The repeated requests–and elevated suspicions–about Hillary’s speeches are a false flag. One, what could possibly be said by a US senator in a room full of rich men with low attention deficits? What could a jounior senator in her first term, chairing no committees possibly promise–since she only had one vote?
We have heard Hillary’s speeches and speaking style for years; mainly platitudes (by definition, used too often to be interesting!), descriptions of conditions for growth, problems to be tackled, a charge of responsibility, kudos for the Street’s important role in global commerce–what you see in a Steve Forbes editorial or a Wall Street Journal op-ed. She’s no Mitt Romney, making dark comments about the poor, promising to give Wall Street their crumbs–if there were something of evil substance or a smoking gun, it would have been leaked long ago!
The Clintons are boring people, with tired ideas. Where they excel is in the fight: they are best in the trenches. They are good at policy; they learn quickly. Hillary is the faster learner and better fighter than Bill.
I care little for her past; I respect her reinvention. Will she morph back? No! If elected, like every President, she will want to leave her mark on high ground. Everybody (except the GOP) knows that means raising wages, protecting social security, using creative models for our modern problems, including security.
Like characters in old novels, she has shedded her skin and transformed by the times: looking back only holds the country back. That’s a method and agenda for defeat. Amnesty: she is too conscious of her image to revert.
I remember Lani Guinier, whose name has not come up, as the most egregious example of the Clinton throwing friends under the bus for political purposes. I am not blind to her failings.
That said, I don’t see in her the stretch logic that Republican candidates take on economic issues, on taxing the wealthy, or on safety nets. Hillary is being attacked by innuendo even as Republicans on issues as plain as water for Flint, blame “regulation,” speaking of “politicizing the issue,” or misquote facts. I do not see in her positions the flimsy defenses of evil economic practices, esp. wealth inequality and tax relief, that are the GOP mantra.
An authentic part of her campaign speeches is her discussion of ladders of opportunity: she reminds us the GOP would “roll them up.”
Today counts! Compare her to anyone on the right! Viva la difference!
What We’re Watching as 4 States Vote and Both Parties Court Michigan – The New York Times http://nyti.ms/1R6KHNZ
~~The difference is that we know that mail clerks work for Goldman Sachs and are being paid as employees. What is Hilary being paid for if not her future good will (since, as you’ve observed, her speeches are likely to be platitudes). Reagan and Clinton were former presidents. This gave them a greater cachet than a former Secy. of State so they had more intrinsic value as speakers. There is also the fact that their political careers were over, so again the idea of buying future good will would not have been applicable. Further, I would contest your statement that her fees were no more than what other speakers got. If you have a list of what GS paid other people, could you point out where it is?
Her money from GS and other financial organizations is particularly noteworthy when noted in tandem with her opposition to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
Further, Hilary’s career has indicated that she can be as much of a triangulator as BIll is. She has even campaigned exactly on the grounds that she won’t set expectations as high as Sanders–and is therefore more realistic.