Posted on 07/13/2006 6:39:07 PM PDT by Libloather
Hillary's Secret '08 Election Strategy Revealed!
Tom Bevan
Thu Jul 13, 10:28 AM ET
The only interesting part of Lois Romano's frontpage rehash of voters' doubt about Hillary Clinton in this morning's Washington Post comes at the very end:
"She will define herself, and we will have the money to do it," said one close adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Clinton has forbidden those close to her to speculate publicly about 2008. "People have to get to know her, know that she was once a Republican, that she's a big Methodist. . . . That will happen."
With quotes like that it's no wonder Hillary has forbidden her people from discussing 2008. This is idiotic on two levels. First, despite the obvious hubris of the Clinton crowd, Hillary still has to win the Democratic primary. Last time I checked, she wasn't particularly well liked by the folks who do the nominating, so letting that crowd know that Hillary's general election strategy is to promote her credentials as a former Republican and "big Methodist" is hardly going to help her.
On the other hand, the idea that centrists and independents are somehow going to be swayed by the claim that Hillary was "once a Republican" is laughable. You mean for a few precious pre-pubescent years in Park Ridge in the 1950's? Right before she went off to Wellsey, Yale Law, campaigned for McGovern, worked to impeach Richard Nixon, and married Bill Clinton? I know advertising is powerful, but it ain't that powerful - I don't care how much money she has.
Dangit, that should be Barbara Olson.
We know her, we know she's a Marxist, and she is the Anti-Christ itself.
And by the way Hillary is the freak she is for a few reasons, but a guy by the name of Rev. Don Jones is one major reason. He was the young "hip" youth minister at her First Methodist Church of Park Ridge (Illinois) who influenced her greatly.
From Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice ---
Another important older man entered Hillary's life that same year (1961), when she was hovering between thirteen and fourteen on the cusp of adolescence. He was a tall, blond, blue-eyed man who wore a crew cut and white bucks and tooled around town in a bright red Impala convertible. He was young and all the girls thought he was good looking. But Don Jones was also a true intellectual- Hillary's type. Twenty-six and fresh from divinity school at Drew University across the Hudson River from New York City, he succeeded three youth ministers who had been safe and traditional. Jones represented a radical change for the sleepy First Methodist Church of Park Ridge.
"New ideas were frowned upon in our community," says Patsy Henderson Bowles. "We hadn't been exposed to diversity. Don wanted us to think about where other people were coming from and to understand their problems."
Jones was the only alternative reality in town. On Sunday evenings in September of 1961, he would offer Hillary's church youth his version of the "University of Life" program. He had been outside the sterile world of suburbia and could offer a window onto the more exotic worlds of abstract art. Beat poetry, existentialism, and the rumblings of radical political thought and counterculture politics that were eventually to explode under the smug slumber of even the good gray burghers of Park Ridge."
If you haven't yet read 'Hillary's Choice', it's very helpful in understanding from where Hillary is coming.
Or she could stand by the phone when the 87th ballot still can't decide between Kerry and Gore, then step in and "save" the party.
In the early 70’s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon panel of eleven ‘experts’ assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. Its mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Council’s book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s plan for the future of American families.
The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of the “universal entitlement state” was an inevitability, and the best thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival. Just as families in an earlier era turned their children’s education over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future should government assume responsibilities for many other areas of children’s lives. This being so, there was no reason to feel guilty about or harbor concern for the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the nuclear family need not be worrisome, because “schools, doctors, and counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.”
More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider outmoded. The chapter entitled, “Protection of Children Rights,” the section on which Hillary worked, observes that “it has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.” The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental notification, and preventing schools from “unilaterally” suspending or expelling disruptive students.
But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for developing a new class of “public advocates” who will speak for children’s interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment to race relations: “In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both children and parents need canny advocates."
The report goes on to suggest that “child ombudsmen” be placed in public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable individual children to hire “decently paid” private attorneys to represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would seem to be endless. For example the report says, attorneys could bring class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages their businesses might cause to TODAY’S children.
This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it really time for the government to take even more control and responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if Hillary jumps in.
In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the Children’s Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she advocated liberating our “child citizens” from the “empire of the father.” This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. (“There is no good father, that’s the rule,’ Sartre said. “Don’t lay the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.”)
In Hillary’s own words, “The basic rationale for depriving people of their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their position…….. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.”
****
The woman is a commie control freak!
But, anyway, she's still yesterday's news. All eyes on the Mideast now. Big boys at work; bit players swept aside.
We already know who she is ...
Socialist Witch.
I KNOW her and she sucks!
No wait, let me rephrase that, she LICKS!
If she SUCKED maybe there would never have been Ms Lewinsky!
"She will define herself, and we will have the money to do it,"
you mena she hasn't defined herself after all these years... going into senility and still soul searching eh?
"People have to get to know her, know that she was once a Republican, that she's a big Methodist. . . . That will happen."
Typical Democrat. Her extremist ideas are not important. The only think that's important is association and imagery.
Ah yes, all those embarassing historical details about her life with socialist power-mad collectivists. And maybe Hillary! will spend some of her money explaining how she went from being a Goldwater Girl to being a junior commie and follower of Saul Alinsky and his 'rules for radicals' philosophy.
Release the Weseley thesis.
FYI...within a 15 minute drive of the Clinton manse in beautiful downtown Chappaqua, there are probably 25+ churches of various denominations. In all the time she has lived in Chappaqua, since 2000, I have never heard of either Clinton just dropping in to a local church on a Sunday morning..the area ministers do talk about it..when they first moved here, there was much anticipation as to which church they would join...so all this crap about her being a "big-time Methodist" is pure BS..
However, I have seen her strolling through the deserted Chappaqua train station at 7 AM, with slick, both holding a Starbucks cup..but to go to the 8am service...naaah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.