
1. She was not always tough on Wall St
2. She is the least suited to regulate Wall St due to donations.

Now most likely, during those speeches she made comments that could either substantiate her current case or substantiate the opposition's case. Given her campaign's reluctance to release them, it's most likely the latter.

[charlyvi]

35. Why is she alone being asked to release transcripts of her speeches?

When Marcobot, Trump, Cruz and Sanders also release transcripts of their speeches then so can she.But to expect this from her alone is not transparency as much as political witch hunting a la Rose Law Firm.

[Lucinda]

7. Actually, she is great in those speaking environments, so she would come off very well. However

she is right to refuse to do what isn't asked of everyone. I like her standing up for herself.

And you are correct. They parse every syllable she speaks for something to attack her with, and the speeches would be no different.

IMO The extra push for her to release from the media right now, is in hope of making it more of a horse race again, as her numbers indicate this will be over soon.

I am pretty sure I already know what's in them, but I actually follow what she says about our financial industries. Something along the lines of:
They aren't uber vilians, and are often used as a talking point to rile people up. Strong financial markets are vital to our national well being. HOWEVER - Corruption does exist. They need regulations. People need to be protected from risk, and predatory/discriminatory practices.

[revbones]

10. I disagree. We're not Republicans.

We're supposed to be better than that.

We can't say we're better than they are, and then say we're not going to be transparent because they aren't.

"I will when the Republicans do." is not an appropriate response for a Democratic candidate.

[Lucinda]

11. She said she would when ALL of those running did. Not just when the Reps do.

That was back when MOM was still running.
And she hasn't changed her view since then.

The fact that you want her to do something everyone running isn't asked to do, leads me to think you are hoping to find something to attack her with, rather than having any desire for transparency from the candidates.

[revbones]

14. And everyone in the Democratic primary has

And no, it wasn't when MOM was running. She started saying she would when everyone including the Republicans do, well after MOM left the race.

[Lucinda]

16. Nope. MOM was still in. :)

[revbones]

18. Guess you have dates of when she first said that then.

Would you provide them please?

Even if MOM was still in as you say, it just means she's been avoiding transparency even longer.

[Lucinda]

19. Go watch the early debates. n/t

[DemonGoddess]

12. I'll have to say that we

agree to disagree on this. BECAUSE she is the only one this is asked from, it is an admittedly sexist demand. For that reason alone, she should never release them. She does, the sexism and those perpetrating it, win.

[revbones]

13. There are only 2 Democrats running

One released all the transcripts of their Wall St speeches - there weren't any.

The other says that they won't until the Republicans do as well.


Seeing sexism everywhere doesn't help or justify not doing the right thing.

[MSMITH33156]

21. Why is it only Wall Street speeches?

Why doesn't everyone release meeting minutes from every meeting they had with lobbyists?

This is a never ending list of demands. If it's not this, it'll be that, or the other thing.

[George II]

32. I think this stretches my patience. Goodbye.

[fleabiscuit]

15. "You get paid for what you know." would also be an appropriate response.

[Starry Messenger]

20. Has any guy running for President ever been asked to release their speech transcripts?

I don't know, I'm asking. I find it incredibly distasteful that the woman cleaning her opponent's clock was set this imaginary benchmark that no one has ever been asked before.

[MSMITH33156]

22. I don't think it's sexist

it's political opportunism. They want to get a trove of information so they pour over it with a magnifying glass, find something to take out of context, and try to blow it out of proportion and score political points. This is a desperate ploy by a desperate campaign that needs a game changer. Hillary is under no obligation to offer up fodder for the opponent to pounce on.

[Lil Missy]

23. None whatsoever. And no candidate ever has been asked to release theirs.

[Satch59]

24. Where did the transcript demand start from?

Was it from a debate questioner? Can't quite remember...

Agree with most here: it's a "get Hillary" once again and I'm glad she's not jumping because one person said to. Agree that if she did, something would be pulled from them to use against her and of course this wouldn't stop from there...opponents would then ask for more transcripts, phone records, credit card slips, restaurant visits, Netflix viewings...and on and on...

She is too smart to fall for this...

[Metric System]

30. If I'm recalling correctly, it came from the left. Maybe the Intercept?

[DemonGoddess]

27. I'll add something a bit odd here

hubby is a staunch Republican. EVERYONE ELSE in the house are staunch Democrats. Now, when this demand first started being bandied about, his first response to what she said, was that she was right in not releasing anything at all, where SHE is the only one this is asked of. It helps that his mother was a strong lady, I think.

He also said, today, there is no one in the Republican field who will get his vote. That come November, he expects to be voting for Hillary.

[Chichiri]

29. Your husband sounds like a pretty okay guy.

I know what it's like to live in a split household -- my wife is a Bernie fan.

[DemonGoddess]

33. He is :)

We don't agree on much politically, but, we also don't get in to screaming matches about it either. We discuss things, like the adults that we are.