He-Man Hillary Haters Club

The New York Times editorial board consists of 19 journalists, all of which contribute a variety of expertise. Their educations range from Harvard College to NYU Law School and have quite a substantial amount of journalistic experiences between them. Collectively, their articles not only serve as a voice for the board, but the editor and publisher as well.

They published an article last week that speaks of one of the many scandals of Hillary Clinton, titled Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts. They elaborate on an ongoing issue over Hillary’s transcripts of paid private speeches being available to the public. How does a candidate, who claims once elected she will be the voice of the average struggling American and hold big banks and Wall Street accountable, receive payment from big banks for her “private speeches”? We aren’t talking about a few thousand dollars here. She’s received millions collectively, and she feels she’s being treated unjustly, claiming “Why is there one standard for me and not anybody else?”

They go onto say she claims she will release the transcripts of these private bank and industry speeches if everybody else releases theirs, including the republicans. The republican party has never been shy to say they support big banks and tax breaks for the wealthiest of our Americans. No one speculates about their candidate’s private speeches, because we already know what they are promising them. However, when you have a potential democratic nominee who makes statements about wanting to better regulate big banks and weaken tax breaks for the wealthy, one doesn’t expect said candidate to appear at a private and paid speech to said banks.

The New York Times believe the people deserve to know where she truly stands. Those transcripts could be the proof that democratic party members and voters need to make a wise and educated decision on who they choose to nominate to run on election day. She seems to believe that she has already won her party’s nomination and fails to realize that at this time the republican party is not her running mate, Bernie is. Until she releases the transcripts of these paid speeches, no one will truly know her intentions as president.

I agree with the editorial board when they state “Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public – not the candidate – who decides how much disclosure is enough.” Her “stonewalling” and rebuttals are something most would expect from a teenager, not a potential democratic nominee or future president.

The point of this article, in my opinion, is to help further inform the public of Hillary’s intentions. It’s obvious the editorial board of the New York Times are not her biggest fans. They have further provided proof of her misdoings and have raised questions about her character. Their opinions on her reactions to the release of these transcripts are justified. They believe she has an obligation to the public that wants to support her.