Mrs. Clinton is going to need more than ‘Progressive Music’ as advocated in Mr. Schama’s essay, awash in purple so as to mask its demonstrable shallowness? In opposition to ‘Sanderian magical thinking’: the observations of a hardheaded political realist, or the acceptance of the political inevitability of Mrs. Clinton, as the only rational choice?
Or will those speeches, that she gave to Wall Street bankers, to follow the musical thread, become her political swan song? Like Mr. Romney’s notorious 47% speech, surreptitiously recorded by a bartender at a private fund raiser. Here is a link to a Washington Post report on the speech question:
‘Hillary Clinton’s campaign was noncommittal Friday about if, or when, it would release transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other groups.
Instead, a day after she said during a debate that she would look into making them public, advisers sought to downplay the importance of the issue.
“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” Clinton’s pollster, Joel Benenson, said during a Friday breakfast with reporters hosted by the Wall Street Journal.’
When both Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow of a major network ask pointed question of a candidate, it can’t be laughed at like Mrs. Clinton did to reporter Lee Fang:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/5/hillary_clinton_refuses_to_say_if
StephenKMackSD's Blog 