Bernie Sanders has repeatedly warned his supporters that they are up against the biggest political machine in the country with the Clintons and expressly criticized Hillary Clinton for her PAC and association with “attack dog” David Brock. However, one of the biggest liabilities facing Clinton is her continuing refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street and other groups. One solution appears to be snare anyone searching Hillary Clinton’s speeches. An unknown group of Clinton supporters has created a clearly misleading site called “HillaryClintonspeeches” that comes up whenever someone tries to search the controversies. What they find is not a site on the speech controversy but a pro-Clinton site that directs them to glowing reviews of Clinton and campaign websites. The unknown hosts of this site may have a perfectly legitimate reason for its title but I fail to see how it is not knowingly misleading given the growing controversy over the speeches. If you put in “Hillary Clinton speeches” to search the current status on the release of the speeches, this site now pops up.
Rather than address the speeches, the site informs readers that “Clinton is intelligent, resourceful, successful, diplomatic, and controversial, and she would make a great president.” The site has the look of a false “hit” for those seeking various petition sites demanding the release of the transcripts which Clinton insisted on her hosts making (and contractually gave her total control over their release).
There is no information on the site as to who is behind it. However, the site insists that it is not part of the actual Clinton campaign. Yet, the site repeatedly encourages viewers to “support Hillary for America by donating and/or volunteering. Clinton is stressing a grassroots campaign, and she needs all of our support to win the White House in 2016.” The site includes pictures of the Clintons and glowing reviews. There is a pulldown on speeches, but it is not “those” speeches but rather campaign speeches. When you go to the “About” link, it is not “about” the site or its creators but a glowing account of Hillary Clinton.
So why call your site “Hillary Clinton Speeches” if it is not about her speeches and clearly will misdirect people researching the scandal? The group clearly anticipates the criticism by posting a disclaimer of a direct connection to the campaign despite its repeated links to the campaign. This will not help and will only reaffirm the view of many about the Clinton political machine. Whether done by surrogates or misguided followers, the Clinton campaign should disavow the site and call for the changing of its title. The site should also have the courage to publish its creators and staff.
What do you think?
The content of her speeches does matter. HRC doesn’t want to tell us what she said because it would clash with her claim that she will get the banks and other big corporate interests under control. I’m sick of HRC and her proxies hiding the ball. Why shouldn’t her speeches be made public?
Nick
This country is due for a female President? How about this country is due for the proper and correct person in that office, who will guide, lead and direct this country, placing it on the right track? Gender should be irrelevant, along with race. I’m not concerned with whatever is, or isn’t, in the pants of that one person.
It reminds me of when I hear parents, who are expecting a child, mutter some nonsense about hoping that the child will either be a boy or a girl. How about just hoping, and praying, that you have a normal, healthy child? That’s sort of the same way that we should feel here. How about just hoping for a sane, normal and competent human being who will guide and direct this country in the proper direction? The gender of that person is completely irrelevant, and I’m a woman.
Hitler, Mussolini, FDR, Ronald Raygun, Herbert Hoover Boysclub, Little Rascals, Three Stooges, Peter Cottontail. They all opposed gay marriage. Marriage was between a man and Wall Street. Like the Republican slate. Yeah, put Hillary the 8th over there.
“Sanders is a New Deal capitalist, not a socialist or a communist.”
That is the definition of a national socialist, like FDR and Mussolini.
“At this point, what does it matter?”
Ever get the feeling this country would have been better off if she “Just stayed home and baked cookies.”
In all seriousness. This country is due for a woman President. Not this woman.
Olly writes, “Sanders on the other hand is the antithesis of her persona. Unfortunately his vision for America would require a different form of government than the one he takes an oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend…’; that whole pesky Constitution of the United States. If he stayed true to character, I don’t see how this Democratic Socialist could take such an oath without lying through his dentures.”
I don’t see how Sanders would change our form of government. Ours is a republican form of government, meaning (as I learned it) no monarchy. It doesn’t say anything about our government being a capitalist government, which is I think you’re implying.
I’m not voting for Sanders because he’s running as a Democrat, and the Democratic Party lost me with Obama’s capitulation to Wall Street and the MIC, but Sanders is a New Deal capitalist, not a socialist or a communist.
Essentially, I agree with Bam Bam. Just taking a huge sum of money from Goldman Sachs for a speech sheds enough of an appearance of impropriety to filter everything she says and to vote for someone else.
Right and wrong should not be viewed through political glasses. Criticism of a particular candidate, party, or administration should be irrelevant to personal politics.
One is left to wonder if Hillary Clinton and her supporters are either afraid or ill equipped to address the issues.
At this point what difference would reading her speeches make? Some people get branded as being untrustworthy and they have to struggle to overcome that perception. And then there is Clinton who exudes that from her pores. She is hard-wired to be untrustworthy which makes anything she has said or will ever say in speeches begin and end with a reasonable doubt it should be believed.
Sanders on the other hand is the antithesis of her persona. Unfortunately his vision for America would require a different form of government than the one he takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend…”; that whole pesky Constitution of the United States. If he stayed true to character, I don’t see how this Democratic Socialist could take such an oath without lying through his dentures.
dlet60
She isn’t the first, and, surely, she won’t be the last, politician to tailor her speeches with regard to the audience at hand. The question is, why are these speeches, which, undoubtedly, occurred in public, so paramount? Use a tiny amount of imagination to recreate what she may have garbled in front of these guys. Far more critical is what our enemies gleaned via her reckless disregard for this country’s national security by blatant and protracted mishandling of classified material. Now, THAT is what this country should focus in on–don’t you and others get that? This whole speech brouhaha is, in my opinion, being sponsored and promoted by Hillary, herself, to distract us from focusing in on her true crimes. Being helplessly distracted by every shiny and sparkly ornament, dangled in our faces, chasing down non-issues, in light of the serious crimes, at hand, plays right into her hands.
Regarding Hillary’s emails…..Why is it that so many of the US government’s communications must be kept secret? Are they really that dishonest, petty, corrupt, immoral, unethical, devious,sneaky, destructive, that the rest of the world might see reason to attack the US?
Putting up phoney websites? Damn! Just yesterday JT was telling us that 20somethings don’t like Hillary.
Enough with Hillary’s emails. Watch this neat card trick…A royal flush. Can Hillary do better tricks?
What’s funny is that Sanders will be co-opted by the very same elite leaders because that’s what national socialists do.
The wicked witch won’t release her speeches to the banksters and the rest of the big money folk because what she says to them is much different than what she says on the campaign trail. Give me a break, do you think she’s pulling down millions because she’s a populist?
I’m not a fan or supporter of Hillary, but who the f cares what those speeches contained? Use your imagination. Not that difficult to guess what she may have mentioned as she was courting these various institutions. Really? This is what the American public needs to know? The content of her very public speeches to Wall Street and other institutions? Why, did she give out the secret nuclear codes? Far more important and crucial is the extent to which this fat b@tch invariably damaged and/or crippled our national security–our very existence– through her reckless handling of classified and crucial information. That’s the issue. Not what she said to a bunch of fat cats. Why harp on these speeches? You think that these speeches discussed national security? Give me a break. She told them what they wanted to hear. Big surprise. This is simply an attempt, which is fed, no doubt, by Cankles, herself, to draw our attention away from the much more vital issues, where Hillybilly fuels this controversy in order to divert our attention away from her real crimes–crimes that should have her in an orange jumpsuit and working in the prison license plate factory.
This is only one among thousands (maybe millions) of times that names of organizations, articles, books, or websites have been used to mislead people.
JT: We can tell from your numerous anti-Clinton posts who you oppose for nomination as president. Who do you support?
Hillary is up against those that hate her. Some do not like women politicians. Some act like they want Bernie when they want The Donald. Enough of these damn emails and damn Wall Street speeches. Talk about substance. Like who Hillary was doing things with when Bill was playing around. Jesus Christ. Hail Mary full of Grace. Appeal to the Evangelicals.