Many voters know by now that Hillary Clinton made a speech to Goldman Sachs for which she was well paid. What they don’t know is the content of the speech. They should. It might change some votes.
Clinton was paid $225,000 in 2013 to speak to Goldman Sachs executives and technology chiefs at an Arizona conference. All told, she made $675,000 for three Wall Street speeches.
Politico has reported that at the Arizona speech, Clinton “spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis,” a posture that is expected of Democrats. Instead of railing against Goldman Sachs and Wall Street as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would if they had the chance, Clinton apparently heaped praise on the company. A person who was present at one of the speeches said her remarks were “pretty glowing about us.”
“It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director,” this attendee said.
But that’s just one person. Did others hear the same tones of approval? Were the speeches just exercises in back-slapping? Was Clinton clearly signaling that as president she would grant favors to the financial sector in exchange for political support and contributions?
A new report from the Huffington Post offers some deeper insight into what happened behind closed banquet-room doors. It’s enough to make the Sanders’ camp as well as the Republicans downright gleeful. According to a blog post written by an academic, if Clinton were to ever release transcripts of her speeches, “it could end her candidacy for president.”
Seth Abramson, an assistant professor of English at the University of New Hampshire, compiled a series of comments from “the friends and acquaintances of Hillary who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches.” Their words are damning.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey from Nebraska, for example, said “making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating.” He is identified by Abramson as a “Clinton surrogate.”
Meanwhile, one Goldman Sachs employee said “in this environment, what Clinton said to Goldman Sachs “could be made to look really bad.” At the same time, it was reported that the overall impression several attendees got from the speeches was that Clinton was “gushy” and warm toward her audiences.
Clinton should release the speeches and could easily do so, since, as Abramson reports, she owns them. Voters deserve to know if she is saying one thing to them and another to insiders who can help her. Every American, not just those of us who had the Clintons figured out decades ago, has the right to know the character of the candidate.
While the Clinton camp said it doesn’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of Hillary’s speeches, we’d bet that they would like to know what she said to the businesses, trade groups and universities that paid her almost $22 million in less than two years to speak. None hired her for her melodious voice, charming persona and delightful tales. They had something else in mind. Voters should know what it is so that they can make educated choices.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/
Clinton was paid $225,000 in 2013 to speak to Goldman Sachs executives and technology chiefs at an Arizona conference. All told, she made $675,000 for three Wall Street speeches.
Politico has reported that at the Arizona speech, Clinton “spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis,” a posture that is expected of Democrats. Instead of railing against Goldman Sachs and Wall Street as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would if they had the chance, Clinton apparently heaped praise on the company. A person who was present at one of the speeches said her remarks were “pretty glowing about us.”
“It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director,” this attendee said.
But that’s just one person. Did others hear the same tones of approval? Were the speeches just exercises in back-slapping? Was Clinton clearly signaling that as president she would grant favors to the financial sector in exchange for political support and contributions?
A new report from the Huffington Post offers some deeper insight into what happened behind closed banquet-room doors. It’s enough to make the Sanders’ camp as well as the Republicans downright gleeful. According to a blog post written by an academic, if Clinton were to ever release transcripts of her speeches, “it could end her candidacy for president.”
Seth Abramson, an assistant professor of English at the University of New Hampshire, compiled a series of comments from “the friends and acquaintances of Hillary who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches.” Their words are damning.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey from Nebraska, for example, said “making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating.” He is identified by Abramson as a “Clinton surrogate.”
Meanwhile, one Goldman Sachs employee said “in this environment, what Clinton said to Goldman Sachs “could be made to look really bad.” At the same time, it was reported that the overall impression several attendees got from the speeches was that Clinton was “gushy” and warm toward her audiences.
Clinton should release the speeches and could easily do so, since, as Abramson reports, she owns them. Voters deserve to know if she is saying one thing to them and another to insiders who can help her. Every American, not just those of us who had the Clintons figured out decades ago, has the right to know the character of the candidate.
While the Clinton camp said it doesn’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of Hillary’s speeches, we’d bet that they would like to know what she said to the businesses, trade groups and universities that paid her almost $22 million in less than two years to speak. None hired her for her melodious voice, charming persona and delightful tales. They had something else in mind. Voters should know what it is so that they can make educated choices.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/
