Shocking! It’s a call for support for women entrepreneurs in both the developed and the developing worlds
I think it’s absurd that we’re talking about this. We ought to be talking about how none of Bernie Sanders’ math adds up for his grandiose plans, how he’s spent 30 years in DC with no significant accomplishments to show for it, and what a hypocrite he is on campaign finance (“do what I say, not what I do”).
But it actually turns out that this little video is a actually a window into what range Hillary has – she is just smarter, more nuanced, and more constructive than any of the other candidates, of either party, in this race. She can go toe-to-toe with tough debaters on big ideas, and she can wonk out with a room of business executives about the untapped economic potential of women.
Setting the House record for most amendments isn’t a significant accomplishment?
And if Hillary’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and other powerful investment banks, for which she was paid millions, are so benign… why won’t she release the transcripts? Clear the air, take away the issue. She can do it anytime.
And if you want to hear what she said, watch the video. It’s linked in the post.
you do realize that when you set the record for something, that means no one else has done better, right?
And I don’t think any vet who was denied service or mistreated by a very broken system would say that bill was ‘no big deal.’ It was one of the very, very few bipartisan bills that was able to pass in a Republican Congress of No.
And all of these accomplishments are vastly more than what Hillary was able to do in the US Senate — where she got a bill through to a highway and a post office, and help get a couple bucks to set up a historical park in NY.
Wow.
I’m so impressed.
You can see how great he must be at Senatoring by all of the Senate colleagues who have endorsed him: just the guy who was appointed to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat until the special election. One presumes that with more time to see Sanders in action, he may have made a different choice, too. No Senators except the fill-in, not even the Vermont Governors he worked with.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/6/1428616/-Bernie-Sanders-What-the-Hell-Have-You-Done-for-Us-Lately
This one was very easy to find. I’m sure you can find more.
*
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, one line of attack will be that her accomplishments as Secretary of State were meager. Of course, there will be the Benghazi stupidity. (I’ve been collecting material on this because I know it’ll come up.) There’s also the question of whether helping to topple Qadaffi was correct in hindsight. The Obama Administration’s policies on Syria and Afghanistan are just plain incoherent, and Ms. Clinton’s positions hardly differ. The GOP noise machine, never worrying about being self-contradictory, will strenuously advocate more military intervention and less intervention, e.g. bombing Assad and imitating Putin at the same time. Also lots of talk will come up about Ukraine.
So while I think that Hillary Clinton is deeply qualified to be President, there’s a whole lot of homework to do in playing defense here. Self-indulgently flinging out disdainful remarks about Sanders’ record, like so much monkey poo, is counter-productive. Especially with so many Sanders supporters so ardent in their support.
But maybe you lack such self-discipline.
If Hillary is the nominee, the attacks are obvious. Same if Bernie is nominated.
It’s hilarious to see supporters scolding the other campaigns, as if the routes to target Clinton and Sanders would go unnoticed if not for the primary. I’ve seen Hillary improve her game so much because of the Bernie challenge since summer.
1. Bust Rubio’s pretensions of moderation.
2. Politicize the Flint mess: This is Republican governance. Do you really want to drink from that tap?
3. Politicize Kansas’ state government. Can we educate ourselves for the global economy with this ideology?
4. There’s some piece of work that needs to be done on gun control so that it stops being a political albatross: public opinion agrees strongly with the Democratic position but somehow trusts the criminal-enabling Republicans more.
Artfully insulting, while lecturing me that disdain is counter-productive.
Sanders has been a reflection of Vermont. Bad on guns, good on GLBT issues, fine with military-industrial pork like the F-35 joint strike fighter when it benefited his district. I’ve liked having him setting the left flank in Congress, but in two decades, he hasn’t succeeded in bringing anyone along with him. That’s just a fact. His biggest accomplishment is the campaign he’s running now, and ironically, the more successful he is with it, the more likely he is to hurt his own stated goals by opening the door to President Last-Republican-Standing.
At this point, I plan to vote for Clinton. So clearly you have missed my point.
This is a contested primary. Sanders doesn’t get a free pass.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Now could you please think about how to win over Sanders supporters in a manner that doesn’t alienate them in the general election?
I realize this is very, very, very hard for you to do because you failed at it in Coakley-Berwick. Is it beyond your abilities? Are you that rhetorically limited?
If I’m asking too much, I’m sorry, but this election is even more important. Dumping venom on those supporting a candidate unlikely to win the nomination is just feel-good self-indulgence that helps precisely no one.
Re: “self-discipline” etc.
This is a warning to all. I’m not having this place turn into yet another outlet where Hillary and Bernie people insult each other and their preferred candidates on a personal level. That’s highly counterproductive.
She said she’d look into it, but they may be the property of the paying entity and this demand is as silly as calls to release tax returns. If you think they’ll reveal some secret agenda like trackers try to find then we’ve really gone off the deep end.
.
…you’re going to have to share with me how you developed mind reading skills, otherwise you have no way of knowing that that isn’t poisoned by cynicism or visceral dislike of HRC. Again, the VRWC thanks you for carrying their water. Besides, that’s how I’d answer a question I wasn’t completely prepared to answer too.
or show any kind of progress, and she has a staff of hundreds and hundreds of people to get it done.
I of course hope to be proven wrong, but “I’ll look into it” rarely ends up meaning yes — not unless you drag someone kicking and screaming.
at least that’ s what I heard her say today.
Sounds reasonable to me. What’s good for the goose and all that.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
This is a silly denial. By maintaining tortoise mode, she looks guilty when there is likely nothing objectionable there.
Listening to Sanders, there may not BE any transcripts of his party event speeches, since he just seems to ramble off the cuff.
And there is one big difference – he spoke on behalf of an organization which got the money, and she picketed the cash. It is not unreasonable to assume she is more personally obligated.
Looking at the vide, which is so innocuous , people are just prompted to wonder – what is she hiding?
See what I’ve done there. If it works, keep doing it I guess. I would think someone’s positions and votes matter more, but go with it.
1. A person who wasn’t afraid of their transcripts would release them, and then bash their opponents for not releasing them every day until they do.
2. “Opponents” is an awfully vague word, one that doesn’t give me a great hope that she has any intentions on releasing them. Is “opponents” Sanders? If so, what transcripts does she want him to release? Given that opponents is plural, though, I imagine she is referring to more than just Sanders. Does she mean her Republican opponents, too? If so, she knows darn well that they’re never going to release that kind of stuff, making her ‘offer’ a fairly underhanded one.
is just in denial. Yes it is a reality. Yes, virtually all people running for office will some day give a speech to a group in exchange for a “donation”. All I want to know is who did they receive the donation from and what was said. There is no doubt in my mind that anytime anyone, no matter how pure, will be influenced by a “gift” of money. That’s how we are wired. If you doubt me read What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
If Bernie Sanders gave a speech to the ASPCA and received $1.00, I want to know what was said and how much he received. And I know that somehow, his decisions will be affected by this.
It’s that simple and I believe, as an voter, I have every right to ask for and receive this information.
sad.
Was it really worth $225,000?
Seriously.
I finally watched the speech and then did a little research. Despite the OP’s insinuation that this speech is proof that Clinton’s speeches to banks were harmless, it doesn’t appear that this was a paid speech.
The speeches to the banking side of Goldman Sachs, for which she was paid $225,000 each, took place on 6/4/2013, 10/24/2013, and 10/29/2013. This speech was on 9/23/2014 and for Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Business initiative, which is connected to the Clinton Foundation (and likely involves nice-sized donations to the foundation).
Also, from the link above, the total income for the Clintons (mostly Bill) in speeches is $153 Million(!!!) from 2001 to 2015. Crazy.
It is astonishing how much celebrity speakers are able to pull down. The fees Bill Clinton can command may not be that far out of the ordinary.
It’s crazy money. I’ve seen various high-paid speakers at events and so few seem worth the money.
http://www.celebritytalent.net/
The Dalai Lama is only $40-75K, the same price as Michael Steele. 🙁
I remember back in the day being shocked when Saint Ronnie was paid $2 million for speaking in Japan after he had concluded a trade deal with them.
Why should the most popular woman in the world get any less ?
Just asking ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
.
Kate Middleton is paid by the British People a salary and gets to live very well for being a Princess and to make public appearances.
Hillary Clinton is.
And that is why she earns the compensation she gets as a speaker. It’s supply and demand pure and simple. No need to get your knickers all twisted in a knot over it. Jeeesch.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The circular firing squad Dems are famous for among supporters of different candidates is bad enough without bickering among supporters of the same candidate.
A whole thread of insulting back-and-forth between two long-time commenters.
Enough. We have rules here of long standing. If you can’t refrain from using profanity and insults on each other, find another internet sandbox. I hear 4chan is pretty loose.
When asked if she would show us the actual transcripts of here many speeches to Goldman Sachs, she did not simply say, “Sure. I’d be happy to share it with you. I’ll put my staff on it directly and get it to you in a few days”. If she knew there was nothing there, why not just be open, honest and direct? That’s what I find unsettling about her so frequently.
If I went away on a solo vacation to Las Vegas and there was a videotape of the entire weekend and my wife asked if she could see it, if I told her, ““I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it”, she would not be pleased.
Saying ““I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.” is the sort of thing that just cements the view I have of her as untrustworthy, evasive, mercurial. I am a Sanders supporter and I know that if he does not win the nomination, I will have no choice but to support Clinton. That it something I will find hard to do; not with the registered Democrats who will vote the party line and not with the Republican base who will do likewise. The hard part will be how to convince the growing number of independents that I support a candidate who is trustworthy. All too often I hear many independents tell me “What’s the use, they’re all the same” and in this case along with too many others, I can’t say I disagree.
There is a populist movement that, I hope, is gaining momentum in the USA. I saw it in Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, and now Bernie Sanders. As the list of names indicates, this movement can go either way but it is a strong factor in American politics at present. Coming across as a typical politician is a good way to lose an election.
And really well put.
This is why the e-mail issue is so incredibly damaging. One of her defenses is “They’re classifying stuff after the fact.” That is almost certainly true, and would be a really good defense, if HRC had made transparency a cornertone of her public life. She has never, not once than I can recall, done anything remotely resembling that. She was SOS for years, and therefore was in a position to slow down the excessive classification.
Always tell the truth. It’s easier to remember.
…in which case a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.
That is what I want YOU to tell me. This is just another one of those memes promulgated by the VRWC that too many on the left have fallen for. It has been an assertion of facts not in evidence, but I cannot think of a single instance where she has betrayed our trust. I’d much prefer an answer of I’ll look into it in the heat of a debate moment over, yes absolutely only to find later that the transcripts aren’t hers to release because they are technically the intellectual property of the organization she spoke to or something like that. HRC is defensive about transparency for good reason, given how horribly she has been treated by the press and opposition over the years, having no qualms with either deliberately taking things out of context or carrying water for those who do.
I just want a straight answer. I’m tired of doublespeak. I am tired of politicians who put themselves into positions where they have to use doublespeak and “look into” offering a straight answer. I fully understand how anyone can have a change of heart on an issue. However, when the timing of that change so often coincides with political expediency, I start to walk away from those types.
Donald Trump offers straight answers:
Immigration problem? Just build a wall and send the bill to Mexico.
Terrorist problem? Just keep any and all Muslims from entering the country.
I actually look MORE askance at politicians who are prone to punctuate their answers with something like, “It’s just that simple.”
Sure, a question about policy is not easily answered with one breath, but if asked if the American voter can see the transcripts of the speeches is a simple yes or no exercise. By the way, Secretary Clinton knew this was coming. She’d been asked it not too long ago during this campaign. Up until this point, she has simply not answered with anything more than a laugh. I’m not laughing.
If you start from an assumption of cynicism then sure, don’t trust anyone and try to find something, anything, to justify that feeling. I just can’t bring myself to care. I’ve already noted why even this might not be a simple yes.
Only if there is something to hide could this not be a simple yes. Sorry, that’s how it is. Will you show us the transcripts is a “yes” or “no” question. What did you mean by what you said in the transcripts is not a yes or not question and would require finesse.
Laughing people off in a dismissive way and offering some vague distortion is not what I appreciate and for what it’s worth, plays right into the public perception of “politics as usual” and her negative approval ratings.
My guess is that they are not in fact in her possession as they were probably made by the sponsoring organization to which she spoke. I have spoken publicly from time to time in contexts that may have been recorded. If you were to ask for them I too would have to either get back to you or refer you to whomever did the recording since I do not have copies. This is the height of irrelevant silliness, almost as if you are assuming you are going to find some smoking gun, which frankly is cynical in the extreme and I cannot abide.
systemic changes that have taken place in both parties on economic policies since the 1980s.
If you want to understand how big and widespread it is, I think this is an amazing write-up on the subject.
The consequences to these changes have been disastrous for most of this country — and only good for a few at the top.
In fact given my age I’ve pretty much seen nothing else in my lifetime. What I do discount is OMG she gave a speech to Goldman Sachs and got paid for it it – the horror! There have been plenty of consequences to be sure, but HRC recognizes those and has been fighting much of her career to ameliorate them.
BURN ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME.
I don’t blame Hillary one bit for keeping her enemies and their shills on the right and the left at arms length.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
” I’m not paranoid but I think there’s a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy out there trying to kill me.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
We have to laugh at this stuff occasionally.
it’s not what she said that’s the issue anyway.