Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

antigop

(12,778 posts)
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:23 PM Apr 2016

John Judis (TPM): I am worried about Hillary Clinton again

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/clinton-debate

I don't know who "won" the debate, or even how to decide who won, but I am worried, as I was after the Michigan primary, that Hillary Clinton, who is the odds-on Democratic nominee, will have difficulty in the fall even against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. I don't understand why she can't put the Goldman, Sachs question behind her. I initially assumed that she either didn't have transcripts or that what she said was the usual milquetoast stuff politicians offer up. But her continued refusal to provide transcripts (which I now assume must exist) suggests that there must be something damning in them.

If she gets the nomination, she'll face these questions again in the fall, and if Trump or Cruz is her opponent, these questions will detract from the attention that their past utterances about Mexican rapists or masturbation or whathaveyou should receive. I also think her refusal to answer straightforwardly questions about social security caps, carbon taxes, Libya and a $15 minimum wage makes her appear scripted at best. Like the Goldman non-answer, these kind of responses sow doubts about trust and credibility.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Autumn

(45,066 posts)
2. He seems to be uninformed on the transcripts. It's well known and widely reported that she has them
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:26 PM
Apr 2016

Yeah she wins the primary we are all fucked.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
3. Nobody gives a shit about transcripts but desparate Bernie supporters
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:27 PM
Apr 2016

You think repubs care what Hillary said to Wall Street?


Seems Bernie folks are miffed that his attacks last night will not win him the nomination

Autumn

(45,066 posts)
7. You think repukes and their surrogates aren't total fucking hypocrites and wont hit her
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:31 PM
Apr 2016

on this? You are adorable. Want to buy a bridge?

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
4. Whoever wrote this isn't very well informed
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:28 PM
Apr 2016

The transcripts exist. Hillary's standard contract, as has been widely reported, had the company she was speaking to paying $1000 for a stenographer with the condition that the transcript was the sole property of Hillary.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
10. I'm sure the party of billionaires will be jumping all over this
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:52 PM
Apr 2016

Because of course they want to expose their benefactors, correct?

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
11. Transcripts == In the Nader interview, he showed her contract
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:56 PM
Apr 2016

And one of her requirements was that the host pay $1000 to hire a stenographer to transcribe the whole thing and SHE has the sole custody of it.
So there is no doubt they exist.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»John Judis (TPM): I am wo...