Considering he won't even release his own tax returns. He's too busy? Well, then, why can't Hillary Clinton be too busy to release her speeches?
This piece by John Judis makes no sense. He claims to be 'worried about Hillary Clinton again' as she won't' release her speeches.
"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."
This is absurd. For one thing, why does he question her credibility for not releasing a speech but not question Bernie's credibility in refusing to release his tax returns? The only reason we even know of her speeches is she released her tax returns.
Meanwhile, I doubt very much Trump wins by talking about her paid speeches-she can just point to his own paid speeches for much more money.
Ted Cruz can talk about her paid speech to Goldman Sachs, she can pivot to his huge multi million dollar loan from Goldman Sachs which very well might have broken serious campaign laws.
As for her answers on other questions, my problem is his loaded term 'straightforwardly.' If by that you mean in categorical Bernie black and white terms, then she doesn't answer questions that way, as that's actually very misleading. News flash to Bernie and his Berners: not everything is black and white.
Take the absurd quibbling by Bernie over the $15 MW. It's clear that she believes that $15 MW is a worthy policy goal, but that it might be best to get there incrementally. What's so hard to understand?
But the Hillary haters don't want to understand. They keep themselves hopelessly confused by simplistic binary logic. Everything is allegedly a clear bright yes or no.
On this one I think Greg Sargent is right. Most Dems see this as a phony issue.
"Democratic voters refuse to believe the worst about Hillary Clinton."
"But my strong suspicion is that Clinton’s reliance on corporate money and her Wall Street speeches are not actually deal-breakers, in and of themselves, for many Democratic voters. Judging by the fact that Clinton has won far more popular votes than Sanders has — and appears to be on track to winning the nomination — many Democratic voters believe Clinton when she claims her economic policy positions are not directly shaped by Wall Street cash. Or perhaps they agree with Clinton when she says that the next president will also have to battle a host of other problems beyond the plutocracy’s continued grip on our political system — such as bigotry, discrimination, and the ideological entrenchment of the GOP — and that she’s better equipped to do that."
This piece by John Judis makes no sense. He claims to be 'worried about Hillary Clinton again' as she won't' release her speeches.
"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."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/clinton-debate
This is absurd. For one thing, why does he question her credibility for not releasing a speech but not question Bernie's credibility in refusing to release his tax returns? The only reason we even know of her speeches is she released her tax returns.
Meanwhile, I doubt very much Trump wins by talking about her paid speeches-she can just point to his own paid speeches for much more money.
Ted Cruz can talk about her paid speech to Goldman Sachs, she can pivot to his huge multi million dollar loan from Goldman Sachs which very well might have broken serious campaign laws.
As for her answers on other questions, my problem is his loaded term 'straightforwardly.' If by that you mean in categorical Bernie black and white terms, then she doesn't answer questions that way, as that's actually very misleading. News flash to Bernie and his Berners: not everything is black and white.
Take the absurd quibbling by Bernie over the $15 MW. It's clear that she believes that $15 MW is a worthy policy goal, but that it might be best to get there incrementally. What's so hard to understand?
But the Hillary haters don't want to understand. They keep themselves hopelessly confused by simplistic binary logic. Everything is allegedly a clear bright yes or no.
On this one I think Greg Sargent is right. Most Dems see this as a phony issue.
"Democratic voters refuse to believe the worst about Hillary Clinton."
"But my strong suspicion is that Clinton’s reliance on corporate money and her Wall Street speeches are not actually deal-breakers, in and of themselves, for many Democratic voters. Judging by the fact that Clinton has won far more popular votes than Sanders has — and appears to be on track to winning the nomination — many Democratic voters believe Clinton when she claims her economic policy positions are not directly shaped by Wall Street cash. Or perhaps they agree with Clinton when she says that the next president will also have to battle a host of other problems beyond the plutocracy’s continued grip on our political system — such as bigotry, discrimination, and the ideological entrenchment of the GOP — and that she’s better equipped to do that."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/15/democratic-voters-refuse-to-believe-the-worst-about-hillary-clinton/
At the end of the day, most Democrats feel they know who Hillary is, and we trust her. Much more than can be said of Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment