Yesterday, in response to criticisms of Bernie Sanders for not having yet released his tax returns, I and others brought up the fact that Hillary Clinton has yet to release her transcripts from her speeches before investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. I diaried about this, and along with my diary, titled Yes, Bernie should release his tax records. But Hillary should release her speech transcripts, I also included a survey question. The diary and survey got some responses, and a lot of the comments were from Hillary supporters. By and large, the responses to the premise of my diary was negative. And in my survey, I asked the following simple question: When should Hillary Clinton release her transcripts? While 37% answered ASAP, a total of 59% answered she shouldn’t have to.
Furthermore, the comments were along the lines of asking her to release the transcripts is a “witchhunt.” Or that what she said, behind closed doors, to a group of bankers was none of my, or anyone’s business (e.g., “She was a private individual doing business in a private capacity, it’s none of your business.”)
To some of this, I had said, essentially, that Hillary Clinton is running for president. It is most certainly our business to know what she said in these speeches. So, here is my sincere question, directed primarily to Hillary’s supporters (but anyone else can also take a shot at answering). What was your reaction when you learned about Mitt Romney’s scornful comments about the 47%? Were you — as I was — both outraged and unsurprised at Romney’s cluelessness while at the same time excited that this could be used as a campaign weapon against Romney as 1%-er? If, as I am assuming, you thought it was fair game to respond to Romney’s comments, once the videotape of him speaking was released, then wouldn’t consistency mean that Clinton’s speeches also fall under the umbrella of information that the public might have an valid and legitimate interest in knowing?
Now, to be clear, I am not wanting to suggest that Hillary and Mitt Romney are the same, as I don’t think that they are. Romney was a completely clueless and pandering elitist. I don’t see Hillary that way. But, the notion of her giving speeches before rooms full of Romney types feeds a narrative that she is part of a corporatist/Wall Street continuum. Her dismissal, and your support for that dismissal, of the idea that she should have to release her transcripts reinforces this narrative.
So, I ask, once again, were you happy when we learned what went on behind closed doors with Mitt Romney and the wealth class? If so, how can you then justify/rationalize an exception to the public’s right to know when it comes to your candidate, who continues to solicit campaign funds from the 1%. How are these two cases different, in your minds?