The New York Times, which endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination last month, called on  the former secretary of state to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches.
Clinton, who previously said that she “would look into it” when asked about releasing the transcripts, changed her tune at a Democratic Party town hall last week when she said that she would only do so “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”
The Times said that “Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups,” and “By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches , Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation  about why she’s stonewalling.”
That sentiment echoed an earlier statement made by The National Journal’s Ron Fournier on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when he said that her refusal to release the transcripts makes him think that “she’s not being honest.”
The Times concluded that the public has a right to know, and that her stonewalling is damaging her credibility among Democrats.
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public—not the candidate—who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts, Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
Clinton will probably ignore the Times’ call to release the transcripts. But the very fact that the liberal media are questioning her refusal to do so should be a troubling sign to her supporters that Clinton may not be able to rely on the liberal media to give her the same level of support it has to previous Democratic candidates, and that could prove to be fatal to her plans to win the election.