Hillary’s not a great campaigner or good at on-her-feet interviews, but she paradoxically understands the game of politics on a 4th-dimensional level. She knew how the GOP would use and spin even the most innocuous comments she’s ever made publicly. That’s why she fought this.

You hit the nail on the head— that’s the bit that keeps getting overlooked! If there had been anything remotely scandalous, somebody would’ve blabbed it already.

It’s a thing! Our clients in state & county government are still working on WinXP and IE8. It’s a hassle to support (I keep telling my boss they’d save more money if they just flew me out there to personally upgrade every single machine to Firefox, at least).

Nah. Last week Wikileaks trolled the GOP with their “big announcement” and now we get speech “excepts” and again, heavy troll on the GOP. My guess is it’s Trump who should be worried about more leaks.

If anything she said was so outrageous, someone who was in attendance at one of the speeches would have blabbed to a journalist (anonymously or otherwise) already.

I had the exact same reaction. When he started bashing her and trying to bizarrely argue that Trump wasn’t so bad from a transparency perspective (which he very obviously knows is bullshit) was the moment I realised how his hatred of Clinton is clearly not rational and has overtaken him completely. Indicates serious…

Candidate also found to be more relatable, as it exposes her as a person with first world problems like the rest of us. A dad that bitches at things, and tech at work being dated.

This may be why she held the speech transcripts back so long; so much anticipation for a year and then: nothing with nothing.

Well said. There’s nothing in there one wouldn’t have expected - and most is considerably better (than feared). And you’re right: she’s running against the three stooges.

His anger at Hillary Clinton has me convinced that he really is a rapist.

Its delightful to me that after months of touting campaign destroying bombshells that this is the best they’ve got.

I didn’t have much to begin with, but I have lost all respect for Julian Assange and Wikileaks. There is a huge difference in being for radical and absolute transparency (which I’ve always been conflicted on, but can understand the arguments in favour and certainly don’t think makes an advocate a bad intentioned…

Nope. Complaining that the government is working on old tech.

Right? Let’s juxtapose these two breaking news stories:

Its a total nothing. Completely non controversial stuff that no rational person could get upset about.

it’s really not bad. at all. she likes trade, which is really no secret. nothing she’s saying is that terrible. It’s pretty moderate shit.

YAWN.

It’s really... nothing. It’s not as intense as her public persona but it’s not radically different. She’s catering to her audience without fundamentally changing who she is. I don’t get why she was so against publicizing these except then she couldn’t use them again.

Michelle Bachman is on MSNBC right now trying to claim that these show Hillary is a traitor, Hillary’s team is responsible for sending the Trump audio to WaPo, and that it’s just “boys talk.” GROSS.

I mean, if these are the the worst they’ve got...this is...not that big a deal? I dunno; I know my fellow millennials REALLY hate that she is like vaguely moderate on certain shit (sigh, but I’m not gonna get into that rn) but after today’s pussy-gate is this really gonna matter? The choices are a qualified candidate…