There is a reason Elizabeth Warren is such a respected figure among Democrats and progressives: she does what she thinks is right. No matter the repercussions.

Asked to go along with the deplorable “release the transcripts” hit on Hillary, Warren refused. To her great credit.

Morning Joe aired the clip and co-host Mika Brzezinski speculated about Warren’s motives:

I think what’s really happening here is that Elizabeth Warren might be trying to negotiate herself a very good position in whatever the Clinton administration might look like. I think she’s going to be Veep. There must be something in play here. That was obviously dancing around the topic so I hope you get something good.


The national media have behaved like an undeclared third party in the 2016 election, determined to defeat Hillary. Major media outlets continue to contort themselves into rhetorical pretzels to find new attack lines, new ways to undermine Hillary’s public image. Over the course of 2015, HillaryMen chronicled the irresponsible coverage of Hillary in excruciating detail, identifying countless instances of anti-Hillary bias and spin, from deceptive polls to vicious personal vendettas.

The absurd “release the transcripts” hit, which is an implicit, evidence-free character smear implying Hillary is corrupt, is just another in a long line of attempts to tarnish her reputation.

Eric Boehlert has written about the media’s role in the transcript attack:

As journalists continue to press Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts from all the paid speeches she made as a private citizen, including those made to Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, it’s helpful to keep in mind how unusual the request is. Reading the coverage you might think the transcript demand is routine for all candidates. (i.e. Why won’t she just do it already?) But it’s not the norm. In fact, it’s the opposite of normal.

Boehlert continues:

Note that in 2014 Clinton gave a series of lucrative speeches paid for by a pair of Canadian banks that were aligned with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Both banks would have benefited financially from the pipeline being built. But after accepting their speaking fees, Clinton came out against the pipeline in 2014. That’s the opposite of a quid pro quo.

He concludes:

Goldman Sachs regularly brings in a wide array of speakers, including clergy, athletes, researchers,journalists, andentrepreneurs. Is Clinton the only one who received Goldman Sachs speech paychecks and was then expected to deliver favors to the company?

Candace Kirby frames it perfectly:

The media is relentless in its pursuit to paint Hillary Clinton as the candidate voters find “untrustworthy.” They deluge the former U.S. senator and secretary of state with the same accusatory — and, frankly, downright offensive — questions ad nauseam: Are you a liar? Why don’t people like you? Why don’t people trust you? Ninety-percent of Millennials believe if I left my puppy with you for a week, you wouldn’t have the heart to feed it. Why do you think that is?

Kudos to Elizabeth Warren for refusing to play along with the specious attacks on Hillary.