Clinton Daily News Integiew

[Anonymous]

transcript released today. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-hillary-clinton-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2596292?cid=bitly Compare and contrast.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it was quite a contrast, wasn't it? Read them back to back.

[Anonymous]

I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

Now this is a determinedly low-information voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

Oh she knows! And she even knows why Wall Street wasn't prosecuted, and how Dodd Frank allows big banks to be broken up (including the section of the law so that you can look it up yourself)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

Now this is a determinedly low-information voter.

No, it is a voter who has been around a while to know that Clinton has taken pretty much all positions on any given topic in the interest of political expediency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

Now this is a determinedly low-information voter.

No, it is a voter who has been around a while to know that Clinton has taken pretty much all positions on any given topic in the interest of political expediency.

I'd be reluctant to read it too, if I were you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

Now this is a determinedly low-information voter.

No, it is a voter who has been around a while to know that Clinton has taken pretty much all positions on any given topic in the interest of political expediency.

And you apparently know this via osmosis, amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I"d recommend it to all of those folks who claim not to know,what she stands for.

When Hillary herself knows what she stands for, I will read it.

Now this is a determinedly low-information voter.

No, it is a voter who has been around a while to know that Clinton has taken pretty much all positions on any given topic in the interest of political expediency.

And you apparently know this via osmosis, amazing!

Shrug. When there's nothing to attack go back to the rhetoric, as false as it may be.

[Anonymous]

It's not rhetoric. If you don't read the transcript, you can't have an informed opinion on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not rhetoric. If you don't read the transcript, you can't have an informed opinion on it.

I was referring to the tired rhetoric that HRC doesn't know where she stands on anything. It's not based in reality, it's based on rhetoric by the GOP and Sanders supporters. And then there's the problem that Bernies interview went horribly, and it looks like Hillary's was much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not rhetoric. If you don't read the transcript, you can't have an informed opinion on it.

I was referring to the tired rhetoric that HRC doesn't know where she stands on anything. It's not based in reality, it's based on rhetoric by the GOP and Sanders supporters. And then there's the problem that Bernies interview went horribly, and it looks like Hillary's was much better.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were the person who refused to read the interview. I'm tired and not paying enough attention. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not rhetoric. If you don't read the transcript, you can't have an informed opinion on it.

I was referring to the tired rhetoric that HRC doesn't know where she stands on anything. It's not based in reality, it's based on rhetoric by the GOP and Sanders supporters. And then there's the problem that Bernies interview went horribly, and it looks like Hillary's was much better.

A.) to suggest Bernie's went "horribly" is pure spin
B,) it's not that Hillary doesn't know where she stands on anything, it's that where she stands changes depending on who she's tailored that particular speech for.

[Anonymous]

That was a great interview and full of specifics.
I found her point on activists shareholders very interesting. Because that could be ultimately who makes "Wall Street" the boogie man that it is.