Alan: As a political pragmatist, I think Hillary is both electable and, on balance, represents "Progressivism Lite" - not bad as political packages go. Ultimately, what's at stake during the next presidential administration is the composition of The Supreme Court. I would love to see Bernie elected but I don't think he's as close to electable as Hillary. Plus, Hillary is overwhelmingly likely to choose Julian Castro as her running mate and his election would insure that "100%" of Mexican-Americans turn out when Julian is presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024. That demographic alone will insure him The Oval Office.
"Ten Things To Know About Julian Castro"
Clinton’s Speeches for Goldman Sachs Described as “Glowing”
Transcripts of the events would “bury her,” according to the report.
As Hillary Clinton prepares to shake off an almost-certain loss tonight in New Hampshire, her ability to close the gap with Bernie Sanders may hinge on how well she can address questions about the six-figure speaking fees she received for three speeches for Goldman Sachs, in 2013, while the country was still reeling from the aftereffects of the financial crisis. But a new report, released just hours before the first polls opened, characterizing her speeches to Goldman as “glowing” and “rah-rah,” may make her problems far worse.
Clinton has struggled in recent weeks to defend her decision to give the paid speeches. She has pointed out that several other former secretaries of state have received big speaking fees from major banks, and responded, “That's what they offered,” when pressed by Anderson Cooper as to why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman. She attempted to recast the issue during Thursday’s debate by attacking Sanders for smearing her relationship with Wall Street and, as the pressure continued to mount, told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that she would release the transcripts of her speeches so long as “everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances” did so, too. (In short: she will never release the transcripts.)
But a picture of Clinton's comments for Goldman is now coming into focus, thanks to Politico's Ben White, who reconstructed her speeches from sources who attended the talks. And it doesn't look good for the Democratic candidate. An anonymous attendee described one as “pretty glowing about us” and that “it’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. . . . She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” If the transcript came out, “it would bury her against Sanders,” the source added later. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”
The drip-drip of quotes characterizing Clinton’s comments will only increase the pressure on the candidate to redefine her strategy against Sanders, who is running away with the lion’s share of young voters, particularly women, who overwhelmingly favor the Vermont senator’s populist campaign. Clinton retains her dominant position in the primary states after New Hampshire. But her seeming inability to hold off the brutal attacks on her cozy relationship with Wall Street speaks to a startling lack of foresight. After all, the financial crisis happened in 2008, and she likely knew that her speeches would be scrutinized, even when she took her sabbatical between working at the State Department and declaring her White House bid. (Then again, this is a candidate who tried to appeal to average American’s financial woes by claiming that her family was “dead broke” upon leaving the White House—even if they would quickly wipe out their debts and become multi-millionaires thanks to said lucrative speaking gigs.)
Having underestimated the potency of Sanders’s message, Clinton has essentially decided to cut her losses in New Hampshire, despite managing to rally the entirety of the state’s political establishment to her side. What else can you do when Nate Silver, who will be the first to say that sometimes polling can be inaccurate, gives Sanders a 99 percent chance of sweeping the Granite State? But in order to secure victory elsewhere—and possibly in the general election, where she may face a man who claims he’s too wealthy to be bought by corporate interests—she will have to address these speeches, her own equivalent of Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” campaign-killer. But unlike Romney, whose comments were made in ostensible secrecy, Clinton’s potentially damning statements are within the public's reach.
No comments:
Post a Comment